User:NikoSilver/Nationality quiz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Scenario 2 Notes 3 Responses 3.1 Free Smyrnan 3.2 Yannismarou 3.3 Francis Tyers 3.4 Will I win the car? 3.5 What to do about it 3.6 Value sets 3.7 Mitsos 3.8 PaxEqulibrium

[edit] Scenario

You are proud of your country "X", your heritage, your culture, your religion, your values, your education. At the same time, you feel somewhat sorry and puzzled for what the neighboring semi-hostile country "Y's" people may feel. You consider their country arrogant or stuck-in-the-mud, their heritage pompus or zilt, their culture hypocritical or stolen, their religion outdated or inflammatory, their values antagonistic or barbaric, and their education propagandistic.^[1]

A new DNA ancestry identifier device is invented. You happen to know your family tree to -say- your great-grandfathers, so you go ahead and try to see where your "real roots" start. The results delay for a week, during which you picture your forefathers as some relatives to your known national heroes.^[2] You imagine that the blood of your country's leaders runs in your veins. You feel that you must have great relation to great men or women in your X country's history.

When the results arrive, you anxiously open the envelope. You find out that your great-great-grandfather and your great-great-grandmother were actually members of the ethnic group Y. Digging back, you see that more and more of your ancestors are from that other "rival" ethnic group. The results are clear: You are 95% "Y" and 5% unrelated. Your not-so-distant ancestors were speaking Y, they were faithful to the Y religion, they had Y values, Y culture, Y heritage and they even fought to maintain those values against your^(?) X country and specifically against the heroes^[2] you thought you related to. Actually, they are considered the heroes^[3] of that "rival" ethnic group.

What do you do?

[edit] Notes

[edit] Responses

Please start a new sub-section with your name and post your thoughts.

[edit] Free Smyrnan

There is actually such a test :) The Genographic Project.

I am not sure I qualify for the Nationality Quiz -- I am proud of my country (Turkey) and heritage and culture and so forth. I don't feel sorry for our neighbors, and expect that they also possess a similarly proud self-image. Liking and being interested in your background does not necessarily have to mean disliking others'. Culture does not have patents issued and does not follow along genetic lines. Such a hypothetical test showing that I was not genetically a descendant of those that I descend from culturally would not bother me one bit.

Your nationality quiz reminds me of the flame-wars that sometimes erupt around Turkish/Greek/whatever coffee. We can both drink it, be proud of it, and call the rest of the coffees dishwater. :) The enjoyment of that particular coffee should not be lessened because someone else in the neighboring country likes the same. Regards. Free smyrnan 08:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha! I did the Genographic project! I was inspired for this page by it! The results are way from even indicative. You get an answer of the sort: Your DNA [scientific word meaning detail 1] matches 25% of the population in A, B, C countries. Your [detail 2] matches 38% of D, E, F countries. We all came from this tribe in Kenya. Some 10,000 years ago,(!!) your ancestors probably passed from Kenya to Arabic peninsula, then to Caucasus, then to Northern Europe, and then they split to Southern Europe. That's really far from your... great-grandfather!

I sent mine in last week! The same results would be indicative for me -- ie whether or not my ancestors traveled first to Asia or Europe :). Free smyrnan 10:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As for your comment regarding the Y nationality, you don't necessarily have to feel that way. I mainly added it to show the contrast. Maybe it is too inflammatory, you are right. Since you are proud of yours, you can elaborate on that, regardless if you have negative feelings about the other. NikoSilver 09:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and try Frappe! :-) NikoSilver 10:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I will. It looks yummy :) Free smyrnan 10:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe our vanity Smyrnan! We were both looking for our "roots" while it's clear (to me at least) that you are what you were brought up to be, no matter where your great-grandfather comes from. Despite that, we both took that test to see if along with the culture, we also carry the "blood". I hope the results are to your satisfaction. I'm now sure that you'll get the meaning of this page better if they aren't... NikoSilver 11:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

So, you say that we are products of our environment. Is this your conclusion?--Yannismarou 11:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Anything else would be bordering ideas like Aryanism, I am afraid. Yes, it's all in our heads! NikoSilver 11:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh I only have to look in the mirror to know that most of my ancestors are of original Anatolian stock. :) Culturally and in terms of self-identity this does not change anything obviously. Mine is just curiosity to see how any of the blood lines that can be traced go back. Free smyrnan 11:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I had the same curiosity, and it wasn't nationalistic. My dad is from Paxi and my mom is from Crete. I thought I'd find Venetian and Ottoman influences in my DNA. A human's DNA differs from a monkey's DNA by 1%! How big do you really think the difference between Greeks/Turks/Italians/Egyptians/Whateverians can be? We are all children of the first human tribe. Whatever our ancestors may have done, we are separate self-governing entities. We've seen many lazy and stupid sons and daughters of highly prominent, influential, rich etc people. We've also seen the children of incivilized vulgar villagers turn to Onassis. If our own parents can't determine our capacity, how can we expect our more distant ancestors to even influence it? Our cultures are a set of biases, and all cultures include both trully noble and trully shitty values. It takes a wise person to distance themselves from all that and produce their own set of the best of these different agendas... NikoSilver 13:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Amen! Free smyrnan 14:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to find the equivalent of Amen in Islam to reply, and saw it was the same! One more posessive misconception dropped! Thanks. NikoSilver 14:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, the only place around here to drink Turkish coffee is the local Greek restaurant. I try to pretend it's just the same. And it is. KP Botany 18:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Got my results back! Western Europe?!?!?! I am going to have to stop defending the Eastern Roman Empire. :) --Free smyrnan 06:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought you said "Oh I only have to look in the mirror to know that most of my ancestors are of original Anatolian stock"... This page is becoming more and more funny every day! NikoSilver 11:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That "most" apparently does not include great-to-the-nth grandma who decided to tour Western Europe first! --Free smyrnan 19:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hope that Greek proverb down below doesn't apply either! :-) NikoSilver 21:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but I did not understand what you meant. My sense of humor is on vacation, maybe that's why... Can you please elaborate? --Free smyrnan 22:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No, yours is fine; mine was silly. NikoSilver 22:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

