PDA

View Full Version : Refuting the Racial Myths of Europe



friedrich braun
Monday, November 10th, 2003, 06:08 PM
Does anyone know what has happened to one of my favourite web personalities: "Anon" and his "Refuting Racial Myths"?

Prodigal Son
Monday, November 10th, 2003, 07:15 PM
Does anyone know what has happened to one of my favourite web personalities: "Anon" and his "Refuting Racial Myths"?

Anon still posts on the Racial Myths Forum (I can send you the link to its new incarnation if you like), but he's taken his site down for some reason. Perphaps he is redesigning it to look more like Racial Myths' new site "Racial Reality"[sic].

friedrich braun
Monday, November 10th, 2003, 07:28 PM
Thanks, I hope Anon resurfaces somewhere soon!

It would be great to have him around here.


Anon still posts on the Racial Myths Forum (I can send you the link to its new incarnation if you like), but he's taken his site down for some reason. Perphaps he is redesigning it to look more like Racial Myths' new site "Racial Reality"[sic].

Peeps
Saturday, May 21st, 2005, 08:36 PM
http://www.white-history.com/refuting_rm/

"This site is dedicated to refuting the lies, misinformation and pseudo-scholarship about race and racial origins coming from the website of an individual called racial_myths. Why? Because I’m sick and tired of his making idiotic claims in order to advance his ridiculous agenda. Take a look around. You might learn something. Especially if you have just finished absorbing the misinformation at racial_myths. "

http://www.white-history.com/refuting_rm/

Loyalist
Saturday, October 25th, 2008, 03:22 AM
Specifically, the understatement of Negroid influence in Southern Europe, and exaggeration of Mongoloid influence in the North. I am not declaring any position concerning the conclusions of this site, but I think it provides an excellent response to the seemingly never-ending debate over the issue of Mongoloid presence in Northern Europe weighed against Negroid input in the South of the continent.

Note: the constant references to "RM" concerns another site which has made asserations that Mongoloid influence in Northern Europe is greater than Negroid influence in Southern Europe.



Mongoloid and Negroid admixture are not equivalent

It is misleading to lump "Mongoloid and Negroid Ancestry" together. This was done on some mtDNA studies where levels of non-Caucasoid admixture are relatively low. But once "Mongoloid" Y-chromosome haplogroups are added, combining "Mongoloid and Negroid" can only confuse the issue.

Negroids are much more genetically distinct from Caucasoids than are Mongoloids. Northern Mongoloids are the major race to which Caucasoids are closest. According to Cavalli-Sforza's data, the distance between English and Chuckchi is 114, compared to an English-Bantu distance of 462, and an English-Sardinian distance of 65.

A given amount of Mongoloid admixture will alter a European population less than the same amount of Negroid ancestry.


"Mongoloid" Y-chromosome marker frequencies in NE Europe do not accurately reflect Mongoloid admixture

As has been explained to RM repeatedly, "Mongoloid" Y-chromosome haplogroup HG16 is present in Finland, for example, at levels that far exceed any actual Mongoloid contribution in the gene pool. There are at most a total of 10% Mongoloid genes in Finland from all sources, and HG16 in Sweden contributes at most perhaps 1% Mongoloid genes in Sweden. And that's if Tat C is even Mongoloid. The most recent research indicates Tat C probably arose in a Caucasoid population, since Tat C lineages show more diversity among NE Europeans than among Mongoloids. Tat C was probably brought to Siberia by Caucasoids, and the high levels in some Northern Mongoloid populations may be accounted for by genetic drift or the founder effect. Or, as some researchers have speculated, Tat C may may have been selected for through offering a survival advantage in northern climates.


Frequencies of "Mongoloid" mtDNA markers may have been amplified by selection in northern climates

Looking at levels of "Mongoloid" mtDNA markers in Northern Europe, one would probably overestimate any actual Mongoloid maternal contribution. Haplogroups A, C, and D "improve the body's resistance to cold" and are positively selected for by northern climates. Northern Europeans already have lower levels of non-Caucasoid DNA than Southern Europeans. But, when we take this environmental selection of mtDNA into account, the difference may be even greater.



