• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Anthropology or Genealogy?

#1
After a rather heated "debate" the other night, and me not being here to argue further, I have to now post this to check and ask the following.


Scenario

I claim, my DIRECT family line, dating back to 1604, only requires the following people to be, A DIRECT FAMILY LINE.

(Actual dates are not important, just the numbers of people in this case)
The letter G, will be used to save me typing "Great" as will the family name of Smith be used for persec :)

1604 GGGGGGGGGG Grandad Smith???
1634 GGGGGGGGG Grandad Smith
1664 GGGGGGGG Grandad Smith
1694 GGGGGGG Grandad smith
1724 GGGGGG Grandad Smith
1754 GGGGG Grandad Smith
1784 GGGG Grandad Smith
1814 GGG Grandad Smith
1844 GG Grandad Smith
1874 G Grandad Smith
1904 Grandad Smith
1934 Dad
1964 ME


Now, in my actual case, there are 14 people in that line, but for ease of numbers and dates, I have rounded up for 30 years per parent.
Also, given that a DIRECT family line is passed down from father to son, (ie the family name etc) I think, that from me up to my Great x 10 Grandfather, this is the correct DIRECT family line.

I know that there are also wives of involved, and parents of the wives to be considered, but, the DIRECT family line is that of father to son.

So I argue, that the DIRECT family line is as above, and not as the "Anthropology degree mouth" suggest, a DIRECT family line for me, involves over 2000 or 20000 people, I forget what he said as he got boring.


Although, I personally think he is mixing his degree with one in Genealogy, which is more the family line thing rather than a degree about humanity, or am I reading the term Anthropology wrong too?



Anyone who does not have an anthropology degree but a common sense brain care to explain what is what and who is correct?
 
#5
Hi Gren. You were arguing that you were pure English because all your direct family were English. The anthropologists were arguing that you can't just look at the male line because one of them could have married a woman who was not pure English which would 'taint' you line below that point with genes from a non-English person. Therefore, their argument was that to claim you're pure English you'd have to prove that all your ancestors on both sides were pure English as well because their DNA will have entered your blood line. I got a bit boggled by the number of ancestors quoted but I'm not qualified to dispute it.
So, in essence you are right about your direct male line being not that many people but you can't use that to claim purity because you'd have to prove that all your male ancestors were racially 'pure' which would mean investigating each one, both their parents and all four grandparents at least for each wife.
My brain now hurts ;)
 
#7
Markintime said:
Hi Gren. You were arguing that you were pure English because all your direct family were English. The anthropologists were arguing that you can't just look at the male line because one of them could have married a woman who was not pure English which would 'taint' you line below that point with genes from a non-English person. Therefore, their argument was that to claim you're pure English you'd have to prove that all your ancestors on both sides were pure English as well because their DNA will have entered your blood line. I got a bit boggled by the number of ancestors quoted but I'm not qualified to dispute it.
So, in essence you are right about your direct male line being not that many people but you can't use that to claim purity because you'd have to prove that all your male ancestors were racially 'pure' which would mean investigating each one, both their parents and all four grandparents at least for each wife.
My brain now hurts ;)
Which answers my main question anyway, cheers MIT, I do know all the female side of this "Main" line are born and bred here too, but as to colour, I am only assuming they are white, but given their names and location, and the fact there are no other colours in any of my family lines (so far), assume is all I can do.

I was more concerned about the figures the Degree guy quoted tbh., as I did argue "Direct" family line, not indirect to him.
 
#8
Unless your dad, grandads, great-grandads, etc. were secretly hermaphrodites, you've inherited genes from your mother, grandmothers, great-grandmothers, etc. as well. At every point of breeding, new genes were introduced to your line. The point they were making was that you would have to have vetted these as well for racial purity before you could claim racial purity for yourself.

It's a bit like a river: just because you can sail straight from Southend-on-Sea to Thames Head doesn't mean you're only sailing on pure Thames water.
 
#9
smartascarrots said:
Unless your dad, grandads, great-grandads, etc. were secretly hermaphrodites, you've inherited genes from your mother, grandmothers, great-grandmothers, etc. as well. At every point of breeding, new genes were introduced to your line. The point they were making was that you would have to have vetted these as well for racial purity before you could claim racial purity for yourself.

It's a bit like a river: just because you can sail straight from Southend-on-Sea to Thames Head doesn't mean you're only sailing on pure Thames water.
And you again, are ignoring the main argument of, Direct family line, which is the point I actually argued.

I still disagree that the figures of x thousand people are part of it though.
 
#10
Gren said:
Also, given that a DIRECT family line is passed down from father to son, (ie the family name etc) I think, that from me up to my Great x 10 Grandfather, this is the correct DIRECT family line.
While I agree that a family name can be passed down as an unbroken line from father to son, as you pointed out, and other things like specific genetic mutations such as hemophilia can signify lineage, I think that's about all that you can use to "prove" an unbroken lineage, particularly if you're talking about race.

