User talk:NikoSilver/Nationality quiz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Responses

[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. Niko Silver 09:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and try Frappe! :-) Niko Silver 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... Niko Silver 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! Niko Silver 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... Niko Silver 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. Niko Silver 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! Niko Silver 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! :-) Niko Silver 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. Niko Silver 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! Niko Silver 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... Niko Silver 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! :-) Niko Silver 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! Niko Silver 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! Niko Silver 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)!! Niko Silver 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! :-) Niko Silver 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. Niko Silver 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... Niko Silver 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... Niko Silver 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. Niko Silver 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) :-) Niko Silver 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... Niko Silver 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. Niko Silver 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). :-) Niko Silver 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. :-( Niko Silver 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." Niko Silver 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. Niko Silver 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! Niko Silver 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? Niko Silver 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? Niko Silver 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... Niko Silver 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... Niko Silver 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)! Niko Silver 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! :-))? Niko Silver 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)

Mitsos...your attitude is scary. It is exactly this kind of "racist" Hellenism....which has made it so difficult for me to bond with a lot of Greeks...in general (and I am a very multi-culti worldy person...who really loves to "dive into" cultures, languages..etc). There is this really scary-ugly side of modern Greek nationalism...that really pops up with this "Greek racial type" business! It gets even scarier when some dumb assed hillbillies from Taigetos or Pindus...(having been educated and convinced that they are the "prime" specimens of this supposed "Greek racial type" and blood heirs of Greek greatness) try to snub you...as if they're somehow still a "Barbarian" foreigner....and they're all...descendants of Aristotle and Archimedes...of course....HA..HA..HA!

There was a time...when I'd just had ENOUGH and before I distanced myself from that crowd...I made my point. In NO department was I inferior. In fact...we were very similar...the big difference being...that instead of hearding goats and sheep...our ancestors up north...hearded cows and sheep. Oh..yes..I forgot to add...our coastline isn't as long...so we had fewer fishermen.Gospe 04:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother responding Gospe. We tried before you (a lot). FWIW this is the fringest of minorities of the Greek users here (and outside). I hope this helps. Niko Silver 16:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I see now. I'd just like to know how Mitsos would "classify" someone like Fatima Whitbread! Being half-Greek and also half-Turkish...Cypriot on both "sides"...YET...raised in the UK...as a "Britisher" and a well known figure in the UK sports world. From what I've read...although her background IS Cypriot...she is British...through and through! Is she "faking" it? for the fame and glory? Is she an "English-British" Crypto-Kypria? Gospe 18:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I just found this...and thought it would be fitting to insert it:

"Know Thyself

Greeks' contemporary self-image is built upon a series of myths. The myth of continuity. The myth of the racial and cultural superiority of our ancestors (and, thanks to continuity, our own). The myth of being special. The myth of racial and religious purity. The myth of the genius of the Greek race.

The existence of these myths provokes certain predictable reactions. Thus, my typical compatriot, while proud to be Greek (95 percent, according to polls) will abuse and censure his countrymen at the slightest provocation. And this, naturally, because they fail to live up to the expectations and the demands created by the myths.

This explains why we're simultaneously the greatest eulogizers and the worst critics of ourselves. Depending on our point of view (and on the moment), we either denigrate Greeks or sing their praises. (In the former case we usually refer to them as "Romious"). Naturally, both attitudes are wrong. Instead of applauding or cursing, it would be better to stop, and think. Calmly, and rationally. (But I forget myself. Rationality is also a Western, imported Evil for our Helleno-centric intelligentsia. So much for Aristotle!)"Gospe 06:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, "myth of the genious of the Greek race", I like that! I find it a little undue to extend it to all contemporary Greeks, but I'm sure it applies to some I've met. The rest may serve as a great explanation on why Greeks can act against each other some times, among other reasons. Anyway, why would you want me to focus the page on the Greeks? Is there anything special about them? (lol) Niko Silver 23:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess because I've spent a lot of time with Greeks and then after I read this...I thought of Mitsos and his statements...which are so passe...among the younger Greeks and so true for a lot of the older generation. So there's this huge divide, generational gap...between the youth and their parents-grandparents. At least that's been my observation. It's like a quiet social revolution...and ... my impression is that everything "happend" in about 20 years' time. And the change has been huge. The best way to gauge this is to talk to Greeks who left the country a few decades ago...and really...a lot of these people are cultural relics. I can see how they'd feel out of place in the new European Greece. As far as Greeks being either the biggest critics or the greatest eulogizers of their own kind...I've seen that too...but again...the younger generation seems to have more common sense in those matters. Also...Greeks don't "keep things in". Whatever's on their mind...comes right out..so everything seems magnified...love, hate, acceptance, rejection...and it all seems...much better or worse...than it really is.

