Who is whiter?

[Prodigal Son]

1. Northeastern Europeans

2 Southern Europeans

I am currently in the middle of an argument with the individual known as "Racial Myths" (more like "Reinvented Meds"). He asserts that Southern Europeans are by every definition whiter than Northeastern Europeans (Finns, Balts, European Russians, Belarussians, etc...) Basically it comes down to a choice between

1. Northeastern Europeans (mostly mixed Nordic and and archaic Upper Paleolithic with slight Mongoloid admixture).

and

2. Southern Europeans (mostly descendants of Neolithic and Post-Neolithic Middle Easterners and dark Alpines with a significant Arabic/Berrebid component and slight Negroid admixture.) I believe that Northeastern Europeans are "white" in virtually every sense of the word.

[Allenson]

This ought to be fun! :) Dig in....

[Evolved]

Southern Europeans probably are more mongoloid than Northeast Europeans, thanks to their more recent interractions with the Turks.

I do know some White Greeks, who are Dinaric with reddish brown hair. They're probably mixed with the Slavic minority in Greece, they have a Greek surname. But take a look at what Dienekes considers beautiful Greek women. Sometimes his 'babes' look like a mulatto. x_rofl

I don't know where you can find pictures of Southern Europeans to see typical examples. I think Dienekes and the racial_myths guy are too biased to get an accurate picture.

Here is a list of Finnish people for the Northeast Europeans, see how blond they are, 80%:

http://irc-galleria.net/list.php

You can look for Russian & Ukrainians with this search engine, using random names and selecting the last option for images.

http://www.yandex.ru

Here's a site with Soviet military leaders, of course a lot of them are not Russian, not even Slavic.

http://marshals.narod.ru/ukazen.html

---

If I had to choose between a fully Caucasoid Sicilian man, who is mixed with Arabs/Turks/Semites, and a Sámi who is 13-27% mongoloid, I choose the Sámi. :viking

[Demigorgona]

who cares???

Wy does it matter who is whiter?

Breed with your own racial subgroup and most definitely within the white race.

Who really cares as to who is whiter? We are all white. Thats what matters.

[Rurik]

Since Finland and the East Baltic countries have the highest incidence of blondism in the world, a better question might be: who is whiter, Northeastern Europeans or Northwestern Europeans?

[Azdaja]

Well of course on the whole NE Europe is "whiter", but there is - I believe - a great amount of variation in both areas. There are many "Keltic Nordic" types in Italy on the one hand; and on the other hand, many semi-mongoloids in NE Europe.

[Tore]

Since Finland and the East Baltic countries have the highest incidence of blondism in the world, a better question might be: who is whiter, Northeastern Europeans or Northwestern Europeans?

Pigmentation wise, NE Europeans are MUCH lighter than NW Europeans.

The Finns are lighter than the Germans, the Poles lighter than the British, the Russians lighter than the Belgiums.

Of course, skull shape must be taken into consideration.

The brachycephally of Eastern populations has been attributed by some to mongoloid influences, but from a logical stance, divergent evolution seems to be the much more plausible cause.

Does long-headedness equate to be being whiter??

[Stríbog]

Does long-headedness equate to be being whiter??

Of course it does, Negroes are the whitest of all!!! x_p

[Tore]

Someone finally voted for Southern Europeans!

I bet their conscience is already eating away at them...

[cosmocreator]

Originally posted by Trønder
Pigmentation wise, NE Europeans are MUCH lighter than NW Europeans.

The Finns are lighter than the Germans, the Poles lighter than the British, the Russians lighter than the Belgiums.

The history of the Finns.

http://virtual.finland.fi/finfo/english/minorit.html
http://virtual.finland.fi/finfo/english/prehist3.html

[Tore]

The history of the Finns.

I never said the Finns were 100% fully Europid, or that NE Europeans are genetically whiter than NW Europeans.

Yet it is empirical and factual that NE Europeans have lighter pigmentation than NW Europeans.

Besides, Uralic does not always equate to mongoloid.

[lochgarman]

Of course NE Europeans do have more blondes, NW Europeans also have a different shade of blonde which often has shades of red "strawberry blonde". Most people would not dispute more NW have red hair as well, although Denmark certainly has a few!

It should also be noted that NW have blue eyes & that NE have more of a shade of grey, a lot of people have noticed this although I don't know if any research has been done on the reason?

