# Humanities & Anthropology > Philosophy >  Lazaridis Bias of Individual Geneticists Ethics Discussion

## Johane Derite

I'm opening this thread to discuss the ethics of the disproportionate power that individuals like Lazaridis and Reich, etc, currently hold. They are great scientists, I am not trying to smear them, but they are humans with biases like everyone else.

There needs to be some sort of committee that oversees and monitors ethnic labelling of results by scientists with possible bias one way or the other. This can have nationalist/expansionist (genocidal Golden Dawn for example) consequences.

I just saw this exchange on twitter where he uses reference to a famous Arvanite woman as a point of reference for the behavior or cultural practice of Greek women. I don't doubt that its likely that the cultural phenomena would also have been found in Greek culture, but a Greek example must be used to claim that, not an Arvanite example, otherwise there is no argument.

If an American scientist used *X* native american cultural phenomenon to say that Anglo-Americans did do* X* cultural phenomana , it would be self-evident that it doesn't apply without providing a clear example of them also doing it. Otherwise the argument is just that they are the same and if one does it so does the other. 

The argument that Greek nationalists usually use is that Arvanites fought for Greek independence so they are Greeks/Hellenes. 

But this is the world of Genetics, and this cannot be an argument for trying to figure out the truth of humanity's past. 

There were many native americans that fought alongside anglos also, but we wouldn't erase their native american-ness when doing genetic research. It would be scandalous and totally unscientific to just list dna results of native americans that fought alongside the Anglos as North West European. What would that achieve other than to obfuscate the past?

Why is it permissible for Arvanites that we do this?



If this guy is labelling Arvanite cultural phenomena as Greek, is he also labelling Arvanite dna results as Greek? 

How would we even know if he were to do such a thing?


This is the thread: https://twitter.com/AlbHistory/statu...08386914406400

This is a new field, and these types of scenarios don't just apply here but everywhere on earth where genetic research will be undertaken. There needs to be awareness that this sort of genetic vampirism can take place even by scientists simply being misinformed by state propaganda.

----------


## Angela

First of all, this has nothing to do with philosophy.

Second of all, the only paper focused on Greek genetics to come out of the Reich Lab had to do with Mycenaeans and Minoans. No Arvanites around then to my knowledge.

The Reich Lab DID NOT collect their own samples for that paper as far as modern "Greeks" are concerned. They used publicly available samples:

"Modern human data. We used a dataset of 2,614 individuals genotyped on the Affymetrix Human Origins array
4,5,10,31, including 28 Modern Greek (from Greece and Cyprus) samples previously described10. We also included data from two 
Modern Greeks from Crete whose whole-genome sequences were published as part of the Simons Genome Diversity Project40. 
We also analysed Modern Greek data from Thessaly and Central Greece41and diverse regions27,42genotyped on Illumina arrays."

You think all these outfits are engaged in a conspiracy against Albanians? Go ahead, contact everybody, find out how the Greek samples were chosen which so many researchers use. Knock yourself out; it's your time, after all.

----------


## Tutkun Arnaut

> First of all, this has nothing to do with philosophy.
> 
> Second of all, the only paper focused on Greek genetics to come out of the Reich Lab had to do with Mycenaeans and Minoans. No Arvanites around then to my knowledge.
> 
> The Reich Lab DID NOT collect their own samples for that paper as far as modern "Greeks" are concerned. They used publicly available samples:
> 
> "Modern human data. We used a dataset of 2,614 individuals genotyped on the Affymetrix Human Origins array
> 4,5,10,31, including 28 Modern Greek (from Greece and Cyprus) samples previously described10. We also included data from two 
> Modern Greeks from Crete whose whole-genome sequences were published as part of the Simons Genome Diversity Project40. 
> ...


he should not be involved in DNA studies of that region! conflict of interest! i HAVE NOT SEEN ANYTHING FROM THIS GUY lAZARIDIS, but I have seen others (Duienekes) who maintains a blog, full of lies. Greek history is full of myths, lies and untruths.

----------


## Johane Derite

> First of all, this has nothing to do with philosophy.


Yes its not a clear one but its the only subforum I saw this type of discussion fitting into. "Ethics" is mentioned in the Philosophy description, and the ethics of ethnic labelling in globalized world (where until now the Harvard lab almost has a monopoly on testing ancient samples) is relevant to all, not just this particular Arvanite case. Issues like this will only intensify in the coming years.




> Second of all, the only paper focused on Greek genetics to come out of the Reich Lab had to do with Mycenaeans and Minoans. No Arvanites around then to my knowledge.
> 
> The Reich Lab DID NOT collect their own samples for that paper as far as modern "Greeks" are concerned. They used publicly available samples:
> 
> "Modern human data. We used a dataset of 2,614 individuals genotyped on the Affymetrix Human Origins array
> 4,5,10,31, including 28 Modern Greek (from Greece and Cyprus) samples previously described10. We also included data from two 
> Modern Greeks from Crete whose whole-genome sequences were published as part of the Simons Genome Diversity Project40. 
> We also analysed Modern Greek data from Thessaly and Central Greece41and diverse regions27,42genotyped on Illumina arrays."