Also...this mention of rationality being alien to Greeks made me laugh....for I often found that to be true...in my conversations with the older generation...2+2 didn't always come to 4. I used to think it was all the booze & dope... and the partying that fried these guys' brains out (this was a bunch of party animals)...but then I read the statement...above...and started laughing. I guess... a totally new Greek society is emerging. It's hard to tell how it's going to evolve...with all the different influences and geopolitical reality in the region.Gospe 04:35, 15 May 2007 (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. Niko Silver 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!" Niko Silver 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)

[edit] Great Idea, but how do we do it?

you gave me quite an amusement Niko with this nationality tester... but this is the reason why here at the Balkans you should not take your high school history textbooks for granted! i'm not talking about yours in particular, but anyones, nowadays... i am from Macedonia (or Skopia as you hare it more frequently) and i'm going through this process... i find out that what i learned in high school about history especially Balkan, and our national history is not quite true... But than again I know that what Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbs learn in their history is as wrong as our versions... Therefore i end up in this unwanted dilemma: do I embrace the nationalistic tendations in history that my own country is propagating, which i know that are false in order to preserve national identity against neighboring propaganda, or do i go on my own and find my own realistic truth...

hope u can help me with this dilemma, since i see you are experiencing similar ideas, and yet you are on the "other side"...

Martin taleski 02:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No, we are on the "same side". We've always been on the same side. We've liberated ourselves from the same oppression and we have common problems with common "enemies". If you use the nationalist approach, we should actually be the best of friends in the Balkan peninsula. Greeks had (and unfortunately continue to have) issues with the Turks. Greeks had problems with the Albanians. Greeks were against the Bulgarians in WWI... Your ethnic group has many more issues with those groups than it has with the Greeks, and so do the Greeks. We've always been friends, and we should continue to be friends. It's only lame that we've been dragged into this "naming" (lol) conflict! I can imagine who would want to fuel that, and so can you (does the concept of divide et impera ring any bell?).

Look: Unlike most Greeks, I'll tell you that I strongly and most emphatically believe that you are Macedonians. You live in the region of Macedonia for crying out loud! In the same sense, you are Balkanians, Europeans and Earthlings. However, If you used the name "Balkanians" you would definitely have serious dab issues with the people around you. Worse if you used "Europeans" or "Earthlings". And, unfortunately, same with the name you've chosen.

So indeed, I urge you to keep your name, and not to listen to my nationalist compatriots who want you to drop it altogether. Just help the naive, unaware and uneducated people understand that you are different from the other "Macedonians" (my northern compatriots, the Bulgarians in Blagoevgrad, the Albanians around Tetovo, and the Vlachs included). If I were you, I wouldn't want to be confused with any of them, and it is insane to ask everybody else to change their name. Just let's all add a disambiguating element next to it, so that others understand who we are talking about more easily!

