• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.

Race Fraud

bluesjnr said:
I was born in Scotland, as were all my siblings, I've lived here all my life apart from a few years working abroad, I wouldn't live anywhere else. When you hear me speak you'd identify me as Scottish, I'm culturally ensconced in everything Scottish. I'm Scottish.

My mother was Irish and my father is English.

I agree with you.
Click to expand...


Totally. My boring Ancestry results don't make me any more Scottish than you. I've probably worked out of Scotland for longer than you have.
 
Edited by sarge: 
removed moderated content


Identifying as an ethnicity other than one's own is already not classified as a disorder or the product of a disorder. There is a phrase 'ethnic identity disorder' but it is urban slang, not an actual diagnosis.

Reality exists independently of social constructs, the nature of reality is not determined by psychiatric and medical organisations, and the idea that beliefs and mental states are either disorders or products of disorders, or else 'valid' and therefore have to be treated as literally true (LondonJohn's made up 'theory'), is arrant nonsense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rolfe said:
I did an Ancestry test a couple of years ago. They revise their estimates slightly from time to time but I'm currently standing at 98% Scottish, 1% Irish and 1% Basque. The Basque part has only just appeared and I'm doubtful. Basically boring as hell and I was really hoping for something interesting, too.
Click to expand...

My understanding of the way these percentages are calculated is that the company providing the service compares certain sequences of your DNA with those of the other people whose DNA they have on file. They then look at where those people are located, and use that as the possible locations for your ancestors. We don't have databases showing the DNA from different populations by location and date through history, which is what you'd need to actually do what is being claimed.

This is of course very approximate, and depends on the database they are working from. For a start, it's going to be a self-selecting group of those willing to pay for the service. Their current location may be unrelated to where their ancestors lived. You may well get different results from different DNA analysis companies as they will be working from different databases, and even different results from the same company at a later date as their data is updated.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
My understanding of the way these percentages are calculated is that the company providing the service compares certain sequences of your DNA with those of the other people whose DNA they have on file. They then look at where those people are located, and use that as the possible locations for your ancestors. We don't have databases showing the DNA from different populations by location and date through history, which is what you'd need to actually do what is being claimed.

This is of course very approximate, and depends on the database they are working from. For a start, it's going to be a self-selecting group of those willing to pay for the service. Their current location may be unrelated to where their ancestors lived. You may well get different results from different DNA analysis companies as they will be working from different databases, and even different results from the same company at a later date as their data is updated.
Click to expand...


Yes, my feeling is they're looking about 200 years back or thereabouts. Beyond that, all bets are off. We know our lot traipsed here from the near east through central Europe a couple of millennia ago, there are place names and so on to prove it. (Intrigued to discover on holiday this summer that the River Inn in Austria is probably another River Avon - from abhainn, river, but passaged through Latin on the way.)

Still, it was noticeable that not only did they get the country right, the locality they homed in on included both the village where I was born and brought up and the one where I live now.
 
zooterkin said:
My understanding of the way these percentages are calculated is that the company providing the service compares certain sequences of your DNA with those of the other people whose DNA they have on file.
Click to expand...
This is correct, but they have deliberately oversampled people who likely represent ancient indigenous stock on any given continent. Here are some of the specific populations often used to determine Native American ancestry, for example: Figure 2

That's from the link labeled "DNA" in the OP, which has a good discussion of some technical details re: Liz Warren.
 
Last edited:
bluesjnr said:
I was born in Scotland, as were all my siblings, I've lived here all my life apart from a few years working abroad, I wouldn't live anywhere else. When you hear me speak you'd identify me as Scottish, I'm culturally ensconced in everything Scottish. I'm Scottish.

My mother was Irish and my father is English.

I agree with you.
Click to expand...

My entire family on both sides are within 2 generations back in Wales, in two villages next-door to each other and all share the same surname.... yeah obviously a limited gene pool - some of my great aunts and uncles were born in Wales. But I would never consider describing myself as Welsh, it just wouldn't make any sense to me, I was born in England and raised (mostly) in England so I'm English or British. Mind you I was brought up to think that I was "born and bred" a Geordie even though we left the NE when I was 6. Even when that comes come up I would say something more like "I am a Geordie by birth" as I can't really claim an "identity" as a Geordie.
 