The only reason I brought this up is that I noticed that when tackling the question of how those Cretan Greek like admixture results popped up in India, Lazaridis used a known historical Arvanite figure to say its possible. So again, it was a red flag if for this guy there is no distinction between Arvanites and Greeks when employing cultural phenomena. 

So for example, if when he looked into these publicly available samples, dataset and the modern greek data that the lab uses, maybe he noticed Arvanite clines in Greek results but simply lists them as Greek equally. How would I even check that, I don't have the resources nor even 1% the expertise that he does to do such work. Hence why if he (or other geneticists in his position) is biased there can be a lot of harm done. Bias can be unconcious and not at all due to evil intentions and due to simply a lack of exposure to information. Most people have no clue that Mark Boçari was Arvanite for example.






> You think all these outfits are engaged in a conspiracy against Albanians? Go ahead, contact everybody, find out how the Greek samples were chosen which so many researchers use. Knock yourself out; it's your time, after all.



No i don't think there is an active conspiracy by all the outfits. 

There are for sure political conspiracies against Albanians by actors in the Greek and Serbian government and intelligence agencies. There are individuals that have salaries dedicated to disinformation, propaganda, lobbying for North Epirus, South Serbia, territorial interests, etc. This is just a fact of life, its not really that much of a stretch to think that people willing to kill for territory will try at least deceive or manipulate "genetic territory" to sway more to one ethnicity than to the other is it? Terms used should be labels like "south european" when the results are apparently so close that Albanians are showing up as Greeks in test results.

And then there are many people that suppressed their own Arvanite heritage because of the Greek State propaganda, shame, and self hate they instilled. There may be many Greek samples in those public database that are 50%, 75%, or even 100% Arvanite that identify as Greek fully. What to do then?

I don't want my family, my children, and future descendants genetic material to be listed and claimed as Greek due to my Arvanite relatives in Greece. 

Also, there were rumours that popped up time to time that the Dienekes Blog is actually run by Lazaridis. If it's his alter ego blog where he can be more free to express himself without professional constraints from high level academia then there is a problematic angle as Dienekes is a greek nationalist.

----------


## Angela

> Yes its not a clear one but its the only subforum I saw this type of discussion fitting into. "Ethics" is mentioned in the Philosophy description, and the ethics of ethnic labelling in globalized world (where until now the Harvard lab almost has a monopoly on testing ancient samples) is relevant to all, not just this particular Arvanite case. Issues like this will only intensify in the coming years.
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason I brought this up is that I noticed that when tackling the question of how those Cretan Greek like admixture results popped up in India, Lazaridis used a known historical Arvanite figure to say its possible. So again, it was a red flag if for this guy there is no distinction between Arvanites and Greeks when employing cultural phenomena. 
> 
> So for example, if when he looked into these publicly available samples, dataset and the modern greek data that the lab uses, maybe he noticed Arvanite clines in Greek results but simply lists them as Greek equally. How would I even check that, I don't have the resources nor even 1% the expertise that he does to do such work. Hence why if he (or other geneticists in his position) is biased there can be a lot of harm done. Bias can be unconcious and not at all due to evil intentions and due to simply a lack of exposure to information. Most people have no clue that Mark Boçari was Arvanite for example.
> 
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, but I don't know how to make this any clearer. The paper had nothing to do with "Arvanites" vs. "Greeks". It didn't address or examine that issue. It compared publicly available datasets used by researchers of all stripes to examine all sorts of issues to ancient genomes found in "Mycenaean" and "Minoan" contexts and found a lot of overlap.

How on earth would "Arvanite" clines enter into it? 

If the Reich Lab or he individually ever decides to tackle the issue of the genetic differences between "Greeks" in Greece and "Arvanites" in Greece, then care would have to be taken in terms, perhaps, of gathering new samples.

As a general matter, I think your concerns are unfounded. We're not talking here of some guy in his basement being paid by who knows what shadowy group. We're talking about a PHD at the premier population genetics research lab in the world whose entire reputation, and that of the Lab itself is dependent on strict objectivity in its analysis of these samples. I highly doubt they'd try to mess with the results.

In addition, "nationalism" is not the issue. Transparency of method and replicability is the issue. If you have that, there's an end to it.

----------


## Angela

> he should not be involved in DNA studies of that region! conflict of interest! i HAVE NOT SEEN ANYTHING FROM THIS GUY lAZARIDIS, but I have seen others (Duienekes) who maintains a blog, full of lies. Greek history is full of myths, lies and untruths.


On this site, you don't get to call a whole nation of people liars.

----------


## Tutkun Arnaut

> On this site, you don't get to call a whole nation of people liars.


