Well, OK then. So he is Irish. But he isn't Irish. Was it ever part of Ireland and not just on Ireland the island? If so, then arguably, his bloodline woul dbe Irish as his family may well have immigrated at a time when Ireland was united. Not that I would know. I'm not Irish or from Northern Ireland. I'm a German-Scot with a particular fondness for both of those heritages, especially schnitzel and Scotch.

Everyone knows McCain is Panamanian, if anything.

LOL! I always love that. You know, where someone is born should be stricken from the constitution. As long as they are a US Citizen for more than some figure (say 25 years) they should be eligible. IT stinks that the Sperminator ...er... Inseminator ...er... Governator ...er... Terminator can't be President.

@draugnar - The whole of the island of Island was under norman and later English control since 1100ish. I'd be surprised if McCain's ancestors left before then or if they did how they could possibly be traced back that far? When Ireland was partitioned between the wars Ulster and Northern Ireland was retained by the crown and the south (Eire or the Republic of Ireland) was created.

That said, some people who were born and bred in the north considered themselves Irish whilst others consider themselves Ulstermen and others concider themselves British.

@Octavious - "society has decided that race is linked to genes" .... I think you need some updating on genes. Society has not decided that race is linked to genes that makes no sense. Statistically you're genetically identical to a random person on the other side of the world. Society has decided 'race' (an illogical construct) is determined by a mix of culture and melanin count. The melanin is an inane way to measure and that leaves you with culture. Why do people misuse race? Just look at culture, because melanin content nowadays shouldn't mean anything. Now if you wanted a discussion on the perpetuation of different melanin content historically that's where it is relevant. 'Genetically' race is non-existent. There is a human race, that's it.

I should reword that "Statistically you're genetically identical to a random person on the other side of the world."

I meant Statistically you're more likely to have a closer genetic make-up to someone on the other side of the world, than someone in your immediate culture.

Bit more accurate >.< haha

@Maniac - So, if his ancestry goes back to pre-1922 (when Northern Ireland was formed), then he could claim Irish heritage as it was all one province under English rule. Correct? Today he would be from Northern Ireland, but back then there was no Northern Ireland. And considering his age (75) and the fact both his father and grandfather were four star admirals in the US Navy, I'd say his lineage in Ireland dates back to pre-1922 with ease.

It's like calling someone from Germany prior to WWII East or West German. They were just German back then.

Speciation needs to be factored into this discussion. Species must arise out of pre-existing species, hence races may be regarded as proto-species. Now the counter argument often given is that we are now above the forces of Natural Selection because of international/global travel etc. It has always struck me that this carries with it more than a little arrogance and one can envisage situations where

@ Sayjo

An interesting point, but I would need to see a lot of evidence before I could accept something that counterintuitive.

Yeah, race as a social construct was established by a number of "scientists" who tried to finagle their way through Darwin to verify that white people are the bestest. In the early 20th century, the US government published a booklet for use in immigration that gave the "known features" of various ethnic groups (such as laziness for Italians) and stressed that Anglo-Saxons were the best of all peoples. And the truth is that most people judge race by appearance alone in the US, not genetics or even who your parents are.

You know, there's a ton of Americans who claim dubious kinship to Native Americans or Irish because those are the most "mythic" ancestries in America...both heavily romanticized, etc. What does it harm anyone if someone tries to connect to that, whether or not they are Irish? If this were a vote-getting measure, he wouldn't be doing it in 2011.

Ancestry is cool. If you have a direct descendent from someplace there is no problem with visiting where they lived and learning about them. No matter what the DNA linkage is, their actions in life directly shaped their posterity's lives... i.e., you.

@fulham - Speciation would not be the term I'd use. We are more like breeds in dogs or cats than separate species. And international travel and migration over time has caused inter breeding such that we are all mutts to some degree in the civilized world. The only real pure breds are in remote areas where civilization hasn't spread and caused a blending of the breeds.

Also I don't know what you mean about Native Americans and Irish being "mythic" lol.

My great granddad was Cherokee... nothing mythical about that.

And Irish? How exactly is that mythical? A bunch of potato starved refugees? Lol.

"So, if his ancestry goes back to pre-1922 (when Northern Ireland was formed), then he could claim Irish heritage as it was all one province under English rule."

if you were born anywhere on the island of Ireland before 2004, then you gain an automatic right to citizenship. If your grandparents/parents have citizenship then you are entitled.

the law changed in 2004 to prevent illegal pregnant immigrants exploiting a loophole which allowed them stay (as the irish courts are not willing to break a family up... that would be unconstitutional)

(continued.......)further human speciation will occur. Indeed this is what Darwin himself had to say on the matter:
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes… will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

Ch. VI, On The Birthplace and Antiquity Of Man

also: thucy - i'll have you know my potato starved refugee ancestors would kick your well-feed upper class moronic ancestors asses...