I read Ancestry's criteria for identifying individuals they would sample as representative of the indigenous population of a region, and in fact I would qualify for that sample pool if they needed more Scottish people for their statistics. So it's probably no great surprise that I came out 98% Scottish on their system.
 
LondonJohn said:
Sorry - I was wong, and I was imprecise in my presentation. Clearly when a) there have been huge social, societal and (sometimes) personal-jeopardy-related disadvantages to being black in white America, and b) a mixed-race person was/is of sufficiently light skin to conceivably pass as white.... then there was/is an obvious incentive to present as white. But I'd classify that as a very different mechanism than applies to white people choosing to pass as non-white.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it's the exact same mechanism: Exploitation of perceived advantage.
 
But it's a whole 'nuther thing. . .real fraud. . .if pretend to be part of a group that gets a benefit, say a Native American tribe, when in fact you are not part of that group.

Another example would be an actor pretending to be of a race or ethnicity a movie director was requiring for a role in order to ensure his/her notion of authenticity.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
*ensure
Click to expand...

My bade. Idit made.

Alone these lines I have a muslim friend who swears to high heaven (can muslims do that?) that Salma Hayek has strong muslim roots and has long covered them up to get ahead in Hollywood.

That would be reverse fraud, if true.
 
It's the same fraud whichever way it's done. "Passing" as white is the situation that has the pedigree.
 
arayder said:
But it's a whole 'nuther thing. . .real fraud. . .if pretend to be part of a group that gets a benefit, say a Native American tribe, when in fact you are part of that group.
Click to expand...
Did you leave out a negation here?

Rolfe said:
It's the same fraud whichever way it's done.
Click to expand...
I'd say there is some asymmetry here, on account of the ridiculous one drop ruleWP.

Homer Plessy didn't merely "pass" as white, the dude was literally ⅞ European American by ancestry. The idea that the remaining ⅛ determined his "race" was an exceptionally stupid social construct.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Did you leave out a negation here?
Click to expand...

Yes, I did. Should read: "But it's a whole 'nuther thing. . .real fraud. . .if pretend to be part of a group that gets a benefit, say a Native American tribe, when in fact you are not part of that group."

Thanks!
 
d4m10n said:
I'd say there is some asymmetry here, on account of the ridiculous one drop ruleWP.

Homer Plessy didn't merely "pass" as white, the dude was literally ⅞ European American by ancestry. The idea that the remaining ⅛ determined his "race" was an exceptionally stupid social construct.
Click to expand...


In that respect, I'd say you're right.

Why is Barack Obama always referred to as black anyway?
 
Matthew Best said:
Claiming another race here, are we?
Click to expand...
I think of Benedict Wong as British, but on screen he's something else.

Rolfe said:
Why is Barack Obama always referred to as black anyway?
Click to expand...
Because Americans have really weird ideas about "race," which was never really a scientifically valid idea in the first place. I mean, yeah, people can usually pattern match to make a decent guess as to where *most* of someone's ancestors were living around 500 years ago, rounding to the nearest continent. That doesn't mean the "five races" are actually a natural category which can be extracted from a genetic dataset.

So it's a social category, and "black" has been socially constructed to include basically everyone who can be read as having a bit of detectable African ancestry. This opens the door to some serious weirdness, like Dolezal (100% Euro, passing as black) or Plessy (87.5% Euro, legally black) or Obama (50% Euro, universally considered black). It's all just a stupid mess, and we should probably go w/ upbringing instead of anything else.
 
Last edited:
arayder said:
Yes, I did. Should read: "But it's a whole 'nuther thing. . .real fraud. . .if pretend to be part of a group that gets a benefit, say a Native American tribe, when in fact you are not part of that group."

Thanks!
Click to expand...


Someone pretending to be something that they actually are would be fiendishly sneaky, though.