You need to open your horizon beyond what your Greeks husband tells you. You gave me an infraction for things I did not say( I did not say all Greeks are = lairs, i said their historians are) You unfairly gave me an infraction. I am giving you something to read about the father of History Herodotus and after you do read it , so I expect an apology. here it is " Herodotus: From Father of History to Father of LiesThe Truth About The Great PyramidBy: Jarett Fields and Dr. William RogersIntroduction For centuries, the pyramids at Giza have fascinated the world. Countless bookshave been written describing their mysterious builders. Herodotus wrote the first andmost famous, non-Egyptian account of The Great Pyramid at Giza more than 2000years after its completion. Known as the .Father of History,. Herodotus was one of thefew authorities trusted and quoted by medieval and Renaissance writers. Even todayhis account remains a most important source (David, p. 214). Written in 450 B.C., Herodotus. The Histories gives a detailed description of bothCheops and his Great Pyramid. Although his attention to detail is shown repeatedlythroughout Book II, his accuracy concerning the character of Cheops and the status ofthe builders is in question. Herodotus takes the liberty to write with great passion aboutwhat he heard and assumed instead of what he observed. There are many people who,because of Herodotus, believe that slaves built the great pyramid of Ch

----------


## Salento

*Herodotus: Father of History, Father of Lies.*
A few weeks ago I posted that we need to talk about Herodotus, and Whether we should quote him or not.
Got No Response. Too Bad.

----------


## Angela

> You need to open your horizon beyond what your Greeks husband tells you. You gave me an infraction for things I did not say( I did not say all Greeks are = lairs, i said their historians are) You unfairly gave me an infraction. I am giving you something to read about the father of History Herodotus and after you do read it , so I expect an apology. here it is " Herodotus: From Father of History to Father of LiesThe Truth About The Great PyramidBy: Jarett Fields and Dr. William RogersIntroduction For centuries, the pyramids at Giza have fascinated the world. Countless bookshave been written describing their mysterious builders. Herodotus wrote the first andmost famous, non-Egyptian account of The Great Pyramid at Giza more than 2000years after its completion. Known as the .Father of History,. Herodotus was one of thefew authorities trusted and quoted by medieval and Renaissance writers. Even todayhis account remains a most important source (David, p. 214). Written in 450 B.C., Herodotus. The Histories gives a detailed description of bothCheops and his Great Pyramid. Although his attention to detail is shown repeatedlythroughout Book II, his accuracy concerning the character of Cheops and the status ofthe builders is in question. Herodotus takes the liberty to write with great passion aboutwhat he heard and assumed instead of what he observed. There are many people who,because of Herodotus, believe that slaves built the great pyramid of Ch


Your comments were inflammatory in this specific context. Your clear implication was that no Greeks can be trusted. Johane and I were having a perfectly civil discussion, and you had to interpose a comment which could incite angry responses and another trash thread.

You've been warned repeatedly not to engage in this kind of behavior. Just cut it out; you don't persuade anyone by this kind of talk. For the record, Herodotus was not the last Greek "historian", if you can even call any of the ancient authors "historians". Neither do his writings have anything to do with the topic at hand, which concerns the selection of genetic samples. 

As for my husband, he's not Greek; he's an American of Calabrian and Neapolitan descent, but it would be fine with me if he were, so I don't take it as an insult. :)

----------


## Tutkun Arnaut

> Your comments were inflammatory in this specific context. Your clear implication was that no Greeks can be trusted. Johane and I were having a perfectly civil discussion, and you had to interpose a comment which could incite angry responses and another trash thread.
> 
> You've been warned repeatedly not to engage in this kind of behavior. Just cut it out; you don't persuade anyone by this kind of talk. For the record, Herodotus was not the last Greek "historian", if you can even call any of the ancient authors "historians". Neither do his writings have anything to do with the topic at hand, which concerns the selection of genetic samples. 
> 
> As for my husband, he's not Greek; he's an American of Calabrian and Neapolitan descent, but it would be fine with me if he were, so I don't take it as an insult. :)


I said Greeks who deal with genetics of south Balkans can not be trusted. They can not be impartial for the reasons of history they have taken in their schools. Its history full of myths and untruths. Conflict of interests. As for your husband in another post in Expedia you have said he is Greek. Now you are changing your mind. It does not matter you are not aware that there is a lot of bias in the Balkans. The same history is told in 5 versions. That is why you appear in disbelief when we do not trust Ballkakanikc people writing about Balkans even in genetics.

----------


## blevins13

> First of all, this has nothing to do with philosophy.
> 
> Second of all, the only paper focused on Greek genetics to come out of the Reich Lab had to do with Mycenaeans and Minoans. No Arvanites around then to my knowledge.
> 
> The Reich Lab DID NOT collect their own samples for that paper as far as modern "Greeks" are concerned. They used publicly available samples:
> 
> "Modern human data. We used a dataset of 2,614 individuals genotyped on the Affymetrix Human Origins array
> 4,5,10,31, including 28 Modern Greek (from Greece and Cyprus) samples previously described10. We also included data from two 
> Modern Greeks from Crete whose whole-genome sequences were published as part of the Simons Genome Diversity Project40. 
> ...


