LL-L 'Genetics' 2006.07.19 (03) [E]

Wed Jul 19 22:05:04 UTC 2006

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.net
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
text from the same account to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or
sign off at http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West) Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

L O W L A N D S - L * 19 July 2006 * Volume 03
======================================================================

From: Obiter Dictum <obiterdictum at mail.ru>
Subject: LL-L 'Genetics' 2006.07.19 (01) [E]

Hi Ron,

Why, it sounds like Anlo-Saxons just _literally_ *out-bred* Britons. Ð’Ñ‹Ð²ÐµÐ»Ð¸
(vyvely) them like pests (= outmarried, outborn, outnumbered and finally crouded
out). Ne?

This --
"The native Britons were genetically and culturally absorbed by the Anglo-Saxons
over a period of as little as a few hundred years," Dr Thomas added.
-- sounds like the guy wants to be politically correct. What they "absorbed"
"genetically" (by restricting intermarriage)--

"We believe that they also prevented the native British genes getting into the
Anglo-Saxon population by restricting intermarriage in a system of apartheid that
left the country culturally and genetically Germanised.

-- seems actually to be the dwinglig Britons'eschated (vacant) land. I noted the
repeated use of the words "advantage/disadvantage," such as:

"An initially small invading Anglo-Saxon elite could have quickly established
themselves by having more children who survived to adulthood, thanks to their
military power and economic advantage.

Someting similar but more recent (as well as older) comes to mind, but I can't
pin it down.

Groete
Vlad Lee 

----------

From: 'Roger Thijs, Euro-Support, Inc.' <roger.thijs at euro-support.be>
Subject: LL-L 'Genetics' 2006.07.19 (02) [E]

> > From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Genetics
> >
>. I thought the latest
> idea was that the population remained pretty much the same and that the
existing
> population simply took on the groovy new fashions and languages of their
> conquerors from Germany. This new idea seems to be taking us back towards
the
> 1950s, although without the overtones of racial superiority as yet.

I saw a scientific program on Flemish TV (Canvas) this Monday evening, in
which it was stated that the Anglo-Saxons forbidded Celtic males to have
sex.
As a result in the East of the UK one has:
- less "Celtic" Y-chromosome (male) in cells
- but quite some "Celtic" mtDNA (mytochondrial DNA), transmitted through
females.

Retracing the name of the program from Monday Newspapers:
Canvas 23.10 hrs: "De Barbaren komen"
4 of 4 "De geboorte van Europa".
I thought it was a BBC program,
but I see in "De Standaard" the original is called "Sturm Ã¼ber Europa".

I don't know whether it is beginning senility, but I often cannot remember
in what language a conversation has been held or what the original language
of a program was.

BTW I have some doubts about DNA analyses.
I have spent a significant amount of money for having genetical test done
both in Oxford as also in Texas.
I got significant differences in the results (e.g. in the number of repeats
for SYS389i).
On a complaint Texas (FamilitreeDNA) does not answer, Oxford (Oxford
Ancestors) states, quote: "I am afraid that we do not add results from other
companies to our database, nor do we undertake to verify them."
So for being sure, one's DNA should be tested at least in three mutually
independent labs.

Regards,
Roger

----------

From: Sandy Fleming <sandy at scotstext.org>
Subject: LL-L 'Genetics' 2006.07.19 (02) [E]

>From: Clarkedavid8 at aol.com
>Subject: LL-L 'Genetics' 2006.07.19 (01) [E]
>
>The comparison with Apartheid in South Africa does seem rather confused. The
>long-term future of Afrikaner culture in South Africa seems doubtful and most of
>the population in SA are surely not of Afrikaner stock?
>
I just assumed that the "apartheid" label was media sensationalism and
ignored it. I think the new and significant thing is the genetics, which
seems to be saying that the English gene pool is more Germanic than you
might expect.

Sandy Fleming
http://scotstext.org/

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Genetics

Like Sandy, I "ignored" the "apartheid" bit as media sensationalism.  I have come
to expect that sort of thing, even from the BBC, the ABC (Australia) and the US
NPR, all of which tend to be a cut or two above the rest.

Besides, I am quite tired of the bandying about of the word "apartheid."  Not
only is it not accurate in non-South-African contexts (the real apartheid was a
very intricate, specific system of which the "Immorality Act" (Afrikaans
_Immoraliteitswette_, referring to sexual "racial" segregation) was only one
part, albeit a much emphasized one outside SA.  In that limited sense,
"apartheid" would be pretty much synonymous with the "miscegenation laws" of
20th-century American segregationism, or the Nuremberg laws of Nazi Germany.  Why
not just call it "segregation" or "segregationism" to keep it more neutral, less
loaded, less pointed, given that this general phenomenon was not specific to
South Africa?  OK, so it's within living memory of most of us, and that's why
people throw it around.  But it's not the only or latest case.  Segrationism is
still going on, such as in Manama (Bahrain), in Fiji and in Malaysia, and recent
attempts to segregate Roma from non-Roma in the Czech Republic.  However, most
people aren't aware of such cases, and that's the sad part, just as sad as the
flippant, unthinking use of the buzz word "apartheid" which in my opinion takes
away from the gravity of the real apartheid era.

Ffff ... OK, that rant out of the way ... 

I agree that DNA research is on the edge of touching sensitive spots, given that
most people (sadly) still think in terms of "race" when they deal with this sort
of thing (although DNA research does not inherently have anything to do with it
or ought to dispell the notion of "race").  At this point I would neither
overestimate nor underestimate the value of DNA research.  It can be very
interesting, such as when compared with linguistic data, but I don't think it's
the be-all and end-all.  Moreover, data sets are open to interpretation, and
unfortunately many people "massage" data and jump to conclusions.  This may very
well be the case here too.  In what way do the DNA data of Britain suggest (leave
alone prove) "apartheid"?  If there was indeed segregation, it may not have been
a matter of official or even conscious segregation.  It may well be that Celtic
people tended to live apart from Germanic people, perhaps by choice.  This could
have had cultural and religious reasons as well.  It may not necessarily have
come from "above," from the Germanic-speaking people; it could have been a choice
exercised by a large proportion of Celts themselves, who resented the invaders,
their culture and their values.  Yes, it's quite likely that Celts were robbed of
their lands, hunting grounds, fishing spots, and the like, and this may have led
to economic suffering and starvation, thus lower birth rates.  And then there's
the demoralization aspect of colonized peoples.  We've seen all this since, such
as with indigenous populations of the Americas and Australia.

It would be interesting to see the results of a similar study conducted in
Northern Germany, comparing the data from close to the Netherlands border with
those close to the Polish border, given that some believe that Slavs in the
eastern regions were decimated and others believe they were absorbed.  But could
the average North German handle this?  It's very sensitive, in part because it is
reminiscent of cruder and more "massaged" ... uh ... "studies" conducted by
Hitler's ... uh ... "scientists."  We know that in medieval times Germans and
Slavs lived in separate, though adjoining settlements, but we also know of a lot
of intermarriage in other areas, and there is proof of cultural and linguistic
mixing.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

==============================END===================================
* Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
* Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
  to be sent to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or at
  http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
======================================================================