One other prominent difference is skin shade NE seem to have skin which tans easily. Not so in NW Europeans who often have very pale skin even some of those with darker hair still with blue eyes can burn very easily in moderate sunshine!

This is how you can spot the NW "lobsters" on the beach on holiday in sunnier regions, Spain/Greece etc!

[Jethro Tull]

Southern Europeans probably are more mongoloid than Northeast Europeans, thanks to their more recent interractions with the Turks.

I do know some White Greeks, who are Dinaric with reddish brown hair. They're probably mixed with the Slavic minority in Greece, they have a Greek surname. But take a look at what Dienekes considers beautiful Greek women. Sometimes his 'babes' look like a mulatto. x_rofl

I don't know where you can find pictures of Southern Europeans to see typical examples. I think Dienekes and the racial_myths guy are too biased to get an accurate picture.

Here is a list of Finnish people for the Northeast Europeans, see how blond they are, 80%:

http://irc-galleria.net/list.php

You can look for Russian & Ukrainians with this search engine, using random names and selecting the last option for images.

http://www.yandex.ru

Here's a site with Soviet military leaders, of course a lot of them are not Russian, not even Slavic.

http://marshals.narod.ru/ukazen.html

---

If I had to choose between a fully Caucasoid Sicilian man, who is mixed with Arabs/Turks/Semites, and a Sámi who is 13-27% mongoloid, I choose the Sámi. :viking

Pure propaganda.

Of course Southeastern Europeans have less mongoloid influences...
Every genetic studies say this...

[NormanBlood]

I personally don't think Northeastern Europe has more mongoloid influences. When you look at NE Europeans and compare them to Southern Europeans, I think that becomes evidant.

Needless to say of course, both Northern and Southern Europeans are white. There are exeptions to every rule but by the majority that is the conclusion I make.

[Jethro Tull]

I personally don't think Northeastern Europe has more mongoloid influences. When you look at NE Europeans and compare them to Southern Europeans, I think that becomes evidant.


Sorry man, but it sounds a wishful thinking to me...
I'm not saying this for any personal reason. I'm 1/4 Northeastern European(Lithuania) and 0% southern...

[Nordhammer]

I never said the Finns were 100% fully Europid, or that NE Europeans are genetically whiter than NW Europeans.

Yet it is empirical and factual that NE Europeans have lighter pigmentation than NW Europeans.

Besides, Uralic does not always equate to mongoloid.

We all know pigmentation is not necessarily indicative of racial purity. Some Northeast Asians may be lighter-skinned than a Southern European. Some mixed-race people may be lighter than some Southern Europeans as well.

Even though some Northeast European populations may have a higher incidence of blond hair or light eyes, Northwest Europeans such as the Irish and Scots have the lowest amount of nonCaucasoid admixture and the highest incidence of rufosity and redheads. Redheads could be considered the "whitest" or most depigmented (most susceptible to UV radiation).

[Nordhammer]

1. Northeastern Europeans

2 Southern Europeans

I am currently in the middle of an argument with the individual known as "Racial Myths" (more like "Reinvented Meds"). He asserts that Southern Europeans are by every definition whiter than Northeastern Europeans (Finns, Balts, European Russians, Belarussians, etc...) Basically it comes down to a choice between

1. Northeastern Europeans (mostly mixed Nordic and and archaic Upper Paleolithic with slight Mongoloid admixture).

and

2. Southern Europeans (mostly descendants of Neolithic and Post-Neolithic Middle Easterners and dark Alpines with a significant Arabic/Berrebid component and slight Negroid admixture.) I believe that Northeastern Europeans are "white" in virtually every sense of the word.

Southern Europeans are more Neolithic than Northern Europeans. Other than this I don't see how his argument would apply. Needless to say this is irrelevant to me. Proto-Europoids could be considered the predecessors anyway. Either way, I'm all for Med preservation and supremacy. We can collaborate with them to clean up North America and South America, there's a lot of work to do. 80 million Negroes in Brazil alone.

[Tore]

We all know pigmentation is not necessarily indicative of racial purity.

No, not always.

But if a European population is depigmented, then it is unlikely to have large amounts of foreign ancestry.

Some Northeast Asians may be lighter-skinned than a Southern European.

Sure.

Same would apply to hair or eye pigmentation.

No, almost all Southern Europeans would be lighter-haired/eyed than NE Asians, who are uniformily blue-black in hair colour and dark brown/black in eye colour.