Lambert Simnel (the Young Pretender) was really (probably) himself, but cleverly pretended to be the Earl of Warbeck. Henry VII therefore ordered him to be led through the streets of London to prove that he really was.

Perkin Warbeck (the Older and more confusing Pretender) insisted that he was himself, thus causing complete dissention till Henry VII had him led through the streets of London to prove that he was really Lambert Simnel.
Click to expand...

Sellar, W. C. and Yeatman, R. J. (1930). 1066 And All That. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Did you leave out a negation here?

I'd say there is some asymmetry here, on account of the ridiculous one drop ruleWP.

Homer Plessy didn't merely "pass" as white, the dude was literally ⅞ European American by ancestry. The idea that the remaining ⅛ determined his "race" was an exceptionally stupid social construct.
Click to expand...


Race is a social construct.
 
d4m10n said:
Because Americans have really weird ideas about "race," which was never really a scientifically valid idea in the first place. I mean, yeah, people can usually pattern match to make a decent guess as to where *most* of someone's ancestors were living around 500 years ago, rounding to the nearest continent. That doesn't mean the "five races" are actually a natural category which can be extracted from a genetic dataset.

So it's a social category, and "black" has been socially constructed to include basically everyone who can be read as having a bit of detectable African ancestry. This opens the door to some serious weirdness, like Dolezal (100% Euro, passing as black) or Plessy (87.5% Euro, legally black) or Obama (50% Euro, universally considered black). It's all just a stupid mess, and we should probably go w/ upbringing instead of anything else.
Click to expand...

I agree race is socially constructed but I'm a bit curious about "never really a scientifically valid idea". Not scientifically useful? Maybe not much. And though I think 19th century naturalists often had an agenda, it couldn't all be motivated by racism could it? I think craniometrics alone reveals quite a lot about which human populations are closely linked.

Dolezal is interesting she also has peculiar facial features that, with a little makeup, do make her passable as mulatta imo, if a little atypical.
 
Rolfe said:
Why is Barack Obama always referred to as black anyway?
Click to expand...

Comedian Paul Mooney had a bit about how white Americans can't love Obama for being half white, they have to hate him for being half black.
 
porch said:
There is a CBC documentary, came out just last week: The Pretendians https://www.cbc.ca/passionateeye/episodes/the-pretendians

I have yet to check it out. I expect it to cover Indigeneity as related to law and policy, as well as related to cultural cachet, and who gets to define each of those things.
Click to expand...

Might be worth watching, after all, I paid for it.

I just got a letter from my kid's high school inviting him to self identify as indigenous.

An excerpt.

The BC Ministry of Education and Child Care defines Indigenous ancestry as students who identify as First
Nations, Status or Non-status, Métis or Inuit. The BC Ministry of Education and Child Care does not require proof
of ancestry to self-identify. Parents and caregivers of students with Indigenous ancestry may choose to self-identify
on the school registration form under the section Indigenous ancestry or by calling the school to request that they
include this self-identification of Indigenous ancestry on your child’s school registration form. The IED will
connect with your family annually about the opportunities that may be available at your school, in the district and/or
in the community as it relates to Indigenous Education. Participation in these programs, supports and services is
always voluntary.
Click to expand...

What would be the advantage? Why, university entrance of course. As a cishet white boy, he's at the back of the line when it comes to university entrance so what's to lose by mucking about in the identity politics sandbox?

He doesn't even have to let his peers know that he's self ID'd as indigenous, it would just be a checked box on a form.
 
LondonJohn said:
If mainstream psychiatry ever judges that identifying as an ethnicity other than one's ancestral ethnicity is neither a disorder nor the product of a disorder, then it will become "a thing". Until then, no it won't (in spite of your lack of understanding on how this all actually works).
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
Is "identifying as an ethnicity other than one's ancestral ethnicity" currently considered a disorder? Does it appears in the DSM or other references?

LondonJohn said:
Inane, huh? Interesting classification on your part there.
Click to expand...
Yes, inane; "lacking sense or meaning; silly".