Forgery of history from the Greeks it is not new....and I am sure will continue to happen....and we are not going to knock ourselves out for it.
This guy Lazarids probably does not know Bubulina background....and this instance makes him an ignorant not a charlatan yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

----------


## LABERIA

> Yes its not a clear one but its the only subforum I saw this type of discussion fitting into. "Ethics" is mentioned in the Philosophy description, and the ethics of ethnic labelling in globalized world (where until now the Harvard lab almost has a monopoly on testing ancient samples) is relevant to all, not just this particular Arvanite case. Issues like this will only intensify in the coming years.
> 
> The only reason I brought this up is that I noticed that when tackling the question of how those Cretan Greek like admixture results popped up in India, Lazaridis used a known historical Arvanite figure to say its possible. So again, it was a red flag if for this guy there is no distinction between Arvanites and Greeks when employing cultural phenomena. 
> So for example, if when he looked into these publicly available samples, dataset and the modern greek data that the lab uses, maybe he noticed Arvanite clines in Greek results but simply lists them as Greek equally. How would I even check that, I don't have the resources nor even 1% the expertise that he does to do such work. Hence why if he (or other geneticists in his position) is biased there can be a lot of harm done. Bias can be unconcious and not at all due to evil intentions and due to simply a lack of exposure to information. Most people have no clue that Mark Boçari was Arvanite for example.
> 
> 
> No i don't think there is an active conspiracy by all the outfits. 
> There are for sure political conspiracies against Albanians by actors in the Greek and Serbian government and intelligence agencies. There are individuals that have salaries dedicated to disinformation, propaganda, lobbying for North Epirus, South Serbia, territorial interests, etc. This is just a fact of life, its not really that much of a stretch to think that people willing to kill for territory will try at least deceive or manipulate "genetic territory" to sway more to one ethnicity than to the other is it? Terms used should be labels like "south european" when the results are apparently so close that Albanians are showing up as Greeks in test results.
> And then there are many people that suppressed their own Arvanite heritage because of the Greek State propaganda, shame, and self hate they instilled. There may be many Greek samples in those public database that are 50%, 75%, or even 100% Arvanite that identify as Greek fully. What to do then?
> ...


My impression is that behind Dienekes is Stamatoyannopoulos. He is everywhere, he is also the author of the study of the Greek Peloponnese. Maybe the blog is run by both, who knows.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

On a more general note, the concentration of power in this field is definitely a huge problem - I don't care what you say, even if he seems an honest decent guy, Reich especially (not because he can't be trusted, but only because he has so much influence) should never have that much.

----------


## Dianatomia

Perhaps some self reflection is required. Surely, every nation has some bias. The Balkan countries have been under communist regimes for decades. As such, they have developed a historical narrative which suited their cause. This is also obvious in the case of how the Greeks are perceived. It seems that every time some research is being published about Greeks, some Balkan bloggers immediately start second guessing the research. As if they know a secret that the rest of world doesn't know. The irony is that there is no reason for them to know something others don't. In fact, the opposite is usually true.

This is because Balkan nations like i.e. Albania and the FYR of Macedonia don't have an extremely rich litterary tradition. It is Greeks, the Latins and the Arabs who have a rich litterary tradition. Their accumulated material has been analysed by historians of Western Universities and their conclusions have been published for the world to see. However, Balkan countries filter down their work to suit their political needs and desires. I.e. if some western historian emphasises Arvanites in Greece, the Albanians pick up on that. Similarly, the Romanians pick up on material about Vlachs etc. However, the total sum of historical research about Greeks is ignored. This is because Balkan countries are not interested in the total sum, but only the selective material which suits their political agenda or national historical narrative. I have seen Macedonian Slavs speak as if they are experts on Ancient Macedonian history, yet they never even read primary historical sources such as Plutarch or Arrian. One would argue that this is the least you can do if you are interested in Alexander, right? Instead they prefer a modern source which is in line with their national narrative (the fact those sources are contrary to concencus are a another matter). Western historians as a whole, however, don't have this bias. 

The Greeks on the other hand are forged somewhat different concerning their self-reflection. Surely they have their own bias. But in a different way. Firstly, concerning themselves the intellectual elites will analyse the total sum of material written about their nation. After all, they as a people are the focal point so they have every reason to do that. On top of that there is a lot of Greek historical material (ancient, Byzantine and modern) which the Greeks have the luxury to analyse themselves. Due to this, Greek historians tend develop a Graeco-centric perspective.

----------


## Ownstyler

> Perhaps some self reflection is required. Surely, every nation has some bias. The Balkan countries have been under communist regimes for decades. As such, they have developed a historical narrative which suited their cause. This is also obvious in the case of how the Greeks are perceived. It seems that every time some research is being published about Greeks, some Balkan bloggers immediately start second guessing the research. As if they know a secret that the rest of world doesn't know. The irony is that there is no reason for them to know something others don't. In fact, the opposite is usually true.
> 
> This is because Balkan nations like i.e. Albania and the FYR of Macedonia don't have an extremely rich litterary tradition. It is Greeks, the Latins and the Arabs who have a rich litterary tradition. Their accumulated material has been analysed by historians of Western Universities and their conclusions have been published for the world to see. However, Balkan countries filter down their work to suit their political needs and desires. I.e. if some western historian emphasises Arvanites in Greece, the Albanians pick up on that. Similarly, the Romanians pick up on material about Vlachs etc. However, the total sum of historical research about Greeks is ignored. This is because Balkan countries are not interested in the total sum, but only the selective material which suits their political agenda or national historical narrative. I have seen Macedonian Slavs speak as if they are experts on Ancient Macedonian history, yet they never even read primary historical sources such as Plutarch or Arrian. One would argue that this is the least you can do if you are interested in Alexander, right? Instead they prefer a modern source which is in line with their national narrative (the fact those sources are contrary to concencus are a another matter). Western historians as a whole, however, don't have this bias. 
> 
> The Greeks on the other hand are forged somewhat different concerning their self-reflection. Surely they have their own bias. But in a different way. Firstly, concerning themselves the intellectual elites will analyse the total sum of material written about their nation. After all, they as a people are the focal point so they have every reason to do that. On top of that there is a lot of Greek historical material (ancient, Byzantine and modern) which the Greeks have the luxury to analyse themselves. Due to this, Greek historians tend develop a Graeco-centric perspective.