First of all, I go to my shrink (and if I have not one, I find one immediately!), because I have a serious identity problem! My personality looks divided and I don't know who I am! Because of the complexity of my case, my shrink goes to a shrink of his own and gets medication! His only priority now is to get rid of me. This bloody bastard (me!) has ruined his life. He is so confused and worried that he starts searching his own ancestors. When he finds out that he is a 100% X, he calms down and decides to get rid of this annoying patient once for ever. So, one day, he tells me that I have to re-invent my "inner self". I ask him what is that? He substantiates his proposal, and argues that the solution to my problem is the reconciliation of my "barbarian" past with my "civilized" present. And he underscores that, when I achieve this goal, I will also get rid of the above etiquettes.

Ha ha! That's hillarious so far (yet clever and to the point). I am anxious to read the rest! NikoSilver 09:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

When I leave from the shrink's office, I believe that this man does not know his job. But, when I get home, I start thinking: Can he be right? And I then try to find a way to implement his proposal and to re-unite my divided "inner self". I first think to go to the X versus Y Survivor program, but I then decide that this is a bad idea. I search the web and find an exchange program for university students (we make the assuption that I am still a university student) between the W and the Y country. Because of the hostility between the two states this program is inactive, but not officially cancelled. So, I decide to revive it filing an application. Unfortunately, the response from the bureau responsible for the program is negative, because there is no other application from the other country, so as to make the exchange. I feel disappointed, but a few days later, a lady from the bureau calls me, in order to inform me that a miracle happened: a student from the Y country filed an application, when she found out that her ancestors were coming from my country! She went to a shrink who told her that she should re-invent her "inner self". I said that I could not believe that, and that these things can't happen. After a month, I prepare my buggages and travel to the city A (which is called B by my supposed countrymen) of Y.

Amazing! You should help me write the scenario above! Reading through... NikoSilver 09:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I stay in the city A (or B) for a year. What happens during this period of time? I make friends, have good time and enjoy myself. And the most important: I realize that my friends are civilized. Returning to my country, I am full of thoughts. I am wondering what is the necessity of etiquettes, and I realize that my staying in the X country led to their demise. I then think about the essence of national identity? Is there such a thind, and if yes what does this entail? The purity of blood? The cultural background? The social and family environment? Unfortunately, I realize that I cannot give an answer; maybe all these things or maybe none of these things. And what is my national identity? Does it really matter to give an answer? I touch the ground of the X country whicn is "my country", but at the same time I know that I have friends and ancestors in the Y country, who are "my friends and my ancestors".

After a year, I return to the X country invited by one of these friends. And I have such a nice time in the A (or B) city! One evening my friend introduces me to a girl, a friend of his. When we go to a bar in order to have a drink, the girl turns to me and asks me: "Do you want me to tell you a strange story?" "I'm all ears for strange stories!" I answer. "Well, as you know I am from here and I'm proud for my country. As a matter of fact, I was thinking that you in X are uncivilized and inferior to us. But one day, something crazy happened: I learned that my ancestors come from Y, your country. I was shocked! I even went to a shrink! A shrink who told me to re-invent my "inner self". Nonsence, I thought! But then I realized that he was right, and I decided to come to your country. I found an exchange program, which unfortunately was inactive, but, as a mirracle, a X student filed an application for similar reasons: he found that his ancestors were Ys! And I came to your country and made friends. I even learned your language. And I no more think that you are uncivilized. And I am now looking in your eyes and speaking to you. And I also think that you know who this student from X is. Don't you?" But I am no more listening to words; while she is speaking, the only thing I can think is that she has beautiful eyes ...--Yannismarou 09:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Love is the answer! Indeed! Have sex with your 'rival' ethnic group! Your kids will need... two shrinks each! :-) NikoSilver 09:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

But I didn't say I would give a solution! My intention was to confuse the situation even more!--Yannismarou 10:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

See Yabanci Damat! NikoSilver 10:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I loved Season 1. Then, it became a bit boring and confusing. Maybe even more than my story!!--Yannismarou 11:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they should throw in a few ideas from mine and your scenario above. Niko being actually a Turk, and Nazli a Greek! That would definitely make it more interesting! NikoSilver 11:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I would definitely like to see Nazli's grandfather's reaction, when he learns that he has Greek roots!--Yannismarou 11:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hah! Think about Efthalia (Niko's grandma)!! NikoSilver 11:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hah, that would make a great art film. - Francis Tyers · 16:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you think I should search for a directior?--Yannismarou 18:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hah, for sure. You need someone like the Turkish/Greek equivalent of Pedro Almodovar :) - Francis Tyers · 08:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's funny, intelligent and internally consistent. It doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of making money and allowing you to marry the girl. KP Botany 19:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