RM confirms that NW Europeans have the least non-Caucasoid admixture

Inhabitants of the British isles have comparatively tiny amounts of non-Caucasoid admixture, as even RM is forced to admit. Once Tat C lineages are removed from consideration, Scandinavians too have extremely low levels of non-Caucasoid ancestry. RM has deceptively included Tat C lineages in an attempt to obscure actual trends in admixture, confuse his readers, and draw attention away from the fact that Italians have much more non-Caucasoid admixture than the British. RM's data -- after one subtracts Tat C lineages -- simply confirm that admixture is highest in the east and south, and lowest in the northwest.


As mentioned above, with autosomal data, we can quickly dispose of idiocies like RM's claim that Finns are 30% Mongoloid. Y-chromosomes and mtDNA are not perfect, but until we see more work on autosomal DNA, they will have to do.

Maternal admixture

For convenience, I will use the data from Helgason et al. (2001) -- even though M and L are lumped together, and some of the geographic divisions aren't as fine as one might like. I may do a more detailed analysis using more sources at some point in the future.

Superhaplogroup M represents Asian or East African admixture. Haplogroup L is sub-Saharan. Haplogroups A through D represent Asian or Amerindian admixture.

http://i36.tinypic.com/rrs2ud.jpg

Maternal Sub-Saharan admixture

Here are some additional numbers on sub-Saharan maternal ancestry, mostly from Gonzalez et al. (2003) . The number for Sicily is based on Romano et al. (2003) and the Albanian number is from Belledi et al. (2000). In the case of Sicily, several locations around the island were sampled, and results ranged from 0% to 2.3% L1/L2 lineages. Sub-Saharan L3 lineages were not reported seperately in this study, so actual levels of sub-Saharan mtDNA may be higher. Levels of haplogroup M range from 0% to 8.7%, in different areas of Sicily.

http://i33.tinypic.com/xnsydd.jpg

Paternal admixture

Male sub-Saharan ancestry has been detected in Portugal (1 lineage in a sample of 93), Sardinia (1/10), France (1/40), Corsica (11/328), and the Greek island Mitilini (1/27).

Male Near Eastern (HG9) and North African (HG21) ancestry. Note: "Neolithic" markers (HG9 and HG21) in Central and Northern Europe are probably genuinely Neolithic. The same can't necessarily be said in Greece, Portugal, southern Spain, or southern Italy, where more recent gene flow may be indicated (cf. Richards 2003)

http://i33.tinypic.com/2rmtxl5.jpg


Summary/Conclusion

The methods I've used on this site to estimate admixture are imperfect, but they do reliably demonstrate trends, which are in accordance with history, geography, and common sense.

In general, northern Europeans have less non-Caucasoid admixture and much less non-European admixture than southern Europeans, and western Europeans have less than eastern Europeans. Europeans have less non-Caucasoid admixture than Middle Easterners, who in turn generally have less admixture than North Africans.

Levels of non-Caucasoid admixture are relatively low throughout Europe, and may be fairly inconsequential; on the other hand, relatively recent non-European Caucasoid influence probably noticeably affected phenotypes in some areas of southern Europe.

We don't really know what effect non-Caucasoid admixture has had on Europe. Roger Pearson seems to think it may have been significant even in Britain:


. . . the West European portion of the Caucasoid gene pool has changed considerably over the past century (as graveyards in London show). This is especially due to an increasing admixture with non-Caucasoid elements

I remain skeptical. If Pearson is correct in claiming the British gene pool has deteriorated, I suspect internal migration and differential reproduction within Britain were the main culprits, the small amounts of foreign admixture being negligible by comparison (of course, with mass third world immigration, this may be changing). But, to whatever extent admixture affected Britain, the effects in southern Europe were many times greater.

http://www.white-history.com/refuting_rm/admixture.html

Loyalist
Tuesday, October 28th, 2008, 08:53 PM
OneEnglishNorman's response

I received a negative rep point from OEN (not the first one from him for my "bold" assertions countering his camp's pro-Southern European doctrine) stating:
"lol, white-history.com?? Disreputable source."

I truthfully replied:


The page cites its own sources, and they are reputable. If you had bothered to actually read the page you would have seen that. Do you enjoy looking unintelligent? I'm reporting you for once again abusing the negative rep.

His response:


It's full of errors and from the same site which claims Sumer was a Nordic settlement.

"Chapter 8: Egypt: Nordic Desert Empire" - It's Nordicist garbage.

---

"Haplogroups A, C, and D "improve the body's resistance to cold" and are positively selected for by northern climates."