This whole discussion is out of the scope of this page, so when I refactor it, I'll move it to a different section (e.g. talkpage). Niko Silver 18:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've spent a bit of time reading my old political economy texts...and really...the birth of modern ethnic nationalism...coincides with the birth of mercantilism...and the mercantilist state. Ethnic and cultural identities always existed...people always had their own communities...languages...patois....dialects...whatever....but a lot of what we identify with as "national" today...is "manufactured" by a bourgeois class. I know I sound like some old...lost Marxist soul...but really...economic and technological revolutions...including globalization...internet....are revolutionizing our sense of self....our identities...communities...etc. Just yesterday...while planning a trip...I came across this website from the Pontic Black Sea region of Turkey www.ocena.info....and here they were...FINALLY...after almost a century of forced estrangement...Pontic Greek speaking Moslems and Pontic Orthodox Greeks...building bridges...on the internet: sharing photos..of ancestral villages, playing their ancestral music...and really...it was so touching and also so sad....that they very forcibly estranged...for no other reason...than that a certain "class"...a powerful group of people wanted exclusive rights to a certain territory. Education and technology will really revolutionize this world...even more. I can tell my son "you're this..and this...and this"...but then the next day....he can go out...pay a couple of hundred $$$ for a DNA test...and say: "Mom...did you know we're black too"! So now...we redefine ourselves as cultural guardians...and not really as BEING the blood heirs to a people...for we're not even sure who exactly all those supposed glorious ancestors.....really were. I know they did some DNA testing on Egyptian mummies..and their DNA pretty well reflected the DNA of today's Egyptians...as well...but what about parts of the world that have been constant "bridges of humanity"...eg. the Balkans and Asia Minor....where we have "layers" upon "layers" of history, languages, peoples. Gospe 02:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, for the Greeks, check the honorable Mr.Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer, towards the end. Also, it is amazing how after more than 3 millenia those filthy compatriots of mine speak the same f***ing language! It is amazing how I can read the New Testament from the original text, without any misunderstanding (and to think I wasn't good in Greek at school)! Still, it is also amazing that those open-minded dudes in our neck of the woods ended up being so stubborn today! (Or were they always stubborn?) Anyway, as long as Kennedy's or Onassis' or Einstein's offspring can be as dumb as me, and as long as the offspring of a Mr.Nobody can become the major scientist or politician or tycoon, there's no real reason to search for ancestry! If one generation only can change you +100% or -100%, then imagine what ...100 generations can do! Just be yourself and do well what you do. Try to make your inheritors proud of you; don't seek to brag yourself for actions of your ancestors!

Finally, "continuity" in an ethnic group is the lamest debate of all! Of course there is continuity, no matter how many barbarians screwed my or anybody's great-grand-mother. If we accept that all races are equal (because that's where we start from in order not to be racists), then who gives a rat's ass who screwed my or your great-grand-mother? Isn't the result going to be equal as well, or are we being racists again? Now combine the concept of these (apparently few) mixes, with the assumption that every generation self-identifies as its predecessor, and that with the concept of mathematical induction, and you'll get the result: There's nothing but continuity! :-) And then of course we have the change from within... Niko Silver 13:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What I am curious about....is who were the indigenous peoples of present day Greece and Albania. I know that northern Greece...had a lot of "traffic"...but what about the rest of the country. For example...where I originate...the indigenous population is supposed to have been an Illyrian tribe called "Japods" mixed up with Celts (perhaps that's why I'm a bit freckled and pasty white...with reddish auburn hair). When I hear of Celts...I think of the Irish...and red hair! When I hear of Illyrians...I think of Albanians and their romanized "cousins" the Vlahs. Then...there were also some Saxon settlers...as well. some of my cousins would have been "prime" picks for Hitler's Jugend. They definitely "look" more German than many Germans themselves. So...who was indigenous in Greece...before the arrival of the Hellenes...who were these "Achiei" that I've heard about from my Greek college prof? And then...if geneticists have been able to "isolate" this supposed "Slavic" gene...have they also isolated the "Hellenic" gene...the "Achiei" gene? There are so many different "looks" among the Greeks I know. Some look right out of Kurdistan...in fact...I know of a guy from Lesbos...who is a spittin' image of a Kuridsh guy...and I recall when they met. It was hilarious. The Greek guy was a bit drunk...and he looked up to the Kurd...who happens to be VERY tall...and in a drunken daze....began staring at the other guy's face...as if he were looking at a mirror! Suddenly he blurted out: "Whoooo are you? My BIG brother?"

Then...others look very Slavic...in fact...I have an acquaintances from Larissa...who look SO Slavic. The entire family...could easily pass for Poles. I could go on and on. A guy from Crete I know...looks very Egyptian...North African....yet my grocer..who is Cretan...is extremely fair...almost blonde....and many Cypriots I've met...look a bit Mid.Eastern...even Egyptian. There really seems to be no "look" except for the older generation's shortness and attire...and perhaps...the dominant brown hair...and more olive skin. I did notice a lot of "fat cheeks", round noses...meaty faces...especially in people from Arkadia. Gospe 21:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, but I cannot share your views from my personal WP:OR. I spot foreigners instantly here in Greece, and Greeks instantly abroad. I don't know why, but I just do, and so do most of the people I know.