[Nordhammer]

No, almost all Southern Europeans would be lighter-haired/eyed than NE Asians, who are uniformily blue-black in hair colour and dark brown/black in eye colour.

I rephrased that sentence, I thought it might be misinterpreted that way. I meant other comparisons to Southern Europeans or Asiatic Caucasoids, such as quadroons and other mixed types.

[cosmocreator]

Sorry man, but it sounds a wishful thinking to me...
I'm not saying this for any personal reason. I'm 1/4 Northeastern European(Lithuania) and 0% southern...


Normanblood is female.

[Med]

That's a deliberately ambiguous poll question which has succeeded in misleading 72% of respondents. Of course NE Europeans are "whiter" in terms of skin tone and overall pigmentation, but that's ultimately irrelevant when assessing ancestry. In racial terms, S Europeans are undoubtedly the whiter -- i.e. more Caucasoid, more European -- of the two groups. After all, Basques are one of the oldest and purest populations in Europe, and they're mostly "swarthy Mediterraneans".

Also, the descriptions of the two groups are incorrect (intentionally, no doubt). S Europeans are in fact mostly Paleolithic with varying degrees of Neolithic ancestry, and they've received virtually no non-European gene flow since prehistoric times. NE Europeans are not significantly Nordic at all but rather East Baltic + Ladogan, and their genetic material derives in large part from Central Asia after the Neolithic.

[Awar]

NE Europeans are more depigmented.
S Europeans have absolutely all the attributes of the white race.

Depigmentation isn't necessarily a mark of 'being white'. S Europeans are more typically 'white' because of having skeletal and cranial features that only appear in the white, and no other race.

[Agrippa]

I voted for NE Europeans but its a decision without any importance.
At least morphological features are much more important than pigmentation.

A full blooded Saami is very seldom typical European and I would almost every time prefer Mediterraneans.

But in general I would say that there is not to much Mongolid admixture in NE Euros and not to much Negrid admixture in Southerners.

But both is possible and I tend to say that there is more Mongolid admixture in NE Euros than Negrid one in the South, because the most invaders from outside of Europe in the South were maybe no European Europids, but Orientalid, Berberid and Armenid Europids.
This sometimes cause more extreme facial features which are a sign of admixture but just of these groups.
Really Negrid admixture seems to me extremely low in the South of Europe.

Maybe a 100 percent Gracilmediterranid type looks to someone of you like a Negrid, but he isnt...

I say admixture if low is not that important both ways, what matters is the overall Genpool and the decision of individuals in their mating choice.

Today if there runnig full blooded Negrid people in all parts of Europe around, it doesnt really matter if someone has 5 percent Negroid or Mongolid admixture.

But I tend to say in general that Mongolids are more much more progressive than Negrids and mainly the idea of preservation in Europe let me say they are not welcome at least in masses here in Europe.
Because from an objective point of view especially the Sinid time is as progressive as are the Europeans.

But its not just a question of objective features but also of culture and homogenity, as of genetic lines of high quality which shouldnt be destroyed for nothing...

Is this really important if Southerners got 5 percent Negrid blood or Northerners 5 percent Mongolid? I dont think so...

But the typical brachymorphic types I personally really dont like. I would everytime prefer a gracile Med over a totally foetalized or brutalized Northerner... (there are not to much in NE Europe, just the NS anthropologists said so)

[Marduk]

We have to acknowledge having some mongoloid admixture is less worst than having negroid one.

[Razmig]

We have to acknowledge having some mongoloid admixture is less worst than having negroid one.
I don't know about that. Half black people tend to have very white features and curly/coarse hair, and brown skin. Wheras half Asians often time look like Mongoloids. Is the Mongoloid or Negroid gene stronger? Tiger woods looks more asian that anything, infact he looks liek a viet. Anyone have info on dominant recessive traits?

[Tore]

Is the Mongoloid or Negroid gene stronger?

Europeans are much closer to Mongoloids in terms of genetic distance, as the two groups diverged much later than what was the case with sub-Saharan Africans.

"Black" genes have a tendency to be stronger than "White" genes in the sense that they are typically dominant.

In the case of Mongoloids, the reverse is generally true, in that "White" genes are dominant over "Asian" genes.

[Razmig]

Europeans are much closer to Mongoloids in terms of genetic distance, as the two groups diverged much later than what was the case with sub-Saharan Africans.