Haplogroups do not improve resistence to anything, they're markers. And Haplogroup A is African, not Asian.

The fact that the site may preach Nordicist ideals on another, unrelated topic is inconsequential to the matter pertinent to us. Particularly in this case, as the site provides its own references from reputable sources for the page I posted. That's without taking into consideration OEN's cop-out on the genetic aspect is also erroneous.

If someone supports or disagrees with the information in the original post, then say so here. I won't have it done through PMs, or through OEN's constant abuse of the negative reputation function. It wouldn't even be necessary to post this if Skadi's administration would actually enforce the rules, even after being alerted more than once. I've lost track of how many points I've been deducted as a result of OEN doing this based on falsehoods, lies, and the cowardice he has displayed here.

OneEnglishNorman
Tuesday, October 28th, 2008, 09:21 PM
"Egypt: Nordic Desert Empire" does say it all, it's an embarrassment to racially-aware Northern Europeans.



A given amount of Mongoloid admixture will alter a European population less than the same amount of Negroid ancestry.That's reassuring to know...



And that's if Tat C is even Mongoloid.Tat C is north Eurasian.


Once Tat C lineages are removed from consideration, Scandinavians too have extremely low levels of non-Caucasoid ancestry.IOW once we remove evidence we don't like, the conclusion is different.

---


I've lost track of how many points I've been deducted.....For the record I have only ever given you negative rep twice, including today, so I don't know where the "losing track" comes into it.

Loyalist
Tuesday, October 28th, 2008, 09:33 PM
"Egypt: Nordic Desert Empire" does say it all, it's an embarrassment to racially-aware Northern Europeans.

I would argue that anyone advocating a Germanic mixing with a Spaniard rather than a Finn is an embarassment to racially-aware Northern Europeans.

Again, you've ignored what I said for the third time. The matter at hand strictly deals with the page I posted originally, which does cite reputable sources. Another page detailing Nordic Egyptian theories is irrelevant.


That's reassuring to know.

I agree.


Tat C is north Eurasian.

Great, it seems you were able to comprehend "And that's if Tat C is even Mongoloid"...


IOW once we remove evidence we don't like, the conclusion is different.

No actual assertion was made there, and either way it doesn't change the fact that Southern Europeans have much larger amounts of non-European, and in their case, Negroid, blood than Northerners.


For the record I have only ever given you negative rep twice, including today, so I don't know the "losing track" comes into it.

More than twice, actually, and in every case it's been a matter of you mis-reading or taking a post out of context, or simply flat-out lying. The one time I did receive a response from administration, it stated that since it's only a few points, they would let you slide once. Well, that's long since gone out the window. From what I've just heard, you've also been using negative rep points to censor other members who don't agree with your views on the North/South European issue.

Siebenbürgerin
Tuesday, October 28th, 2008, 09:55 PM
If someone supports or disagrees with the information in the original post, then say so here. I won't have it done through PMs, or through OEN's constant abuse of the negative reputation function. It wouldn't even be necessary to post this if Skadi's administration would actually enforce the rules, even after being alerted more than once.
Lecturing the Staff isn't going to get you anywhere unfortunately. If we was to enforce the rules right now, you would receive a infraction for complaining in the public forums and posting off the original topic which isn't negative reputation or OneEnglishNorman.

There isn't a rule about negative reputation I'm seeing. Funding members and Staff can give negative reputation but the Staff could interfere if it's a matter of exaggeration. But 1-2 negative reputation points aren't abuse. If that's abuse, then the negative reputation option would be useless since it can't be used. The administration aren't here 24/7 to listen to complaints either. You should write a Witenagemot user from the online list if you are impatient. If OneEnglishNorman gave you more than a few points like you're saying, send the evidence in a PM to a Staff and we look at it. But not in public.

I'm going to delete more off topic posts from now, by the way, so please discuss the racial myths of Europe only and not negative reputation or what's your opinion about a user. We aren't tolerating any more personal dramatisms between members, I've to say.

rainman
Tuesday, October 28th, 2008, 10:08 PM
That's weird Ireland is the only "pure" race. None of these can be very accurate. How many people out of the total population did they sample?

SwordOfTheVistula
Wednesday, October 29th, 2008, 11:51 AM
"Egypt: Nordic Desert Empire" does say it all, it's an embarrassment to racially-aware Northern Europeans.