F... the girl! If I don't have a chance to make money, I'll delete it!--Yannismarou 19:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Francis Tyers

You mean I'm Greek?! - Francis Tyers · 14:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes! You are the true descendant of the ones you hate. Ergo mu! :-) NikoSilver 14:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"English" people were just a mix of Danish and German when they immigrated to the Isles, pushing the previous locals westwards (the now Welsh). We then got mixed with the French (we've had no English monarch since 1066), and more Dutch. The Belgians are just Dutch and French. The Norwegians are just Danes but further north (their part of this country was called the Danelaw -- and included the bit where I was born). The Scots are at this point either Irish or from the English or Welsh. So its kind of difficult, I'm bound to be a mix of all these neighbouring countries (and as you know I have citizenship of two (so far)). I call myself English because I was born in England and its kind of convienient, not because of some "lineage" or "ethnic identity". More accurately I'd be called European -- and even more accurately an Earthman :)) -- but that just surprises everyone, and there is no option on the census form (bastards!). - Francis Tyers · 14:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course talking about any ethnicity in the past is kind of an anachronism. - Francis Tyers · 14:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Nationality you mean. Ethnicities surely predate our great-great-grandfathers. NikoSilver 14:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably, either way, I'm sure my ancestors in 1066 didn't feel ethnically the same as my ancestors in 1866. I don't see ethnicity as an unbreakable line, more ephemeral. Nationality is even more so. - Francis Tyers · 14:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Reading the complexity above (not that I didn't know) makes me understand why most English native speakers can really detach from "ethnicity". Yet, train and boat rides (not to mention transcontinental flights) that accellarate ethnic mixing, are only a fairly recent phenomenon. Most inhabitants of the Balkans had not even mixed with their... next village. Also, huge cultural differences (notably language and religion) prohibited such mix further.

So, I think it would be a safe WP:OR to say that indigenous people of Southeastern Europe have a much greater chance of being ethnically "pure" to what they perceive as their distant ancestors. My personal estimation is that SE Europeans are close to 80% descendants of the inhabitants in the same region of 1000 or even 2500 years ago. If you do the math, that's about 30 to 80 generations behind. Quite feasible considering the migration and mixing difficulties. Just think that the average human manages to witness 4 to even 7 generations during their lifespan (5 -grandparents, parents, own, children, grandchildren is quite typical). For my part, very few from my compatriots that I happen to know of have made inter-racial marriages, even in today's jet era.

Comparing that to Britain's (or even worse America's) quite recent national awareness (which may have lead to an independent ethnic awareness), I really can't understand how you guys can tolerate the (partly justified) Balkanic notion of prolonged history! It would sound as believable as an extraterrestrial theory to me!

Still, all this is really dumb to begin with, dumb to investigate, and dumb to believe it serves a "cause". All people can become "something" or "nothing" regardless of their blood lineage. See my last comment to #Free Smyrnan above... NikoSilver 15:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

couldn't agree more :) - Francis Tyers · 16:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I basically agree. But not absolutely. I'll continue from where I previously stopped (a question: Are we products of our environment?). And I'll answer in the way our friend from Y (as I pictured him) answered: I really don't know. To be more accurate: I cannot be sure. Let me elaborate a bit on that:

I agree that the environment, the family, the cultural and social stereotypes (I prefer this term from "biases") play a crucial role, and I tried to indicate that with my story. Y realized that, if he had lived in the environment of his Xs ancestors, he would have probably become a typical X like them. But is all about the environment and our cultural background?! Facing the danger to be accused of Areianism or racism or phanatism or non-realism etc. etc. etc., I believe that not. My inner belief is that we are more complex beings. What do I mean? The fact that a current English is a mixture of indigenous tribes, of German tribes and of Norwegians is crucial for the present psychosomatic entity of an Englishman.

Let's speak about the Greeks? What is our connection with ancient Greeks? Is there any? And the fact that in our DNA there are Slavic, Albanian, Turkish genes isn't it important for our existence today? And if we have nothing to do with the ancient Greeks, what are the modern Greeks today? Which is our identity? Should we altogether go to shrinks?!!! By the way, I must point out that one of the greatest successes of the diachronical modern Greek diplomacy is to convince the world that modern Greeks are ancestors by blood of the ancient Greeks! I'm not going to analyze this assertion, but the fact is that this belief has become a stereotype: Two educated English friends of me came two months ago to visit Acropolis and I guided them. One of them, a teacher, asked me if we still have in Athens ten tribes?!! And she was very serious!!! When we were drinking coffee, I told her that maybe the blood connection of the modern and the ancient Greeks is a "myth"? I don't know if I served well the "national interests" of Greece, and I also don't know if I convinced her (I hope not! I don't want to destroy a successful diplomatic tradition of two centuries!).