In a relatively homogenous society it's different, but Britain wasn't necessarily that for quite some time, even before your timeline begins. My own background is an example...you can safely presume that, up until the 1600s, every single one of my ancestors on my mother's side of the family was a native Mexican, simply because there was no-one else.

Come the Spanish infiltration, while it is possible that I've got a Spanish ancestor on that side, it is highly unlikely because my mother's family lived in the mountains where the Spaniards had a famously difficult time getting out alive with their own asses intact, never mind subjugating the region enough to intermingle with the women. Successive governments have done battle with this region ever since, and the European influence just never got to the region in any effective way. So I can base my guess on history that my biological mother is, as alleged, a 100% "pure" Mexican Indian. It was certainly a point of pride. But I can't prove it because I simply don't know enough about who else was involved.

So if you're talking about race, or anything other than a name or a traceable trait, I believe that you have to figure in 2,000 or so sets of parents that may make up the genetic matrix, or at least not ignore them.
 
#11
Gren said:
And you again, are ignoring the main argument of, Direct family line, which is the point I actually argued.
Nobody's ignoring your argument, we're just trying to point out that it doesn't support the point you were making. Even if your direct family line were genetically screened for racial purity every five minutes of their lives, if one of the people they bred with had the darkie gene then you have it too.

You were trying to claim a superior spread of rights as a result of pure-blood descendancy. Everyone else was pointing out that to establish you were entitled, you would need to be able to prove all of your ancestors were of that ilk and not just a carefully-selected handful. A drop of ink on a bucket of water, etc.
 
#13
To what the above have said, I can only add, indeed.

If you look at the SS, to whom these things mattered (and that's not entirely a comment on the intellectual company you keep), then they had to prove unbroken Nordic descent back to the 1750s on both sides: just in case the Aryan supermen of pure Germanic surnames had a tendency to marry surreptitious wog ladies.

As said earlier, surnames are no guide to descent or lineage. They're a cultural, rather than biological, marker. This was clearly explained in the thread to which you refer. Even assuming the Grens of years past didn't like a bit of Nando's sauce in the ancestral melting pot, analysis of genetic profiles vis-a-vis surnames shows (I think) a sum illegitimacy/adoption rate of 50% over a 400-500 year period, even for rare, Royston Vasey-ish surnames.

Furthermore: Norfolk saw immense immigration from the Low Countries (ie both Dutch and French Walloon) in the early modern period: http://www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/immig_emig/england/norfolk/article_2.shtml

You don't know that your female ancestors weren't immigrant cheesewogs. If that doesn't bother you or alter your argument because they're sufficiently white, then I suggest that's something you need to mull over in a quiet place somewhere.

Edit: To give yet another example, Bob Marley could claim unbroken patrilineal descent from rural Sussex (Google it). This didn't make him a honkey...
 
#16
If you trace your lineage even further back you'll probably find you are a direct descendant of 'Lucy' who originated in what is now Ethiopia, which makes you a kaffer.
 

RP578

LE
Book Reviewer
#17
Gren,

When relying on patriarchal lineage it's wise to keep in mind the old Hebrew saying, "Mother sure, father unsure".


sunami said:
If you trace your lineage even further back you'll probably find you are a direct descendant of 'Lucy' who originated in what is now Ethiopia, which makes you a kaffer.
He's an infidel? كافر :D
 
#18
If you read the original post, the words "white", "skin", "racial", "English" or "purity" AREN'T there. So where all this 'Gren is a crypto SS jew baiter type who should pick his friends more carefully' cr@p comes from, I don't know. 'Gren gets drunk too easily and argues about dull things with people he doesn't like", well yes, maybe :soldier:

If someone, let's imagine a Mexican or someone from Norfolk, was curious about his racial make-up, he could have his DNA analysed, which could give an indication of origin of the relative percentages in his genome. It costs money.

For my kids' family tree, I went back 6 generations in every direction from them. That's 56 names (including the 2 who didn't leave their names in the morning, or at least not on the birth register). Double that for every generation, that's 892 for 10 generations, or 14,336 for 14 generations. That's how many people who were around in 1604-ish, and who made some contribution to your DNA. Assuming that none of them was related in any way, to put it in context, that's around 3 times the population of Nottingham at the time. Your current personality probably owes more to your first platoon sergeant than it does to any one of those people.

As far as a definition of DIRECT goes, then you and your GGGGGGGGGG Grandad Smith (1604) share the same Y chromosome, which apparently is quite well conserved from one generation to the next. Similarly your GGGGGGGGGG Grandma O'Reilly (or whatever she was called) (1606) carried the same mitochondrial DNA as you do. From memory there are only around 10 (ish) distinct sets of human mitochondrial DNA; i.e. every human on Earth is descended from one of 10 females who were alive way back when.

Apparently, if ALL your grandparents came from the same area/village, then it's highly likely that's where all your family came from, back to the Ice Age. As you know the names of all these people, you probably know where they were baptised, which will tell you exactly how 'local' you are. For illustration, of the 28 on my half of the family tree, one was from Yorkshire, one was from Wales, one was from Ireland and one was unknown. The remaining 24 were from East Lancashire. THAT'S local :oops:
 

Latest Threads