Much of the "bias" comes from how ethnicity is defined and perceived. Being Greek Orthodox and writing in Greek has usually sufficed for Greek historians to label a person or a people as Greek. This is a pretty loose definition for others in the Balkans who believe native language and ethnic ancestry is also very important, maybe even more so.

----------


## Angela

The Reich Lab isn't the only major genetics lab in the world. As one example, Johannes Krause and his collaborators are also doing excellent work. 

It's inevitable for there to be some concentration, given the initially huge costs. Great talent also attracts great talent. It started with Patterson and continues with Lazaridis. 

What is important is that the raw materials (genetic samples) be publicly available, and the methodology be published in great detail so the people can replicate the results.

No one has yet found a scintilla of evidence that everything is not completely above board. I would save the worrying for those who are not transparent AT ALL. 

I'll say it again in another context: unsubstantiated accusations are not worthy of belief, and, indeed, there should be consequences for making them. In this case, it would lead to lawsuits, and monetary damages, which is only right.

----------


## LABERIA

> Perhaps some self reflection is required. Surely, every nation has some bias. *The Balkan countries have been under communist regimes for decades. As such, they have developed a historical narrative which suited their cause. This is also obvious in the case of how the Greeks are perceived.* It seems that every time some research is being published about Greeks, some Balkan bloggers immediately start second guessing the research. As if they know a secret that the rest of world doesn't know. The irony is that there is no reason for them to know something others don't. In fact, the opposite is usually true.
> This is because Balkan nations like i.e. Albania and the FYR of Macedonia don't have an extremely rich litterary tradition. *It is Greeks, the Latins and the Arabs who have a rich litterary tradition.* Their accumulated material has been analysed by historians of Western Universities and their conclusions have been published for the world to see. However, Balkan countries filter down their work to suit their political needs and desires. I.e. if some western historian emphasises Arvanites in Greece, the Albanians pick up on that. Similarly, the Romanians pick up on material about Vlachs etc. However, the total sum of historical research about Greeks is ignored. This is because Balkan countries are not interested in the total sum, but only the selective material which suits their political agenda or national historical narrative. I have seen Macedonian Slavs speak as if they are experts on Ancient Macedonian history, yet they never even read primary historical sources such as Plutarch or Arrian. One would argue that this is the least you can do if you are interested in Alexander, right? Instead they prefer a modern source which is in line with their national narrative (the fact those sources are contrary to concencus are a another matter). Western historians as a whole, however, don't have this bias. 
> The Greeks on the other hand are forged somewhat different concerning their self-reflection. Surely they have their own bias. But in a different way. Firstly, concerning themselves the intellectual elites will analyse the total sum of material written about their nation. After all, they as a people are the focal point so they have every reason to do that. On top of that there is a lot of Greek historical material (ancient, Byzantine and modern) which the Greeks have the luxury to analyse themselves. Due to this, Greek historians tend develop a Graeco-centric perspective.


I am Albanian and i am curious to know what historical narrative we have developed in my country and how this has influenced on how we perceive Greeks. I am sure that you have an answer for this question.
It’s true that there is a rich literature in Greek language. Ancient Greek was the language of an great civilization, Greek was lingua franca also Greek was the language of the Orthodox Church. Having all this historical material available, the Greek scholars have had the opportunity to be among the best scholars in the world for certain historical periods. But it is the opposite, no one takes Greek scholars into consideration, no serious scholar in the world uses Paparigopulos as a reference for example, even Sathas has been accused of having invented "The Chronicles of Galaxidi". There are so many concrete denunciations with names and surnames made even by the Greeks. From your sources we know that in Greece there are structures specialized in falsifying history. For this reason and others, i think that even the case of this Lazaridis and this Stamatogonidis, they are not an the exception of the rule that exists in your country.

----------


## Angela

If this turns into another Balkan war I will close the thread.