@ Thucydides
"their actions in life directly shaped their posterity's lives"

Of that there is no question. As a side issue, though, do you think a great great great grandfather would have more influence on the man Obama became than, say, a close childhood friend of his grandmother (lets ignore for now their influence over him existing in the first place ;) ). I would say that Obama's personality has been influenced more strongly by a vast number of people not related to him at all than by his distant Irish relative.

@fullhamish, darwin wasn't up to speed on what modern geneticists know.

I think he meant it carries a certain mystic and people with even dubious heritage like to claim it. For instance, I know one of my great great grandmothers was Lakota. some would grab onto that and say they were 1/16th Lakota. Not my thing, although if it allowed me to open a casino in Kentucky and rake in the cash...

@ orathaic.

Are you sure that species Homo sapiens is now and for ever more not subject to speciation under the forces of Natural Selection? Might this view be a trite anthropocentric?

@Oct - not if his triple great grandfather had never met and fallen in love with (presumably) his triple great grandmother and had his double great grandparent as their child.

I didn't say that. What I said was mankind, as he exists now, is breeds of Homo sapiens, just as my pet dachshund is a breed of dog. Coudl Homo spaien speciate into a new species (ala X-Men)? Sure. But are we separate species now? No. Genetics prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

@ Draugnar:

Using your analogy what exactly is the difference between a breed and a race?

@ Draugnar

Before I begin I will point out that I did say "lets ignore for now their influence over him existing in the first place", and as such the rest of this post is entirely your fault :p.

Yes, his great grandfather's choice of partner mean that Obama could exist. Also, the influence of greatgrandma's childhood friend over greatgrandma's choice of partner could have had the same effect. Indeed, childhood friend's choice to go to the cinema where greatgrandma first met greatgrandad (maybe... or something similar) instead of the cafe would have had a huge effect on Obama existing.

One can sum it all up by saying that the chances of everything happening that needed to happen over the centuries for Barack Obama to exist, or even ourselves to exist, are so close to zero that it is safe to assume that none of us exist at all and this conversation isn't even happening. As such the only sane action is to ignore you completely!

(sorry... I did warn you)

LOL! I like the reasoning. It allows me to ignore you too. :-)

@fulhamish - Species can be delineated genetically. For instance, while the difference between human and gorilla DNA is only about 1.6%, it is distinctly identifiable and there are significant differences in the number of DNA "gene copies" in each strand.

I'm not a geneticist, so don't claim to understand all the science. But suffice it to say, I trust the scientists who make the distinction between breeds of the same species and different species to know what the hell they are talking about. Perhaps, someday, we will find a new species of human or scientists will classify what has long been thought a breed of humans as an actual separate species.. There are after all two different species of gorilla, and there is debate as to whether a third species exists or if it is a breed of one of the other two. I do know that interspecies breeding is difficult in most cases, but inter-breed reproduction is quite easy. Considering how compatible the genetics are of even the most distinct breeds of humankind, that would suggest in my mind that we are just breeds.

I really hate this discussion though as it is going to go to the inevitable "ubermensch/master race" crap that any scientific discussion of this nature always seems to devolve into.

@fullhamish, no, i am not sure. but that isn't what i claimed.

homo sapiens may yet speciate, but at present there is no barrier to gene transfer between most pools.

we are more diverse and homogeneous than anytime in our past

@ "For instance, while the difference between human and gorilla DNA is only about 1.6%"

well that depends on what you count as a unit of DNA.

two humans do not have 100% the same DNA, but they do have 100% the same chromosones, (apart from some rare genetic conditions, like downes syndrome which is a triple chromosonal error) they also have 100% the same genes, but there is lots of variation within a given gene - alleles of a gene are variations at the nuclear level...

so you can measure one gene in a human as being the same gene in a gorilla, even though the actually genetic sequence of that gene is different because they are alleles....

and it's harder to measure this % of similarilty and it's not always made clear what these measures mean...

@orathaic - You clearly know more about this than I do. I was just going by what little info I found that said the DNA difference was about 1.6%. I also found as much as 5% between us and a gorilla. I assume they mean that we only have 98.4% of the same chromosones. But again, I'm not an expert in genetics, just computer sciences.