Homogeneous Vs. Heterogeneous Ancestry

[A Link In Time]

This is a topic I've long pondered over and I'd like to hear what thoughts my fellow forumers possess on the subject. Personally, there are certain gains and faults in having cultural roots from one given area versus multiple heritages. That said, one's ethnicity never defines individual merit. Regardless, it's worth considering the ramifications of varying precursors.

On the homogeneous side, a greater preserving of tradition and cultural values exists because there is no conflict in parental rearing. This also inspires patriotic feelings and a greater conviction towards a specific group of people. Conversely, heterogeneous ancestry brings with it a rich variety of cultural traditions and the ability to work with diverse groups of people. This especially comes in handy during the present age of globalization wherein the world market is more connected than ever before and the failure of one country's economy influences the state of adjacent ones.

What are your thoughts on the matter? are you of homogeneous or heterogeneous descent? Do you agree or disagree with the points presented in the OP? Are there assets and drawbacks to possessing a certain ethnicity over another? Outline your thoughts below.

 

[:Zelda:Druggie:]

I'd love to contribute, but . . .
Homogeneous, Heterogeneous ? o.o translation please :embarrassed:

 

[A Link In Time]

I'd love to contribute, but . . .
Homogeneous, Heterogeneous ? o.o translation please :embarrassed:

Oh hey, no problem.

Homogeneous refers to having only one ethnicity, for example someone who is 100% Hungarian or 100% Kenyan.

Heterogeneous alludes to those who are of mixed ancestry, take a person who is 60% Irish, 10% Swedish, 10% Norwegian, 10% Dutch, 5% French, and 5% Japanese.

 

[PhantomTriforce]

I am of homogeneous decent, as far as I know. Indian all the way through.

As for my stance, I am totally for heterogeneous ancestry. I think it is cool to have multiple cultures and backgrounds. This opinion is coming from my observations as I have lived in three countries and have visited several more.

 

[RegalBryant]

50% African American, 25% Italian, 12.5% German, 6.25% British, 6.25% Irish. Unfortunately, I have not been able to clearly study the culture of any of these due to the fact the only thing my family passes on is nerdiness. And a love of cannoli.

 

[Batman]

I am 50% Ethiopian, 20% Afro-Samurai, 10% Penguin, 12% Sino-Japanese-Venezuelan, and 8% sexy Hungarian.

 

[Sir Quaffler]

I'm a mutt. I don't have the exact percentages down, but I am mostly of English, German, and Cherokee descent, as well as trace amounts of French, Irish, Blackfoot, and pure crazy. My ancestors came abroad the Mayflower, and my surname originates from Scotland. Yeah, my family tree's all over the place.

So yes, I'm all for heterogeneous. This allows for a far deeper gene pool, which only helps in the genetic traits of a person (probably why most people in my family tree are so smart and healthy.) Also, just from a globalization standpoint, how cool would it be if you had one parent that was American and another that was, say, Japanese? You'd get to learn the cultures and languages of both! That sounds awesome!

 

[Joy]

I'm a little bit of Norwegian, a little bit of German, a lot of Swede and a lot of Scottish.

I think it's great to have different cultures. It opens your mind.

 

[:Zelda:Druggie:]

I get it now ^.^

I am of heterogeneous ancestry, I'm 50% Puerto Rican and 50% white from England.
I PERSONALLY HATE IT.

I want to start by saying of course I'm proud of both of my cultures, but sometimes it's so annoying. I'd love to have one culture to focus on. When people ask, I just tell them "I'm Puerto Rican but my dad's family is from England". I'm born and raised in Puerto Rico and know pretty much nothing about my English heritage. My last name is incredibly white, my skin is pale, and I don't look Puerto Rican at all, however if I talk to you my thick freaking accent will give away my other half xD I really find it conflicting and sometimes I don't know where I fit in in the world. It's so easy to tell people "I'm Puerto Rican", but then I feel as though I'm betraying some of who I am. But I don't really feel English at all. It's just so confusing and annoying. Being homogeneous just seems so much more simple and relaxed and EASIER.
Ah, but what can I do about it, right? xD

My parents have no clue about each others culture which annoys me even more. My dad doesn't understand Puerto Rican culture in the least and all my mom knows about England is it has a queen. -.- So there is definitely conflict in their parenting just from how they were brought up in two completely different worlds.

 

[Seth]

I could care less to be honest.

