>>101424189>Their distant descendants wereNo, they fucking weren't. Their distant descendants founded the US, which is a state, not a nation.
>The Spanish in Florida were not the French in LouisianaSo? That doesn't make anything you said relevant.
>I asked what that number isWhy? It's sophistry to say that because , it doesn't exist
>The historical norm is to go by ethnicity>"Nuh uh, the norm is to go by ethnicity!"This is like if I told you something like "all three sided objects are triangles", and you replied by holding up a three sided object and saying "nuh uh, this is a triangle!"
>"""ethnic British""">ETHNIC>BRITISHYeah, as expected, you don't even know what an ethnic group is.
The inescapable fact of the matter is, the definition of nation, people and ethnos are all the same, as illustrated by the many examples I gave which you cannot refute. Americans - i.e., WASPs - are an ethnic group, so the "contradiction" YOU made up in your own head by denying biological reality like a troon has no bearing on anything.
I also love how you contradict yourself and agree with me by pointing out that the 95% French/Spanish/German/etc. is ethnically who he's biologically descended from. Or do you think that genetics has nothing to do with ancestry?
That has, absolutely and inarguably, been the universal human norm across all of history, across every continent. As you would know if you knew the first thing about ethnogenesis, ethnography, and the founding mythologies of different peoples around the world. Look at the Germanic tribal nations, Scottish clans, the Levantine peoples like Ammonites and Moabites and so on literally taking the name of their patras in many cases, the Israelites and later Jews determining whether a child was one of theirs based on the child's mother (this is a big reason why they had extensive geneaologies going all the way back to their ethnic patriarch, aptly named... Israel), or the founding myth of the Aztecs... this is not controversial, anon. It's universal.
I'm not "coming up with" a definition of ethnicity which means... ethnicity, and the historically normal definition I'm using isn't "weird". The WASPS underwent a distinct ethnogenesis and are genetically different from the Anglos who remained in England, who went to settle Australia, etc. due to centuries of genetic sorting, relative geographic isolation, etc. Again, the founding fathers of the republic wrote about this themselves.
>Durrr the Amerindians are an ethnic group or somethingWrong again. You don't have the first clue what you're talking about.
In North America, various "native" groups were (and are) phenotypically and culturally distinct. They were defined peoples. The Apache, a raiding people, looked and lived differently than the Cherokee.
picrel, also see
https://xcancel.com/0xAlaric/status/1870560053389914287#m for further reading.
>They destroyed that themselvesNope. Read history. The fact that there were different nations in the midwest, great plains, and elsewhere who were in the process of being grafted onto the WASP ethnic nucleus without destroying it is not remotely comparable to the utter chaos and deterritorialization of their OWN ancestral lands that happened after the 1960s.
By your facile logic, if ANY amount of genetic assimilation of a subordinate ethnic group into the dominant group through intermarriage "destroys" the dominant ethnic group by altering their blood, irrespective of ANY other factors, then by your own standard the Anglo-Saxons "destroyed" their blood by becoming a mix of Anglo and Saxon. As did the French, Spaniards, etc. due to all being mixes of various Germanic, Latin and Celtic bloodlines. Oh, and so did the Chinese, due to the intermixing of different groups with the Han over millennia... need I go on?
Your model of this subject is distinctively modern, confused, nonsensical and self-defeating.