Thus, my thoughts could be summarized by another question: Are we products of our environment or of our genes? Do you know the book the "Sly Gene"? How sly are our genes? Are they so sly to decieve us, and to make us wrongly believe that environment is everything? If the genes are not sly, then OK! But if they are sly, then we have a problem! Then "blood lineages" may play a (smaller or bigger) role. But even if they play a crucial role, one thing is definite: We'll never find if the modern Greeks have a blood connection with the ancient Greeks, and we will continue our lives wondering which are the roots of our nation! Should we wonder? I don't know! After all this analysis, I'm afraid that I'm sure only for one thing: the myths will survive us.--Yannismarou 19:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that the sum total of human genetic variety is very small, especially once you leave Africa, I find it obvious that environment is everything. In my opinion the only thing that "purity of blood", i.e. inbreeding leads to are congenital disorders. Also, reality and assertion tend to be somewhat different in inter-breeding of human populations :). Even the descendants of a single ethnic group with a non-proselytic religion -- Jews -- show some genetic similarity to the gentile populations they live in. It is pure folly to claim genetic purity if one belongs to a proselytic religion such as Islam or Christianity. It is perhaps an even bigger folly if one's from the former territories of the last classical land-based empire.Free smyrnan 21:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

See? That could definitely apply to all members of that (those, actually) empire(s). Especially including your^*, that is... NikoSilver 23:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think there is more to being human, though, than just genetics and environment, the whole being greater than the sum of its part, what makes us cognitive. And sometimes I wonder if what makes us fundamentally human is also what makes us warriors, and why this nationalistic stuff keeps popping up to divide and conquer identity. Who am I? Interesting comment about proeelytizing religions. Had not thought of that. KP Botany 00:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The idea of nationality as we know it today is a relatively recent phenomenon - 19th century. There are only a few examples of the emergence of the nation as a natural phenomenon -- the Dutch and the English are the two that I know of. Hobsbawn argues that even the French case is not the same and that the state emerged first and created the French nation. When we come to the Balkans and the Middle East, the idea of nationalism was taken in, by a few intellectuals first, and later popularized among the people. And then we all created and revised history to fit the idea of the nation.

The Turkish case is a little more complicated since it is the successor state of the OE and needs to reconcile the obvious multi-ethnicity of the OE as well. Thus even the most racist arguments in Turkey during 1930-40's have a "3 generation rule" -- if you became Turkicized 3 generations ago, they argue you are "pure blood". But it is to fit this idea of the nation onto the existing population that a lot of the craziness in the Balkans has happened.

Let me first detail some of the most well known sources of non-Turkish genetic material -- the devshirmeh, the Bosniaks, Pomaks, Albanians that moved with the receding borders, the hundreds of thousands that moved out of the Caucauses and Crimea, the Muslims of Crete that to this day know Greek, the Arabs and Kurds of the local regions, not to mention the now-forgotten multitudes that must have intermarried and/or converted. In Turkey, these ethnic groups have merged into the national identity (with the exception of some of the Kurds) with just a little bit of healthy schizophrenia - they are mostly aware of their ethnicity but attach no more importance to it than their originating hometown.

Again, to fit the idea of the nation onto the existing people, we have ignored evidence that there are previous -- albeit much less populous -- Turkic arrivals into Anatolia that turned Christian. There are Turkic names in the census of the Christian population that Mehmed II performed upon entering Trebizond. Were the Karamanlis genetically Turkish or Greek? The Patriarchate was instrumental in Hellenicizing a lot of Slavs and Albanians. Going further back, Christianity used to derive its converts from Jews rather than pagans before St. Paul and Ephesus had a large Jewish population. And even though conversion from Islam to Christianity was forbidden in the OE, songs exist to this day: such as "Purple violets in the gardens,/Ahchek, you’ve made me crazy for you,/Ahchek, shall you turn Muslim,/Or shall I became Armenian?". What kept people from just keeping mum before the days of the national identity cards? --Free smyrnan 05:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

But people want to be better than others. When they can't do that on their own, they group. And they don't only group in rival nations. They also do in religions, in social classes, in sport teams in whatever they can find. They just have to become better. And that's what makes us progress. NikoSilver 01:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't argue in favor of "blood purity" (by the way, according to researches the "bloodily purest" national group in the world is probably the population of Iceland). And I agree that the state-nation is a creation of the 18th-19th century, but the idea of a common heritage is ancient, and is depicted in ancient Greek historiography and literature. What I argue is that ancestry is finally important. And I strongly believe that broader unions of people and societies like nations develop certain abilities that differentiate them from other nations. This does not mean that a nation is superior to other, but, for instance, it is not, by chance, that the Greeks have the bigger commercial fleet in the world. They have developped this particular ability. And I accept that they developped it mainly because of the environment, but not only ... I believe that there is something more there. And of course the human factor is primordial, but human beings are not disconnected from their past; and their past is not only the cultural and environmental stereotypes, but their ancestors as well.--Yannismarou 08:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Will I win the car?

I have relatives who speak the language of tribe X, but it turns out, long after swearing my allegiance to tribe X, that they're really members of tribe Y, and only speak language X because until 30 years ago there were only about 5 language Y speakers in the whole of country Z where we all now happily live, us and them, and those we intermarried with, and most everyone in the family being a polyglot professional linguist, they simply adopted language X, while in country Z, as they already spoke X fluently, and married language Xers, as all 5 of the language Yers in country Z were of the same gender and same-sex marriage was illegal at that time, and there were pleny of other language Xers of the correct gender available in country Z.

So, I, being human, did what any contorted resident of country Z without medical insurance would do upon learning their whole life was a lie, when they couldn't afford a shrink, and they weren't really in any way related to anyone of country X, a much richer country full of people who could afford shrinks, and some who actually were shrinks, although I had country X relations by my country Y relations marrying folks of country X transplanted to country Z, I simply immediately switched allegiances to tribe Y.