And as I said, it doesn't (and shouldn't) really matter. Those (few IMO) that partly or wholly descend from "non-indigenous" Greeks, are as good as the rest, because we are all equal. Suggesting that the "original" Greeks (or X-ians) don't exist anymore because of mixing is a racist remark in my opinion, because it implies that the "non-original" ones were inferior. Do you see my point? Niko Silver 09:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. What I was trying to say is exactly what you implied earlier....that what and how we identify ourselves...doesn't necessary reflect our "real" origins...and it doesn't have to. I agree with you...that a people develop a "look". That "look" can also bee the result of various "mixes"..and the degrees of various admixtures....and then of course...how it's finally packaged and presented. I never would have been able to notice my sister's very "East Asian" look...(although she is a white European) if I hadn't travelled the world...and looked a little deeper. You'll see her and say...well..she's just another European...and I'll point to her body's proportions..her high cheekbones...etc. Even Native Indians in North America have inquired about her ethnicity..and origin..because she really does look like a predominantly white (with a bit of Asiatic) mix. We develop looks....as well. I can "tell" a Brazilian woman. I spent my formative years there...I know the "walk" (and there is a walk)..there is a way of dressing...talking...interacting...regardless of ethnicity (and God..are they a ever an ethnic-genetic stew)! In exactly the same way you can "tell" who is Greek.

I wonder if you heard about that Moscow experiment...with genes and alcohol. Because a very high % of Eastern Europeans...have "Asian" genes...they attempted to gauge a body's reaction to alcohol...and correlate it to the presence of these genes shared by other "really" Asian peoples..eg. Japanese, Mongolian, Chinese, Native Americans. Apparently, there was a strong correlation...the presence of these genes...did affect the body's reaction to alcohol consumption. (In that department...unlike for my fellow "Slavs". Greeks..should be no problem there...They can party forever...and they are "good" drinkers). So in that sense...all our ancestors do affect who we are...and become...to various degrees...but as far as a people having a collective "genetic" talent for something...that can also heppen...and develop...in different ways...due to various reasons and circumstances.

Even having heterogenous origins...after centuries of co-existance...we create homogeneous communities..under specific socio-political, economic, climatic, geographic conditions. Talents developed over centuries...are passed on from generation to generation. ( I just wonder how island Greeks would sail boats in Siberia.) Now...the big question is...do these skills...exercised over many generations by a people and their descendants...actually affect our DNA. I recently read some US study...how generations of stress...and stressful circumstances...do affect the genes. So can we also affect intelligence...(over generations) and other talents and skills?

When they arrived in Sao Pualo...in the 1950's..Greeks got into the shirt manufacturing business. Before them...it was a Jewish "thing". Then the Koreans came in the 70's....and took over. In North America...it was corner diners and pizzerias...(but now...they're being squeezed out by chains and franchises...and their progeny...having been given better opportunities...isn't interested). So really, having been given better and more varied opportunities...people from all around the world....in the Americas...and have shown that regardless of any ethnicity's history....anything can happen. There are of course...certain areas where you need a particular physique to excel (skill alone won't do)..such as basketball....football. But then...physique alone won't do. And the average Greek's height...doesn't seem to correspond to the excellence of the Greek basketball players. Although....is it a coincidence...that so many Turkish basketball players...are by origin...from former Yugoslavia...the land of basketball giants. A while ago...I was talking to an avid sports fan..otherwise also a surgeon...and a bon vivant...and he was commenting...that it is no coincidence that there are so many "Blacks" in US sports. In US football...there is an ideal physique..and skill set....for each position...and his theory was that what made Black Americans so successful...is that they had the right genetic mix....being black and white-there are hardly any "pure" Blacks in the US...they would have inherited the dense musculature (I think it's called "high twitch" muscles... in kinesiology) from their African ancestors...and then the bulk...and width...endurance as well...from the Caucasian ancestors. Of course...height and weight is very much related to nutrition...so that variable is circumstantial. Yet..having been given an abundance of other opportunities...would so many US Black kids...choose to go into sports....regardless of their God given..."biological endowment"! We don't always follow our talents. We are given opportunities...and we also follow desires...and interests. The ideal combo would be desires, talents and interest...with lots of opportunities..in one package.