"Black" genes have a tendency to be stronger than "White" genes in the sense that they are typically dominant.

In the case of Mongoloids, the reverse is generally true, in that "White" genes are dominant over "Asian" genes.
Thats why blondism is more common in hybrid half/mongol races. Hmm, the dominant recessive allele kind of represents the strength of those races, where blacks are strongest, then whites, then asians (the smallest). Hehe

[Agrippa]

Thats why blondism is more common in hybrid half/mongol races. Hmm, the dominant recessive allele kind of represents the strength of those races, where blacks are strongest, then whites, then asians (the smallest). Hehe

There are new features which tend to be dominant and there are old features which are tending to be dominant.
F.e. the Mongolid eyes are dominant or the curly hair of Negroids but on the long time the narrower and longer nose of Europids is more dominant over the Negroid one.

Most of the time (just my guess) newer features/traits, at least when they are developed over a long time and are spread over a whole population.

I dont think that Europid features are dominant over Mongolid ones, just in terms of pigmentation of course...

[Tore]

Thats why blondism is more common in hybrid half/mongol races.

No.

I said the reverse is generally true.

Mongoloid/Europid hybrids tend to be more Europid in skull shape and morphology, while adopting Mongoloid pigmentation.

Paul Kariya and Keanu Reeves provide good examples of this.

http://www.icubed.com/~rpoe/kariya2.jpg

http://www.goblackbears.com/imgs/hockeym/pkariya.jpg



http://i.ivillage.co.uk/uk_en/a_ukpix/celebrity/keanu-reeves.jpg

http://www.thedreamtime.com/spirit/num_celeb/images/keanu.jpg




http://users.bluecarrots.com/rbisto/BBC/race.html

"These recessive genes include the 6 to 8 gene loci for light skin color, the genes for blue eyes, gray eyes, blond hair, red hair, thin lips, straight hair, sacral spot, lack of facial hair (beards), narrow nose shape, and some others."

[Razmig]

No.

I said the reverse is generally true.

Mongoloid/Europid hybrids tend to be more Europid in skull shape and morphology, while adopting Mongoloid pigmentation.

Paul Kariya and Keanu Reeves provide good examples of this.

http://www.icubed.com/~rpoe/kariya2.jpg

http://www.goblackbears.com/imgs/hockeym/pkariya.jpg



http://i.ivillage.co.uk/uk_en/a_ukpix/celebrity/keanu-reeves.jpg

http://www.thedreamtime.com/spirit/num_celeb/images/keanu.jpg




http://users.bluecarrots.com/rbisto/BBC/race.html

"These recessive genes include the 6 to 8 gene loci for light skin color, the genes for blue eyes, gray eyes, blond hair, red hair, thin lips, straight hair, sacral spot, lack of facial hair (beards), narrow nose shape, and some others."
Paul Kariya and Keanu Reeves are not good examples of stabalized hybrids...if blondism exists in one of the parents, the child will always have lighter hair, despite Mongol pigmentation. The caucasoid facial features might be dominant, but the eyes and skull shape will always be more mongoloid. Keanu Reeves is just a minority who seems more white, is he even half Asian? Or less (just asking).

[Agrippa]

You should always consider the subrace too.

F.e. Nordid+Sinid is something different from Alpine+Tungid.

And Polynesians are a very bad example because I dont even consider them as Mongolids in the narrower sence.
Some of them look even half-Europid without European admixture!

That in such people the Europid component is predominant in the phaenotype is nothing surprising.
I would compare it with Aethiopid-European Mulattoes which look much more European than f.e. European-Sudanid ones...
I would say its something different with an ugly classical Mongolid from the Tungid type.

[CyberNinja]

1. Northeastern Europeans

2 Southern Europeans

I am currently in the middle of an argument with the individual known as "Racial Myths" (more like "Reinvented Meds"). He asserts that Southern Europeans are by every definition whiter than Northeastern Europeans (Finns, Balts, European Russians, Belarussians, etc...) Basically it comes down to a choice between

1. Northeastern Europeans (mostly mixed Nordic and and archaic Upper Paleolithic with slight Mongoloid admixture).

and

2. Southern Europeans (mostly descendants of Neolithic and Post-Neolithic Middle Easterners and dark Alpines with a significant Arabic/Berrebid component and slight Negroid admixture.) I believe that Northeastern Europeans are "white" in virtually every sense of the word.

This poll is meaningless!