Am I ashamed to the very roots of my being for this instantaneous switcheroo of loyalties? Nope, because once the tribe has spoken I must immediately leave tribe X and return to the real reality.

KP Botany 18:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

And what if your grandpas had left Z and emigrated to X, and you swore allegiance to X believing that your grandpas were X living in Z, but then you learn that in fact they were Y living in Z, who were speaking language X while living in Z, because, as you said, until 30 years ago there were only about 5 language Y speakers in the whole of country Z. In this case what are your loyalties or you just feel like a plane crash survivor?--Yannismarou 19:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

But grandpa had actually left country W, not country X, which is actually country Y, although many who speak language X live there, and he came to country Z, and it would have been too dangerous to move to country X, real country X, not country X/actually Y, instead, because of a war among countries ABCDEFGHIJ and K, although his great great great great grandfather left country W to conquer the world, and having succeeded, at least temporarily, married a member of tribe Y, many of whom today profess to swear allegianced against members of tribe W, and had descendents who came to country Z where they didn't confuse me into thinking they were of tribe X for a while, because they came to country Z when there were many others who spoke language Y. He also had children born in country W, in addition to those born in country Z, who were forced by evil dictator to move to countries W1 and W2, which after release from evil dictator became countries U and V, which are, ironically, where many descendants of tribe X, also live, so it seems, that maybe, my swearing allegience to tribe X was really an omen or like picking a lottery ticket of what was to come. And remember, tribe Y members aren't really rich enough to buy a ticket on an intercontinental flight--my flight was probably a bus ride.

Some did marry into country X while living in country Y, though, and today have to cross the borders with the help of coyotes.

I think the Gene-machine would surprise a lot of allegiance swearers to tribe X, tribe Y, and tribe W in country Y and country X, though.

I also think after discussing this I need now to just pledge allegiance to country Z, or to writing botany articles and forget countries X, Y, U, V, and W, or get better health insurance that covers a shrink.

KP Botany 20:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If I forward this to your broker, you won't be able to afford insurance no matter what you pay. Still decrypting and laughing. I'll add questions in a helpless attempt to make you continue this: WTF is a botanologist doing in this page? And WTF is being a professional polyglot linguist have to do with anything? (yes, you win the car) :-) NikoSilver 23:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Being a professional polyglot linguist has everything to do with anything. It means that grandpa, while in country W wasn't forced to go to country Z, or country G as most of his countrymen did, to later disasterous results due to a second bout of alphabet soup, although seriously worse for those who remained in W, were captured by G, then returned to W, but had a choice of various countries, for example country J would have loved to have had him, and while he was in country Z (after escaping country W), in fact, a major disaster occured in country J, and they asked him to visit country J to study the disaster. However, because he was a professional polyglot linguist, when a speaker of language Z got stuck in country W after a revolution and prior to a civil war, and needed help escaping when all the borders were sealed, he was told to cross the major mountains of W (which are actually the U, come to think of it) to find grandpa in subsection S of country W, because grandpa could help both of them escape up the river O to country N on ocean A because he spoke the languages of the natives along river O, along with language N, and language Z, (in addition to the afore-mentioned language J)--leading us to why we have television today, because a native of W, who had gone to Z, returned to W, then had to leave in a hurry, but needed someone who spoke the languages along the river O, and N, and preferably Z for when they got to country Z.

What does any of this have to do with Wikipedia? Sometimes, in the midst of all these nationalistic battles, someone accuses me of belonging to tribe Y, and I have to laugh. If it were only that simple. The world is moving towards everyone having histories so complex that to declare nationalism in the future one must be drawn and quartered and distributed globally. KP Botany 00:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that was the initial purpose of the page; to help all those unjustly accused of promoting a specific letter's nationalistic agenda. Which reminds me that the complex history and gene idea is just another ...agenda. Apparently the ones who benefit from that new agenda are the ones who have to compile many letters into a single soup. That idea, come to think of it, is not that new. It had been tried extensively in the past, and led to those letters jumping out of those soups and flocking together only to form other soups, of the same letters. Then, occasionally, another multi-letter soup would emerge, and would try to compile all those letters inside it, only to end up disintegrated into single-letter soups again. No matter what bread or spectacles those multi-soups offered, those different letters formed C-towns, or B-communities, or G and J-lobbys, and mostly stuck together within the multi-soup, until of course the soup showed signs of disintegration. You see, we polyglots (if I dare qualify as one) and poly-pragmons manage to function in a multi-letter soup. But we are a minuscule minority... NikoSilver 00:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the smaller soups, and the realization of just how small they are, will have an impact eventually. It's nice to see the folks here realize where the diversity is.

aagctttgtt tttttaaaga taacatacac atatattgat aatgataaac aattcatata gctttttgtg tcctctcgtt ttgtgacata aaaggtcaat gaaaaaattg gcgattaagt caaattcgca tttttcagga cagcagtaga gcagtcaggg aggcagatca gcagggcaag tagtcaacgt tactgaatta ccatgttttg cttgagaatg aatacattgt cagggtacta gggggtaggc tggttgggcg gggttgaggg ggtgttgagg gcggagaaat gcaagtttca .... KP Botany 00:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but of course, the impact is yet another invention of the oldest casserole! Apart from the unilaterally created multi-soups, we have the voluntarily created multi-soups. The latter, keep those different letters within different segments of the big soups, forming smaller single-letter soups within the big one, thereby maintaining the necessary environment for those who cannot function within a multi-soup, while giving them the advantages of a big soup. These soups have somewhat controlled diversity through their single-letter sub-soups, yet one can enjoy the whole mix, if capable. That's just an experiment multi-single-letter-soup, but it may actually work. NikoSilver 01:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What to do about it