LondonJohn said:
Here, for example, is some more "inane theorising", drawing exactly the same parallel. Still, you know what's inane and not inane, so I bow down to your superior judgement....

https://welldoing.org/article/rachel-dolezal-identity
Click to expand...
Oh look, more alleged psychoanalysis without meeting the (alleged) patient. Perhaps the UK should embrace the Goldwater Rule.....
:rolleyes:
 
Stout said:
Might be worth watching, after all, I paid for it.

I just got a letter from my kid's high school inviting him to self identify as indigenous.

An excerpt.



What would be the advantage? Why, university entrance of course. As a cishet white boy, he's at the back of the line when it comes to university entrance so what's to lose by mucking about in the identity politics sandbox?

He doesn't even have to let his peers know that he's self ID'd as indigenous, it would just be a checked box on a form.
Click to expand...

What's an "IED" in this context?

Whatever it is, it seems clear that the authors of the letter believe that increased participation is a higher priority right now than strict gatekeeping. This tells me that either the thing being offered isn't very valuable, or else it incorporates some perverse incentive to unethical behavior.
 
theprestige said:
What's an "IED" in this context?

Whatever it is, it seems clear that the authors of the letter believe that increased participation is a higher priority right now than strict gatekeeping. This tells me that either the thing being offered isn't very valuable, or else it incorporates some perverse incentive to unethical behavior.
Click to expand...


Indigenous Education Department?
 
theprestige said:
What's an "IED" in this context?

Whatever it is, it seems clear that the authors of the letter believe that increased participation is a higher priority right now than strict gatekeeping. This tells me that either the thing being offered isn't very valuable, or else it incorporates some perverse incentive to unethical behavior.
Click to expand...

It's the Indigenous Education Department. I'm not exactly sure what it is but it looks like some sort of steering committee with an aim to increasing Indigenous knowledge and culture into the public school system. As a for instance, students will be required to complete at least two Indigenous specific courses to graduate. We're still in the process of determining whether this will have an impact on a student taking a full academic course load or taking a course load geared towards a specific area of post-secondary study.

No idea why the school board went down the self ID road. We're hoping to find that out soon. I could speculate (increases in funding, "proving" a need for Indigenous content, people hiding Indigenous ancestry for whatever reason) but I don't have anything from the horse's mouth. Yet.

We've got a year before we need to really deal with this. It all depends on the exact path my kid ends up shooting for. Engineering technology at community college followed by a few years working in the field or straight to university for his P.Eng.
 
Wouldn't it take about a minute and a half for universities to spread the word that this identification is bogus, and toss any applicant claiming First Nation membership through them?
 
Thermal said:
Wouldn't it take about a minute and a half for universities to spread the word that this identification is bogus, and toss any applicant claiming First Nation membership through them?
Click to expand...

Maybe, but it would require the university to call the applicant(s) a liar to their face(s) and should someone come back with a DNA test proving their claim then it could be rather embarrassing.
 
Thermal said:
Wouldn't it take about a minute and a half for universities to spread the word that this identification is bogus, and toss any applicant claiming First Nation membership through them?
Click to expand...

Rather than tossing the application, they'd probably just not give any weight to that particular bullet point.
 
Stout said:
No idea why the school board went down the self ID road. We're hoping to find that out soon. I could speculate (increases in funding, "proving" a need for Indigenous content, people hiding Indigenous ancestry for whatever reason) but I don't have anything from the horse's mouth.
Click to expand...
Here in Oklahoma, each federally recognized tribe has their own process and ancestral requirements for "enrollment" therein. My kids are descended from Miami and Delaware tribesmen, but only enrolled in the latter tribe because that is the tribe that their documented ancestress was in on the Dawes RollsWP. (It's actually somewhat more complicated than that, but I'm going for the short version here.)

My question is this: Don't you folks have any sort of system like this up in the great white north?
 
Last edited:
Stout said:
Maybe, but it would require the university to call the applicant(s) a liar to their face(s) and should someone come back with a DNA test proving their claim then it could be rather embarrassing.
Click to expand...


Even a DNA test could be misleading. I think someone with one great grandparent of the ethnicity in question might not actually have any of that DNA but still be legitimately descended from the ethnic group.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom