I have to agree as well.

Where we are from is where we were born, grew, were educated, shared, and played with as children. Where we are from has little to do with what preceded our existence.

Yes, genetics determines health, skin color, and ancestry. But these are so important and significant only to the most biased - who must make judgments based primarily on first impressions. Judging one based upon first impressions is also called racism.

Those genetic factors do contribute. But by far, we are mostly from where we came from which means mostly what occurs after birth.

Only reason that genetics are important: too many people are so racist as to judge only based upon first impressions. Those who judge us based upon who we are need no genetic information to know. Judgments based significantly on genetic information is just another way of judging only based upon first impressions - a concept we often call racism and a major source of unjustified hate.

Yes, if you live in a world where being a rag head, spic, wop, or gook means you cannot be trusted, then you live in a world of racists. Then genetics are imperative to who you are.

You do know you are talking to an historian right?

I think it's important to know who your ancestors are - so you get their stuff when they die.

We discussed this almost a decade ago. History is not unique to any one race (and definitively not unique to genetics). Greek history is the history of all mankind. Chinese history is the history of all mankind. We all inherit our common history.

What makes a person is not the history of his ancestors. What makes a person is how he learns from history of all previous peoples. But what more makes a person (assuming the bias called first impression or racism is universally condemned) are what he learns from his childhood, neighborhoods, education, and social experiences.

Ever meet a Korean girl who speaks with a heavy southern accent?

Genetics only most significant to a person when our peers are racist - also known as judgments based upon first impressions.

Apparently you have a point. Obviously, I am having difficulty grasping what that point is.

an historian> does that have something to do with your uterus?

I totally disagree with most of this statement.

Where my parents came from and the things that influenced their lives had a great influence on mine. They became the parents they were because of their social, emotional and economic circumstances during childhood right up to the time of my birth and beyond which of course affected how they parented me and what sort of examples they set for me as a child.

The same can be said of their parents and their parents parents ad nauseum, so yes, what happened to my ancestors does have a direct effect on who I am today, without one shadow of a doubt in my mind.

@ Lj: nah that'd be an hysterian:P


tw: I agree with this "History is not unique to any one race (and definitively not unique to genetics). Greek history is the history of all mankind. Chinese history is the history of all mankind. We all inherit our common history." But that doesn't contradict my point. Our individual inheritances and stories are that shared history. To understand the past is to understand much about ourselves. To understand how we came about is to understand much about our past.

At a more visceral level, i want to know the story. My story, yes, but more importantly their stories. Each strand of that ancestry, affords me a direct share in those individual (and yet universal)stories.

I agree with this as well, but alas I believe the English erased it. :p

In America and in today's world it should mean nothing. It carries very little weight with me, other than a personal historical significance. We all have a history attached to our genes. I am fasinated by it, for myself, and for my own personal interest. But I do not buy into an idea that it should continue as some social construct to be passed from generation to generation as a burden or a guilt that is held up at every conflict between those of unlike genetic history.

Are we talking about culture or actual genetics?

For me, both. DNA research is a growing and important part of historical study.

Are they ever that far apart? Other than the adopted child thrust into another culture.

Why do we not teach Chinese history in public schools? We need the inspiration of their ancestry simply because we do not bother to teach it to students. To me, that is bias that denies so many students (of all genetics) 'their' history.

Why would a member of another race be able to provide you with that historical insight? Because they learned (after birth and not due to genetics) their history and culture.

But again, a Korean teenager who speaks with a southern accent. Why? She is a product of what was learned and experienced AFTER birth. Her genetics did little to make her what she is - except when someone judges her by her Asian characteristics - also called racism. Her genetics did not teach her Korean history and culture.

I can appreciate wanting to learn history of your unique ancestors. But that ancestry only provided some of your genetic uniqueness. It does provide an interesting story. But it defines little of who you are.

If a Chinaman born in the United States, then do you speak Mandarin or know who the Emperor Chu was? Genetics did not define that knowledge; define the man.

The Apple, Dell, or HP computer all have different genetics. And yet the computer is still defined by the environment (domain) that I access. Those genetics do not change the most signficant factor - The Cellar.

Ancestry defines much in my opinion, if it is something that has been a part of your upbringing. By which I mean the story of your ancestry. It all depends how much you associate in to that story. I personally associate in very strongly. It matters to me what strands there are to my ancestry and what branches to my family tree.