Good laugh, but ultimately it is a big problem on Wikipedia, and I don't see, given Wikipedia's design, any end to the issue, under the current structure, and I'm not thrilled with methods that change the current structure. "Anyone can edit" is the biggest weapon thrown at detractors of the concept that a group of volunteers can create something usable, ultimately, imo, it will be its biggest asset in a world where static-information sources are fast becoming obsolete.

So, what to do about competing natiolistic claims to articles that create chaos on Wikipedia, but are, after all, part of being human? KP Botany 01:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

We explore ourselves for hidden biases we are unaware of. We distance ourselves (or we don't and fight) and produce laws and procedures. Then the occasional dork stops by and makes a subpage that ends up being an essay describing those biases and trying to sort them out. Then we make more laws. Just like democracy versus anarchy. Had they found the line between those two, we wouldn't need Jimbo (or Microsoft). :-) NikoSilver 01:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a practical exercise in learning that the "other" is not that alien. Yes, we will have chaotic articles and edit wars but slowly we will reach a consensus. The process of reaching a consensus teaches us what is common, what is different and what the "other" is. --Free smyrnan 06:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Why aren't I so optimist? Maybe because I'm a Greek and the Greeks in general are pessimists? But why are they pessimist (if they are)? Because their ancestors were pessimists and we ihnerited their genes? Because of the environment of Greece (a contradiction between a bright sun and a melancholic folklore tradition) or just because I'm a pessimist human being, and what I just said (that Greeks are pessimist) is mere nonsense?--Yannismarou 07:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Value sets

When we come down to the (biased?) aphorism that all ethnic groups are vastly mixed, we dare explore the reasons for paradoxical human behavior after the mix. That behavior is considered incompatible (and in extreme examples a form of treason) with the behavior of the ancestors of the newly aquired members to that group. This observation raises the question: "Why the hell would people betray their own, and support their foe?"

The answer is simpler than expected: Sets of values. The newly recruited often find need to identify as such due to personal likings or dislikings. Sometimes they are forced by the circumstances and feared of the consequences. The result is always the same: The next generation has much less attachment to the old status, and the next even less, and so on. Assimilation produces new followers, possibly unaware of their past.

These followers adhere to the new set of values, because they grew up with it, and anything else seems uncommon, and rejected by their peers (stereotypes). However, this adherence is biased, simply because (newly recruited or assimilated or not) those followers tend to explore only their own (new?) sets of values and disregard exploring the others. Propaganda and reverse propaganda also play an important role in the enhancement of the positive elements of one's culture, and negative elements of the other cultures. Hence, their judgement is biased by their limited or even twisted knowledge. So people's minds and opinions are vastly more compatible to their own experiences, rather than to their "genes", to the extent of making wars in order to maintain or expand those values, sometimes even against their own ancestors' sons!

Had they been aware of the merits of the other cultures, and of the constructive criticism on their own culture, then they would be more capable of filtering the elements of those cultures to produce their own set. We are terribly far from that, and even if information was universally available, we still don't know how and if it would be used positively as described. Recent examples of educated people, like Orhan Pamuk's real reasons for the nobel prize, (forgive my unilateral example, I happen to be a victim of the afore mentioned selective information), are indeed positive steps, but then again, too microscopically few, and very well burried from the rest, instead of being exemplified (cite to prove me wrong, I will be pleased).

A wise person, cannot but foresee that indeed such selective information practices only make their own group less susceptible to positive change. That would definitely be a disadvantage in the evolution of this group's value system, and detrimental for their society in general. Therefore, the true patriot, is the one who tries not only to learn the merits of other cultures and their constructive criticism on his own, but also to even try to force this information among his own, in order to help this value system evolution process, knowing that he may be misjudged, knowing that he may be even prosecuted, and knowing that no matter how hard the information push attempt is, most of his compatriots will probably ignore it due to their pre-programmed biases.

Even after writing all that, I admit being the least capable person on earth for practicing it. :-( NikoSilver 13:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

So people's minds and opinions are vastly more compatible to their own experiences, rather than to their "genes".

Which is why I've more in common with a linguistics nerd from France than I do with some BNP member from my home town. - Francis Tyers · 13:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hah! That's probably because: "your judgement is biased by your limited or even twisted knowledge." NikoSilver 14:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

