A dna test

This make me think. Why people belive in such things, as nationality. I am 100% in any country ... the boundaries were created by us, not to divide the resources we have

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyaEQEmt5ls&sns=em

Well, it is the case that our genetic differences are next to negligible compared to differences between individuals of other great apes and among mammals are barely at all really rivaled in bandwidth (or band-narrowness, as it were). Aside from that, isolation or not, mixing between tribes and nations has occurred throughout our history pretty much uninterrupted.
Incidentally this is how we know that this video is not only staged but actually portraying falsehoods. There is no such thing as "Eastern Europeanness" or "Britishness". Nothing about our DNA tells us much about the soil either we or any of our ancestors lived on. They themselves would of course have similarly diverse charts until the most recent common ancestor of all surviving human bloodlines - somewhere in Africa. Even that ancestor would have DNA tracing back to our common ancestors with other monkeys, then with rodents, and down and down it would go to amphibians. Somewhere we would be unable to identify any soil at all and need to move back to the ocean before we would leave vertebrates altogether and at some point move past the line where we can tell whether that thing was even an animal at all.
I appreciate the message, we are all related and shouldn't pretend like anything about the big differences between us is due to some fundamental nature of our race - a biological term that from a genetic standpoint doesn't even apply to us. But the "you have Turkish blood in your veins, as your DNA reveals" is nonsense and we shouldn't use that argument because it makes us look uneducated and those who would rather argue their tribal or even racist opinions will no doubt notice, too. There are enough facts to refute them, we don't need to make up fairytales to aid us.

When groups of people think of themself as different, then it's hard to unify power over them.
When all mob thinks that it's just a earthling mob, then there won't be any local, origination, historical etc-based leader to claim their independence from the global "system". Like the banking one.
That's my opinion about motivation of such indoctrination movies called "social campain".

It's not the genes that make us "us", but the ideas.

Nationalism is a strange beast, some people take it very seriously to the point of sacrificing themselves for it as a concept, which is bizarre IMO. I'm not devoid of it, but it's presence in me represents two different natures of our environment, and mixing them up might not be a good idea. One is the regulatory environment managed by Courts and Politicians etc, which defines the 'nation' as a system we participate in.... and the other is the cultural aspect which goes all the way down to family, our community. Nationalism can include both on occasions such as defence of a nation, when in fact your defending your land, family and lifestyle more then any particular government agenda or policy position. This to me does not translate across to occupation warfare, where a nation tries to grow by using force to invade, occupy, conquer and consume... that is just the political nationalism and not the cultural nationalism. So I reckon conflict needs to be viewed in proper contexts of why its happening, because it really informs the nature of the conflict. One of the benefits of globalization is the concept of a global culture which can sit with local culture, but people do not seem willing or it is too difficult at the moment to bring balance to the [strike]Force[/strike] regulatory environment and so are happy to mix the two and make it all a bun fight by incorporating both into their own self identity and therefore taking things personally.

I think this is realy interesting.
May world be diffrend if everyone make this test

Differences are in your mind not in your heart.

@Gisteron: The video is suitable for people who have those nationalist views, because it explains things in their language and way of understanding. That, from an elaborate geneticist standpoint, you will find flaws and unbearably simplifying falsehood there, is to be expected. But that the people will not understand you on that scientifically correct level was the problem to begin with. Therefore I think that piece of communication is well done.

Best
Kc

My point is that no man is an island. No communique is going out to individual persons. Certainly, as among any other group of people, among nationalists and racists there will be those who never much thought about their position and they may just begin to reconsider as a result. But among their peers there is almost just as certain to be someone more skeptical who might dig deeper and discover that what is said here is false. In his or her mind, and even more in the minds of their less skeptical listeners this may end up being an argument in their favour: "Those inclusive leftist pseudo-intellectuals, don't even know jack about biology but want to tell us how the races are equal."
I said it before and I stand by it still: The facts of the matter are on our side. Not only don't we need to make up falsehoods to support our side additionally, we are also actively doing ourselves a disservice trying because it makes us look as uneducated and dogmatic as we insist the other side is.

I agree with Gisteron - something i never thought I'd say, but, hey. People say things to make themselves ound good around people. It's not what they actually believe. And, the people listening may not be impressed. It's very confusing.