----------


## Tutkun Arnaut

> Perhaps some self reflection is required. Surely, every nation has some bias. The Balkan countries have been under communist regimes for decades. As such, they have developed a historical narrative which suited their cause. This is also obvious in the case of how the Greeks are perceived. It seems that every time some research is being published about Greeks, some Balkan bloggers immediately start second guessing the research. As if they know a secret that the rest of world doesn't know. The irony is that there is no reason for them to know something others don't. In fact, the opposite is usually true.
> 
> This is because Balkan nations like i.e. Albania and the FYR of Macedonia don't have an extremely rich litterary tradition. It is Greeks, the Latins and the Arabs who have a rich litterary tradition. Their accumulated material has been analysed by historians of Western Universities and their conclusions have been published for the world to see. However, Balkan countries filter down their work to suit their political needs and desires. I.e. if some western historian emphasises Arvanites in Greece, the Albanians pick up on that. Similarly, the Romanians pick up on material about Vlachs etc. However, the total sum of historical research about Greeks is ignored. This is because Balkan countries are not interested in the total sum, but only the selective material which suits their political agenda or national historical narrative. I have seen Macedonian Slavs speak as if they are experts on Ancient Macedonian history, yet they never even read primary historical sources such as Plutarch or Arrian. One would argue that this is the least you can do if you are interested in Alexander, right? Instead they prefer a modern source which is in line with their national narrative (the fact those sources are contrary to concencus are a another matter). Western historians as a whole, however, don't have this bias. 
> 
> The Greeks on the other hand are forged somewhat different concerning their self-reflection. Surely they have their own bias. But in a different way. Firstly, concerning themselves the intellectual elites will analyse the total sum of material written about their nation. After all, they as a people are the focal point so they have every reason to do that. On top of that there is a lot of Greek historical material (ancient, Byzantine and modern) which the Greeks have the luxury to analyse themselves. Due to this, Greek historians tend develop a Graeco-centric perspective.


What about Fallmerayer who caught Greeks red handed lying, he had not red enough literature or his eyesight was short?

----------


## Dianatomia

> What about Fallmerayer who caught Greeks red handed lying, he had not red enough literature or his eyesight was short?


This is exactly my point. Fallmerayer is part of Western historiography. He expressed his view at his time which is noted. But he is only a part of the overall sum of historians (classisists, byzantologists, slavicists, balkanologists) anthropologists, geneticists etc. etc. His work is out there for the world to see. Plentyfull Byzantologists wrote books after him with different perspectives. Yet, as you very well stated, what about him? Naturally, you are not in expert in medieval Greek history. Yet, for some reason his work is of some importance to you. While the work of many others is not. This is exactly what I mean. Balkan nations have a very narrow view of Greek history.

----------


## Dianatomia

> I am Albanian and i am curious to know what historical narrative we have developed in my country and how this has influenced on how we perceive Greeks. I am sure that you have an answer for this question.


 I will not answer that specifically. All I can say is that the view of Albanians about Greece is highly selective at the very least. By no means are Albanians experts in Greek history. 





> It’s true that there is a rich literature in Greek language. Ancient Greek was the language of an great civilization, Greek was lingua franca also Greek was the language of the Orthodox Church. Having all this historical material available, the Greek scholars have had the opportunity to be among the best scholars in the world for certain historical periods. But it is the opposite, no one takes Greek scholars into consideration, no serious scholar in the world uses Paparigopulos as a reference for example, even Sathas has been accused of having invented "The Chronicles of Galaxidi". There are so many concrete denunciations with names and surnames made even by the Greeks. From your sources we know that in Greece there are structures specialized in falsifying history.


As I said, Greeks get most of the analysis about Greek history from Western historiographers. They are no exception to this. The difference is that they evaluate all the material which concerns them. Why would Albanians evaluate all the material about Greek history? 

Also, as I said, Greeks have a Graeco-centric bias since they have acces to their extremely rich historical material. Perhaps at the expense of Arab, Persian, Spanish material etc. But we should not underestimate them in that regard since there are also many respected academics in the Greek diaspora. 




> For this reason and others, i think that even the case of this Lazaridis and this Stamatogonidis, they are not an the exception of the rule that exists in your country.


These are geneticists. They are not even historians. They are educated in elite universities and the colleagues who work on their projects are also from various countries. Their work only allows for little bias. Geneticists could easily be refuted and risk harming their reputation as scientists. 

Besides, on a side note, their conclusions are not even that pro-Greek. Their work indicates that Mycenaeans are only the primary genetic source of modern Greeks. It indicates that Greeks absorbed newcomers in later era's. Most likely post-ancient times.

----------


## LABERIA

> I will not answer that specifically.


Why???????

----------


## blevins13

> If this turns into another Balkan war I will close the thread.


Asking Albanians for a leap of faith towards this Lazaridis Greek person is too much. Many Venetian documents are been translated in Albanian nowadays, their Greek translation from well known Greek researchers is in many case simple forgery of facts.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

----------


## blevins13

> This is exactly my point. Fallmerayer is part of Western historiography. He expressed his view at his time which is noted. But he is only a part of the overall sum of historians (classisists, byzantologists, slavicists, balkanologists) anthropologists, geneticists etc. etc. His work is out there for the world to see. Plentyfull Byzantologists wrote books after him with different perspectives. Yet, as you very well stated, what about him? Naturally, you are not in expert in medieval Greek history. Yet, for some reason his work is of some importance to you. While the work of many others is not. This is exactly what I mean. Balkan nations have a very narrow view of Greek history.