I have mixed ancestry but I was raised in Florida and am thus a Floridian. Beyond a historical interest in my family, I don't feel any huge attachment to my ancestral origins. It's not something that has any bearings in my life. We are shaped largely by where we were raised, not necessarily where our ancestors generations ago were raised.

 

[Dan]

75% English, 25% German as far as I know. I too would mind knowing more about my origins but it's not like I'm not hooked up on them. I couldn't care for either tbh. It's just a place I was born in. We carry our prisons homes with us.

 

[Wolf Sage]

We are all essentially of the same race - the human race - and the notion of race as we know it today is a social construct, created as a means to oppress and/or gain favor above others in the dog eat dog world of the past. This sentiment is still going strong to this day. However, science has made great strides in research of genetic ancestry. One of such studies includes the notion that there is more genetic diversity among those of the same "race" than there is between those of different "races".

For example, people of African descent (even small percentages) are likely to carry the gene for sickle-cell disease, a condition characterized by red blood cells that take on a rough, sickle-shape; the odd shape of the red blood cells can cause a host of life-threatening complications. The disorder is theorized to have originated from centuries of isolation of Sub-Saharan African tribes from other tribes/ethnicities. The lack of genetic diversity among those tribes increased the likelihood that the gene will be passed on.

The example above is one of many common genetic disorders that are exclusive to a given ethnicity. Those of homogeneous ancestry are highly likely to incur said disorders as opposed to heterogeneous ancestry in which a given race has procured into itself many favorable genetic traits from a variety of different ethnicities. In a nutshell, people of homogeneous ancestry have the highest risk of being born with fatal life threatening genetic disorders/diseases and shorter life expectancy.

One might conclude that a person of heterogeneous ancestry has an equal chance of procuring harmful genetic condittions as a person of homogeneous ancestry. This, unfortunately, is not entirely the case. Homogenous descent suggests a history of inbreeding, which in itself involves the overlapping of the same harmful genes - a trait that heterogeneous ancestry lacks. In those of heterogeneous descent, the chances of gaining favorable genetic traits increases considerably.

I, myself, am of heterogeneous ancestry - Caucasian (French) on my mother's side; Sri Lankan on my dad's side. My mom is French for as far back as my family history dictates, with only a tad of outside influence. My father's ancestors have lived in Sri Lanka for centuries. Although, a small degree of them are of Indian descent. Overall, the Indian/Sri Lankan ethnicities are believed to share ancestries from both the defunct race classifications of Caucasoid (European descent) and Australoid (Australian Aboriginal descent).

In all honesty, This thread came off as slightly racist to me p), but I guess there are benefits to both heterogeneous and homogeneous ancestry. Note, however, that I prefer to use the term ethnicity instead of the common use of the word race, as I hate the divisive nature of the term. Also, the concept of race varies from culture to culture. The US (the country I live in) has a different view of race than, say, India. At any rate, great thread, ALIT...

 

[TheMasterSword]

I am a mixture of African American and Salvadorean. as for percentages I don't know, but when I find out I shall let you know!

 

[Seth]

Just an interesting quote:


'When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.' - Sri Jiddu Krishnamurti

 

[A Link In Time]

There are tangible benefits to both homogeneous and heterogeneous ancestry, however, ultimately multiple ethnic roots allow for greater success in the modern world globalized world. Preserving of traditions is certainly important and may be harder to do when multiple cultures are taken into account but this pitfall is outweighed by the understanding of a larger group of people and their respective values. A person with single roots tends to harbor more xenophobic patriotism although no such sentiments and affiliations are harmful in moderation.

I didn't originally intend for this thread to transpire in this direction but I want to thank everyone who put time and effort into creating a thoughtful reply, especially Wolf Sage and Seth. Their words prompted me to reassess the human race and reinforced my prior notion that we shouldn't judge others regardless of natural factors like gender, race, or sexual orientation or societal constructs including wealth and religion.

A quote which I have to offer, an excerpt taken from the 1974 book Carrying the Fire: An Astronaut's Journey by Michael Collins:

"I really believe that if the political leaders of the world could see their planet from a distance of, let's say 100000 miles, their outlook would be fundamentally changed. That all-important would be invisible, the noisy argument suddenly silenced. The tiny globe would continue to turn, serenely ignoring its subdivisions, presenting a unified facade that would cry out for unified understanding, for homogeneous treatment. The earth must become as it appears: blue and white, not capitalist or Communist; blue and white, not rich or poor; blue and white, not envious or envied".