So then...we come down to opportunities and circumstances...regardless of our ethnicity, origin...otherwise...why would someone like George Bush be ruling the world's most powerful country. He does seem to have one big "telent" going for him. The man is a true psychopath. No remorse...whatsoever! I think we'll agree on that one...for sure!Gospe 15:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. Indeed, the environment probably affects our skills on the long run. My theory is that it is because of Darwin's law! Antelopes, with the longest necks outlived those with the shorter ones (because they could find food while the others starved below the tall trees) and they reproduced; so the giraffe eventually emerged. The northern bears in the snow that were less brown (towards beige) outlived the deep-brown ones and reproduced also, because they had better stealth ability and could hunt better; so the white polar bear emerged eventually. Possibly, the ones with naval and entrepreneurial skills could better feed their families in the Greek coasts, and were considered better grooms, while the others didn't marry; so Onassis and the rest of the Greek shipping magnates emerged. Our environment definitely trains us!

But that was until the era when untalented people could not survive. Today we support people who just can't make it. We have more charity, more fund-raising for the poor, the impoverished parts of the planet have more births, there are far less ethnic cleansings around, democracy gives to the lower intellectual strata (many) equal voting rights to the higher ones (few) etc. So this is what may explain the Bush paradox? :-) (Fun aside, if in doubt about the democratic feelings check my pre-existing userbox...) Niko Silver 15:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Onassis took up shipping in Argentina. His family was Tukish-speaking from Anatolia... (if I correctly recall reading) and I think he came from a family who had become shopkeepers....after moving to Smyrna....so really he was from a new merchant class...but he probably did SEE how well other Greeks in the diaspora...did...in the shipping business...and then he did marry a shipping heiress! His initial merhcandise was tobacco. So that Anatolian part...really explains why he had that "look"! Obviously...he wanted to "marry well" as well...so he turned to shipping! (Just kidding)!

Regarding the earlier posting...I think you presumed that I was implying that somehow...the indigenous population would have been "inferior" to the Hellenes...and that somehow...I was going down that road. Not at all. In fact...great things happen...exactly at the crossroads of peoples and cultures...so maybe...it's exactly that mix...as well as other circumstances that made the ancient Greeks so great (If genes alone matter...then....well...what went wrong...since then). The same can be said about many other cultures and civilizations...there is always a potential Hitler and Archimedes...among all of us. As far as democracy goes...well...it's a very fragile thing. Look at France and le Pen. The US and Bush. Germany and Hitler. Well...what can I say. Shit happens. Tito was a great dictator (for a dictator). Milosevic kept getting reelected...and yet he not only destroyed Yugoslavia...with his nationalist BS. He launched himself as the Serbs' saviour...but is directly responsible for the disappearance of the same Serbs (from many parts of former YU) that he claimed to be protecting.

So how do we exercise the best of democracy.....yet disallow such non-democartic tyrants and demagogues access to democracy. For every so-so dictator like Tito and Assad...there are 10 blood thirsty tyrants...lined up to suck our blood....and the scariest part is that manage to get there through the "democratic process"! Gospe 16:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

When I was young, I had the idea of righting a book about intellicracy. I had defined the term as "the democracy where each vote's weight is proportional to the IQ of the voter". :-) So if your IQ was -say- 160, and mine was 80, your vote would have double weight than mine. I'm sure the intelligent Serbs foresaw the gaffes of Milosevic, as well as the intelligent part of the Germans foresaw Hitler's, or the intelligent part of the Americans sees Bush's...

The problem is that it's all too bureaucratic, and can be messed with substantially. So I had also devised the concept of electronic open intellicracy. "Electronic" because our IQ would be measured in PCs every now and then, and our votes would be registered in PCs; and "open" because the vote would not be confidential, it would be published for all to see and confirm it in a list. The latter would disallow any poll-fixing attempt, and would also help in discouraging votes for which one may be "ashamed" to cast. Of course, there would be special restrictions for any government elected to e.g. hire people proportionately from each party voted in the last poll. Maybe utter party-zation of our democratic lives would be better after all. Of course, as I said, I was young... Niko Silver 08:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well...the scariest part is that a lot of these people with high IQ's aren't "democrats" at all. If I take my ancestral town as an example...the biggest warmongers were the most prominent, the educated....who then "convinced" the frustrated and the marginalized to join them..and ..."go..get'em"! A high IQ is no reflection of ethics, morals, character, mental health. Also...we humans aren't necessarily rational. We SEE no God...and YET we BELIEVE in God. That's the only way I can justify all the irrational war propaganda that went in Bosnia...and how a more developed, advanced coutry like Germany....could have been 'fooled" by Hitler.