Miss interpretations and miss translation of historical documents with the purpose to mislead.....it is not a matter of narrow view.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> If this turns into another Balkan war I will close the thread.


Lol but Balkan wars are the best

----------


## Dianatomia

> Miss interpretations and miss translation of historical documents with the purpose to mislead.....it is not a matter of narrow view.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum


Let's put it this way. Instead of pointing fingers, feel free to present sciencific research using a methodology which can be evaluated and falsified if incorrect. This is the beauty of science. You can participate yourself. Sitting back and refuting a peer reviewed research because someone has a certain origin is not productive. Try instead to refute the research scientifically. Shooting the messenger is not getting you anywhere.

----------


## Angela

> Asking Albanians for a leap of faith towards this Lazaridis Greek person is too much. Many Venetian documents are been translated in Albanian nowadays, their Greek translation from well known Greek researchers is in many case simple forgery of facts.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum


What the heck are you people talking about? What does the paper on the Mycenaeans and Minoans have to do with the ancient authors or Venetian documents or even the difference between Arvanites and Greeks proper?

The paper was an analysis of the autosomal admixture of these ancient people in terms of the Neolithic Europeans and the steppe people. Beyond that, it was to see if there was overlap between these ancient people and the modern Greek people in the publicly available datasets, samples NOT collected or chosen by the Reich Lab or Lazaridis in particular. Whether Lazaridis found the results personally gratifying is besides the point. Nobody can demand that someone have no preferences. What one demands is integrity in the WORK.

If you have some problem with the nature of those datasets, do your homework, contact the people who collected them and find out how the samples were collected. 

Nobody cares whether the conclusions upset your view of the world. All anybody but the Albanians cares about is whether the conclusions of the paper are accurate. If you think they're inaccurate, pit your intellect and mathematical computational ability against theirs, and PROVE where they're wrong.

If you continue you will just damage your own reputations more. 

I've read an awful lot of written material written by scientists or all types and non-scientists as well, and every major population genetics paper of the last ten years, and there is no better computational geneticist, statistician, general logical thinker and lucid writer than Iosif Lazaridis working today. If someone can be said to be in love with how someone's mind works, that's how I would describe it. 

This sniping from people who don't have a smattering of his intellect, education, or integrity is really sad.

----------


## ihype02

...........

----------


## blevins13

This sniping from people who don't have a smattering of his intellect, education, or integrity is really sad.[/QUOTE]

Seriously .....how you come to this conclusion, you don’t even know the people here and their background.....it seems that you are a researcher, but the way you concluded here show that you lack a lot on your process, just like Lazaridis for Bubulina.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

----------


## Tutkun Arnaut

> What the heck are you people talking about? What does the paper on the Mycenaeans and Minoans have to do with the ancient authors or Venetian documents or even the difference between Arvanites and Greeks proper?
> 
> The paper was an analysis of the autosomal admixture of these ancient people in terms of the Neolithic Europeans and the steppe people. Beyond that, it was to see if there was overlap between these ancient people and the modern Greek people in the publicly available datasets, samples NOT collected or chosen by the Reich Lab or Lazaridis in particular. Whether Lazaridis found the results personally gratifying is besides the point. Nobody can demand that someone have no preferences. What one demands is integrity in the WORK.
> 
> If you have some problem with the nature of those datasets, do your homework, contact the people who collected them and find out how the samples were collected. 
> 
> Nobody cares whether the conclusions upset your view of the world. All anybody but the Albanians cares about is whether the conclusions of the paper are accurate. If you think they're inaccurate, pit your intellect and mathematical computational ability against theirs, and PROVE where they're wrong.
> 
> If you continue you will just damage your own reputations more. 
> ...


So if you like what he writes keep reading him, we simply do not believe him. If Rich had written the stuff I had no problems. Do not try to influence others with your views!

----------


## Tutkun Arnaut

> What the heck are you people talking about? What does the paper on the Mycenaeans and Minoans have to do with the ancient authors or Venetian documents or even the difference between Arvanites and Greeks proper?
> 
> The paper was an analysis of the autosomal admixture of these ancient people in terms of the Neolithic Europeans and the steppe people. Beyond that, it was to see if there was overlap between these ancient people and the modern Greek people in the publicly available datasets, samples NOT collected or chosen by the Reich Lab or Lazaridis in particular. Whether Lazaridis found the results personally gratifying is besides the point. Nobody can demand that someone have no preferences. What one demands is integrity in the WORK.
> 
> If you have some problem with the nature of those datasets, do your homework, contact the people who collected them and find out how the samples were collected. 
> 
> Nobody cares whether the conclusions upset your view of the world. All anybody but the Albanians cares about is whether the conclusions of the paper are accurate. If you think they're inaccurate, pit your intellect and mathematical computational ability against theirs, and PROVE where they're wrong.
> 
> If you continue you will just damage your own reputations more. 
> ...


When someone writes a papper conflict of interests is declared! He simply is not believable for conflict of interest reasons.

----------


## davef

> When someone writes a papper conflict of interests is declared! He simply is not believable for conflict of interest reasons.


