The text depicted is disingenuous. What does it mean to be "a people" vs "a tribe" or "a race".
Ultimately, due to the nature of historical cultural isolation, take any small locality anywhere and its people are likely to be more genetically related to each other than they would be to people from further off. You could call this a "tribe" or "ethnicity" or any word you want, but the truth is the same.
As you zoom out, the same truth remains but for larger geographic regions. While two Frenchmen are likely to be more related to each other than a random German, all three are closer related to each other than to a random afghan or Chinese person.
And due to cultural isolation the genetic distance would also strongly correlate to cultural distance as well. This is not even accounting for how culture can shape genetics, like how the Samoan beauty standard preferring large size literally breeds giants.
Ergo the distinction between these terms of "tribe", " ethnicity" are not a distinction of kind but of scope and scale. The only exception to this is the term "race" which is so broad as to be entirely genetic, which we would be able to tell at first contact if a child of one race was somehow raised entirely within a community of a different race (ex: a black child adopted into a white homogenous community). The community might see the genetically distinct person as one of their own, part of the community, etc, but it would still be visibly obvious to everyone that that person is NOT the same as everyone else in several ways.
This last example is only that painfully obvious when the genetic difference is large and visible. Most american whites are blissfully unaware of how many German-Americans exist because most can't even tell the difference. This is why Europe-only migration produced assimilation rates higher than those of today (though 1900s assimilation success is still very much overstated to support the open borders agenda).
#politics #immigration #race #culture #anthropology #demographics
View quoted note →