I mean...you take someone like my mother, who spends most of her time on nudist beaches near her Adriatic Sea beach house...with a name like Fatima...in Karadzic's war machine...she is another potential memeber of Al Qaeda...."threatening Europe on Serbs' ancestral land"! I'll give you countless examples of totally irrational behaviour. My grade school buddy is a sad case in point. We all went to school from grade 1...onto university (I left earlier as I moved..but I had strong ties to the town)! He married a "Moslem"....grew up with "Moslems"...in a formally atheist state.......yet became a Serb "Voivoda"...War lord...who most likely participated in "cleansing" his own neighbourhood of his own neighbours. How rational is that? Of course...there was war booty for the most eager and ruthless: good..well located houses, land, furniture, jewelry, businesses, cash etc. And I should add...there is no long history of Serbs in my town...so unlike the Greeks in Smyrna who fought the Turks with some genuine historical legitimacy...we have no millenial Serb hisotry..in our neck of the woods. NO PROBLEM! That can be "created" too. The propaganda machines can convince us of anyhing...as being "right"!

Democracy is desirable...of course..but Macchiavelli was right too. We like to think we're democrats...but very often we're ALSO Machiavellian!Gospe 13:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] But I take the cake

So, keeping the whole tangled history of many Western European countries mentioned here in mind...

You have four main branches, one for each of your grandparents. So, for half of one branch are people from country A, one of those confused Western ones, who may have intermarried with nearby country B. For the other half, the people were from country C, but they lived across a stretch of water in country D. Both halves came to the United States, which is alphabet soup by its very definition, 10+ generations ago, intermarrying with people who emigrated from any number of other countries, before finally marrying each other.

Then a second branch, only three generations back, came from country E, completely on the other side of Europe. However, they were actually from country F and moved for some reason, even farther away from E than D is from C. Various official documents, however, say they are actually from G. Some time after that move, WWII came, and they were recruited to the armies of E, F, H, and I, at which point they fled to the States, where their son married the first branch. Throughout it all, the son was the only one to learn/speak English, the others all spoke relatively uncorrupted language F.

And then there are the third and fourth branches, which include people from countries J, K, L, and who knows how many others, who emigrated at varying times, providing for even more country/ethnicity mixing.

By now, the genealogy, the traditions, everything, is so jumbled that no one can tell what is from where, or even which branch. Those parts which aren't quite assimilated and are still unusual around here are so distorted that they are very very rarely recognizable in any of the possible countries of origin. And roots? What are they? As far as any sort of allegiance is concerned, none of them provide more than entertaining confusion. Though on the upside, it's made me want to learn about all the various original cultures, instead. Valuing differences and all that. -Bbik 06:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Quoted from above, emphasis and comments added now:

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 [rings any bell?]. 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 [see Hellenic Empire, Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, Ottoman Empire to name a few]. 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 [China starts from C], or B-communities [Blacks start from B], or G [Greeks start form F for Filthy Greeks :-)] and J-lobbys [we don't mention these], 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.

Oh, but of course, the impact is yet another invention of the oldest casserole [Europe]! Apart from the unilaterally created multi-soups [US], we have the voluntarily created multi-soups [EU]. The latter, keep those different letters within different segments [nations] of the big soups [Union], 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)

Who knows... Niko Silver 18:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I saw that up there. Interesting way of putting it together, too. Makes a lot of sense, but I doubt I ever would have thought of it that way. And if it does work out, and spread... maybe we'll manage to avoid having a WWIII after all? -Bbik 05:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's all WP:OR for now, but it sounds logical. I'm afraid that avoiding WWIII is much more complex than even an American's genealogy tree! Such conflicts happen usually when there are rapid technological shifts that alter significantly the economic flow (one of the factors). I wonder what will happen when the contemporary wide-spread (and fiercely fought upon) energy source is substituted by simple water, or when the traditional expensive workforce is substituted by inexpensive biological robots... Niko Silver 10:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)