All he said was Mycenaeans=mostly Anatolian farmer + small amts of Caucasus and steppe. He then compared them to modern Greeks who seem to be mostly Mycenaean plus additional mixtures. What's the issue here?

----------


## Angela

> When someone writes a papper conflict of interests is declared! He simply is not believable for conflict of interest reasons.


Why would he have to DECLARE it? According to you it exists by reason of his birth.

@Blevins,

The posters who specialize in this constant anti-Greek rhetoric and name calling have not shown that they even UNDERSTAND these papers, much less have the capability to criticize them. 

@Davef,

There IS no issue here, other than the typical Balkan warfare based on no facts or logic.

----------


## Johane Derite

The entire point of this was that Lazaridis considers Bubulina pure Greek and used her as a point of reference for possibly explaining Cretan Greek admixture in India. And that this is worrying for a geneticist. If someone argues culturally she is greek thats different.

Thats it. When a high profile and extremely powerful geneticist totally erases her being Arvanite purposefully or not, its worrying. 

If we had Bublinas dna and Lazaridis tested and analyzed it we can safely surmise he would label her DNa results as Greek based on how he wrote about her.

----------


## Angela

> The entire point of this was that Lazaridis considers Bubulina pure Greek and used her as a point of reference for possibly explaining Cretan Greek admixture in India. And that this is worrying for a geneticist. If someone argues culturally she is greek thats different.
> 
> Thats it. When a high profile and extremely powerful geneticist totally erases her being Arvanite purposefully or not, its worrying. 
> 
> If we had Bublinas dna and Lazaridis tested and analyzed it we can safely surmise he would label her DNa results as Greek based on how he wrote about her.


When he does an analysis of modern Greeks vs Albanians and uses samples he collects, I'll pay attention.

----------


## ihype02

> The entire point of this was that Lazaridis considers Bubulina pure Greek and used her as a point of reference for possibly explaining Cretan Greek admixture in India. And that this is worrying for a geneticist. If someone argues culturally she is greek thats different.
> 
> Thats it. When a high profile and extremely powerful geneticist totally erases her being Arvanite purposefully or not, its worrying. 
> 
> If we had Bublinas dna and Lazaridis tested and analyzed it we can safely surmise he would label her DNa results as Greek based on how he wrote about her.


Many Greeks don't know that Arvanites are of Albanian origin, it might've been a mistake. Most of Arvanites feel insulted when you tell them that they are of Albanian origin.

----------


## blevins13

> Why would he have to DECLARE it? According to you it exists by reason of his birth.
> 
> @Blevins,
> 
> The posters who specialize in this constant anti-Greek rhetoric and name calling have not shown that they even UNDERSTAND these papers, much less have the capability to criticize them. 
> 
> @Davef,
> 
> There IS no issue here, other than the typical Balkan warfare based on no facts or logic.


What paper are you talking about (this thread is not about any paper).... here we have an example hopefully of ignorance from Lazaridis....than we have you calling us not educated enough, unethical, etc.....because we do not share the same view for your idol Lazaridis. As I said previously, you do not know most of the people here (so be careful with your conclusions) and there is no anti-Greek, is just reasonable misbelieve....based upon on Greek past researchers....read them and you will understand were we come from.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

----------


## Angela

> So if you like what he writes keep reading him, we simply do not believe him. If Rich had written the stuff I had no problems. Do not try to influence others with your views!


Like I said, you don't understand the papers or how any of this works. Reich is FULL CO-AUTHOR. There's also many other authors. Forget reading the paper; did you even look at the darn title page????

@Blevins,

You judge geneticists by their work output, i.e. their papers, not by some off the cuff tweet about some topic they've never addressed.

Please don't pretend that you and some of your compatriots are objective in any way, shape or form where someone of Greek extraction is concerned. It's sad and disheartening in this day and age.

Btw, he's not my "idol". He has been and will no doubt be wrong about certain things in the future; he's a fallible human being like the rest of us. However, he is an exceptionally gifted statistician and population geneticist, and in addition, which isn't always the case, he's an extremely logical thinker and lucid and logical writer. Most importantly, I've never seen him cut corners or do anything dishonest in his analysis, so, yes, I admire him a great deal. There are other people I admire as well, but they aren't the subject of a thread where they're being attacked with nonsense like this.

Now I'm out. I have nothing more to say.

----------


## halfalp

For whatever reason, i thought Lazaridis was Bulgarian.

----------


## Dianatomia

> Much of the "bias" comes from how ethnicity is defined and perceived. Being Greek Orthodox and writing in Greek has usually sufficed for Greek historians to label a person or a people as Greek. This is a pretty loose definition for others in the Balkans who believe native language and *ethnic ancestry* is also very important, maybe even more so.


The Balkans has been populated by numerous tribes. So having a commmon ethnic ancestry is a very loose definition and very biased. A people will at the very least need a reference point. A language/culture enveloped in its litterary tradition.

----------


## Fatherland

All of these ethnocentric geneticists are biased and they have all been debunked. 

None of them should be taken seriously at any rate.

----------