And by the fact that i don't hate homosexuals, Jews, communists, "ethnics", blacks, Muslims, .... :) - Francis Tyers · 14:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to be a French linguist nerd to oppose to that. NikoSilver 14:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I never said I was French, take that back! :)) - Francis Tyers · 14:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Impossible, the device has spoken! Don't need to remember to flush, we'll do it for you. I'd love to hear comments on the WP:OR above, though. Even by a guy who's unaware of his Frenchness! NikoSilver 15:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that you mostly speak about social, cultural and nationalist stereotypes. These stereotypes go from one generation to the other, and, despite the differentiations that you mention, some powerful stereotypes are common to all generations. Propaganda is not necessary, so as the stereotypes to survive. The dynamics of a society is enough. I have in mind examples of my own country: When a building hosting handicapped persons was decided to be created in the X region, the whole population of the region (young, middle-aged, older, men, women) reacted. This is a reaction caused by a social stereotype. But national stereotypes work the same way. For instance, an English stereotype is that they don't want to be called French (me neither! I hope that a French friend of mine does not read these lines!). And the stereotypes are so inherently printed in the sub-conscious that it is very very difficult to fight them. Some individuals achieve to go beyond them, but societies as a whole are very susceptible to their influence. I also agree that the best medication against stereotypes is education and information. Open-minded people are the best antidote against them. But I don't have in mind many of this kind! I tend to believe that, unfortunately, the majority of people does not want to think! They believe it is too tiring!--Yannismarou 08:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's always important to make fun of stereotypes too, pointing out their flaws :) Incidentally, in real life, I have been mistaken for a French guy, and I was quite surprised/flattered. I agree though that stereotypes (like all ideologies) are very appealing. I think part of it is to do with simplification, it is easier to believe a stereotype, or even use a stereotype as a point of reference than to investigate deeper. This is something that we are all guilty of, but to recognise it is the first step to overcoming it. - Francis Tyers · 09:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So you agree to my two bolded statements above? NikoSilver 10:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Broadly yes, although I'd expand the first bolded bit to add, "Propaganda and reverse propaganda also play an important role in the enhancement of the positive elements of one's culture, and negative elements of the other cultures.". - Francis Tyers · 11:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Basically yes, I agree. The problem for me is the medication. How can you fight against propaganda, stereotypes and the simplificated mass psychology? And the main problem is that sometimes even the persons who strive to fight against these phainomena, find themselves trapped in their appeal, without understanding how this happened. And here we should also speak about the role of leaders. Most of them feed the stereotypes and use propaganda, because this is the easy way. Only a minority of them attempts to go against the tide, and these very few times the results are uncertain. When the mass is furious, realism becomes unpopular and ineffective.--Yannismarou 14:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"Realism is unpopular" -- quite poignant. :| - Francis Tyers · 16:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Are there any more ideas, or shall I wrap this all up and create an essay? NikoSilver 00:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, what would you do with the essay? It's a waste of time on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is under rampant attack by nationalistic interests, and its all-volunteer, self-selecting group of administrators doesn't have a clue, or care about it. Writing as a form of self-learning, but you won't be educating anyone. I did enjoy the thought excercise. KP Botany 01:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Create an essay, where? In a Wikipedia? As an article? I'm afraid KP Botany is right. But I also enjoyed this page. Bravo!--Yannismarou 15:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I had something like this in mind when I first wrote it... NikoSilver 22:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Haha, I hadn't read that one! - Francis Tyers · 15:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You think we got enough material here to make non-edit-warring advice more focused in nationalist issues? I sure feel they are the main reason for most of the bitching going on around in WP... NikoSilver 15:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't know, it doesn't really read much like an essay, but then again, I think taking a moment to reflect on this issue would be useful for many arguments. I'd support making it an essay I suppose, or it could be cleaned up first? - Francis Tyers · 16:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It's the exact cleanup re that I wanted to make! That's why I was asking if there are more views here, in order to wrap (as in Wind Reel And Print)! NikoSilver 16:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mitsos

Sorry Niko, but this "nationality quiz" is completely unrealistic. First of all, you don't need a "DNA ancestry identifier device" to discover if you are really Greek or English (or whatever). Noone is 100% Greek or 100% English. But I do consider that nationality is formed not from "culture", but from race, biological ancestry and blood. A Nation is its People (Λαος), and the People are formed from tribes, from racial types. Culture, which is used to define a Nation, comes from Race. Someone who is not of Greek ancestry and blood, cannot act as a Greek. This is why differences between Nations exist. Germans are organised, Greek are (considered to be) zamanfou. If you want to find if you are Greek, you don't need a "DNA ancestry identifier device", you just have to study the Greek racial type. If you belong to the Greek racial type, you have a majority of Greek blood. You can be 90% or 60% Greek, as I said nobody is 100% Greek. I used to have an essay, by David Lane, in my userpage called "Who is White?". I think he says it all for me. Mitsos 14:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Mitso, I won't debate over this, because you know that my viewpoint is totally different (check my comments above in other users' sections). I only have a question: Do you dispute the fact that the son of a Janissary can attack Greeks? Do you dispute the fact that if I adopt a little baby Turk, I can make him a Greek ultra-nationalist (hah, like myself! :-))? NikoSilver 14:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I 'm bored and I 'm not going to read your comments above (lol), so can you please explain to me why you think that I 'm wrong? "Do you dispute the fact that the son of a Janissary can attack Greeks? Do you dispute the fact that if I adopt a little baby Turk, I can make him a Greek ultra-nationalist" You can make a Turkish boy (of Turkish blood, because most "Turks" today have Greek blood) a Greek ultra-nationalist, but he won't act as a Greek. He will think that he is Greek, and he will be proud about that, but he will be different. P.S.: Yannismarou told me this nationality quiz will make me think. In fact, it only made me think how ignorant people are about certain things (I don't mean just you Niko) and how influenced they are from the ZOG's media. Cheers Mitsos 12:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw above that you and Yanissmarou (οπως και χιλιαδες αλλοι νεοελληνες) watched the the TV show Yabanci Damat. I will only say this: ΤΑ ΣΥΝΟΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΑΓΑΠΗΣ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΣΤΗΝ ΚΥΡΗΝΕΙΑ! Mitsos 18:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PaxEqulibrium

I do not know for myself (since I'm not emotionally bound like that), but I'll give several examples from former Yugoslavia: The founder of the first organized Croat political party, the Croatian Party of Rights, Ante Starčević had a Serb mother. Yet despite that he became a fierce croat nationalist, was proclaimed Pater Chrobatiae et Pater Chrobatorum or "The Father of the Croatian nation". Aside from his side-by-side anti-semitism, he shared a very deeply and strongly entrenched anti-serbian sentiment. The second man to Ante was Josip Frank, a Jew that converted to Catholicism and became one of the most fiery contemporary Croat nationalists. Frank supported Ante's words how the Jewish people were an inferior breed (and he himself purged of that thing by accepting superior Croatdom) and also advocated for assimilation of the lower nations to the superior Croat master race, explaining it as the only possible solution to their "problems". Starcevic's ideology would remain for 150 years representing the extreme nationalist cheek of Croatia to this very day, which culminated several decades after his death with his heritage's formation of the Ustaše, the greatest "native" genocidist group the Balkans have ever seen, causing indirect, direct or supportive deaths of over one million "non-aryans", belonging to the lower races not fit for the Super Human and political opponents standing on the way of the Axis machinery, amongst whom the greatest part were Serbs. Shockingly enough, Starcevic's successor and the Leader of the Ustashas, Ante Pavelić has Serbian origin on his mother's side (grandmother?).

A similar grotesque is sitting today as I write this in Hague. His name is Vojislav Šešelj. The man, despite being a very pious Orthodox Serb, is an ethnic Croat (or at least of direct Croat descent). Ever since 1990 he has become the greatest Serbian nationalist there has ever been, calling for xenophobia and spreading hate speechs, particularly against the Croats. He launched a giant ultra-nationalist mechanism, a war machine that haunts the largest number of Serbia's voters today and went beyond the limits of extreme, up to almost direct involvement in atrocities against Croats in Vojvodina and eastern Croatia. Seselj, while acting like an uneducated monstrosity that is funneled not by the actual sense of Serbdom, but by enormous hatred towards nations (Croats, Albanians, Americans) & organizations (Roman Catholic Church) that have had at any point in the history done something bad to any Serb.. the alleged "enemies of the Serb people"; was AFAIC the generation student of Sarajevo and one of the most educated men in SFRY... Just like a great genius once said over 80 years ago - this can be applied to Seselj's emotional terror - "[..]enough hatred, so enough that if it would be transformed into electricity, it would be enough to light whole cities of the globe". When Vojislav S. himself in detail discovered that he's an ethnic Croat - he went to his ancient homeland in mid-western Herzegovina, filming the very Orthodox church in which he was baptized and then spreading the word of hatred & terror amongst his local "ethnic" (not national) countrymen. --PaxEquilibrium 20:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Very illustrative examples. NikoSilver 09:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Ante Pavelić was Serbian???? Complete nonsense. Mitsos 13:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

So, is this page still alive? Happy! I did not know that Šešelj has Croatian roots! It is amazing: we speak about the most nationalist politician of Serbia! Wow! These genes are indeed playing with us! They are mocking us! These tiny, tricky bastards! Well ... Maybe I'll also think of another story for this page after the new input by Mitsos and PaxEquilibrium.--Yannismarou 20:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a Turkish saying (the exact wording of which I cannot remember) that goes something like "as harsh/unforgiving (in religion) as the recent convert". If someone is not *naturally* (at least in their mind) a member of a particular group, there is a tendency to become extremist in their efforts to belong. --Free smyrnan 06:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Haha, in Greece we say: "Οι πιο φανατικές καλόγριες είναι οι πρώην πουτάνες!" NikoSilver 17:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit. No, Šešelj hasn't Croatian roots. These are all bullshit. Have you got a source for all that????????? Mitsos 13:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The last name Seselj can be found among both Croats and Serbs...the reason being that the name is a Vlah name (nomadic Vlaho-Aroumanians populated huge areas of the Balkans...especially southern Serbia which was referred to as "The Old Vlahia", eastern Herzegovina and the Dalmatian hinterland bordering on neighbouring Bosnia Herzegovina). Vlahs in these parts were mostly assimilated by Serbs but...also by Croats...Albanians...and as you all must know...in huge numbers...by Greeks.

Throughout the Balkans...but especially in Bosnia Herzegovina...we find family names of Vlah origin: Dodik...Tintor...Kragulj...Zuzulj...Zezelj...

We also have a mountain called Vlasic (best skiing in the region)....in Greek it would be something like "Vlahika"....a Vlah cheese...called "Vlaski Sir" and high mountain settlements which are referred to as "katuni" high above the city of Travnik! There are no Vlah speaking communities left...as they have been assimilated into the various regional ethnicities!

Of course...calling someone a Vlah...well...like in Greece...is a quasi insult...especially if you are a proud Serb or Croat...have no idea of what a Vlah is...have no immediate connection to the culture, people, language of your ancestors...and like Seselj...are just a crazy MF who claims to be a Serb. 21:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Gospe 05:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)