Perhaps a few hundred years from now, people will say "India: Nordic Jungle Empire? ROFLMAO! People even try to say famed Indian poet Rudyard Kipling was of 'wholly northern European ancestry'! LMAO!"

The Horned God
Wednesday, October 29th, 2008, 08:41 PM
People even try to say famed Indian poet Rudyard Kipling was of 'wholly northern European ancestry'! LMAO!"

Eh? Both Kiplings parents were English, weren't they?

Loyalist
Wednesday, October 29th, 2008, 09:12 PM
Eh? Both Kiplings parents were English, weren't they?

Kipling's father was from Yorkshire, and his mother was an Anglo-Scot. He might just be a good candidate for a pure-bred Northern European after all. ;)

TheGreatest
Wednesday, October 29th, 2008, 09:35 PM
Eh? Both Kiplings parents were English, weren't they?


Ruyard Kipling was English! :D
He simply identified as being Indian. It's a bit how someone Parents could be born in Germany, but identify as being American or Canadian


I believe we are confusing Ruyard Kipling with George Orwell, whom himsef was part Indian (quarter or half, maternal ancestry)

SwordOfTheVistula
Thursday, October 30th, 2008, 11:24 AM
Ruyard Kipling was English! :D
He simply identified as being Indian.

And this in the space of less than a century.

4,000 years is a lot of time to 'Arabize' the Pharaohs.

Cythraul
Thursday, October 30th, 2008, 11:56 AM
I would argue that anyone advocating a Germanic mixing with a Spaniard rather than a Finn is an embarassment to racially-aware Northern Europeans.
Except that both Finns and Spaniards are Non-Germanic. You do realise that there is a strong megalithic/basque influence in Britain don't you. Studies have shown genetic similarities between the British and those peoples from Iberia, therefore it's safe to say that North-Western Europe is inherently related to areas of Spain and France, genetically speaking - probably to the same degree, if not more, that Scandinavia is inherently related to Finland. You appear to be more 'pigmentationalist' than 'Germanicist', for that's the only way one might be able to say Finns are more compatible than Spaniards.

Loyalist
Thursday, October 30th, 2008, 02:20 PM
Except that both Finns and Spaniards are Non-Germanic. You do realise that there is a strong megalithic/basque influence in Britain don't you. Studies have shown genetic similarities between the British and those peoples from Iberia, therefore it's safe to say that North-Western Europe is inherently related to areas of Spain and France, genetically speaking - probably to the same degree, if not more, that Scandinavia is inherently related to Finland. You appear to be more 'pigmentationalist' than 'Germanicist', for that's the only way one might be able to say Finns are more compatible than Spaniards.

We were speaking in terms of Northern Europeans, not Germanics, what about that don't you understand?

Sure, there are studies which show the English and other peoples of the British Isles to be of Iberian origin, but other studies have also shown that the English are genetically indistinguishable from Germans. Taking into account history, the latter theory seems to hold much more weight.

Finns are ethnically, visually, and culturally much closer to Germanics than Southern Europeans. So, on the contrary, to be a "pigmentationalist" is an essential element of being a "Germanicist". A blonde-haired, blue-eyed Finn, who some members (generally themselves of questionable racial origins) denounce as Mongoloid for the alleged presence of concave eyes, would have little to no impact on subsequent generations should they inter-mix with a Germanic. That is, phenotypes, behaviour, culture, and so on would not be altered in any significant manner. Whether or not you support the findings of the study I posted, what cannot be denied is that Iberians and Italians have Moorish and Negroid blood far surpassing any non-Europid genes present in Northern Europe, among either Germanics or Finns. Further to that, Mongoloids are physically closer to Europeans than Negroids, so, even if Mongoloid influence was as great in Northern Europe as Negroid is in the South (which it isn't), it would still be far less destructive.

In my own country, the Catholic Church has made unions between Italians, Portuguese, and the like with Northern Europeans such as the Irish, Germans, and Dutch very commonplace. Individuals I've seen who are 1/2, 1/4 or less Italian, with the rest of their ancestry stemming from Northern Europe, more often than not reflect their Southern heritage. Even after several generations, black hair, brown eyes, swarthy complexions, short stature and other cornerstones of Romance appearance continue to be present. That is not the case when the foreign element is a Finn, and the same can be said for a Celt or even a Slav.

The fact that a Jewish "scientist" published some ridiculous paper asserting that the English are Iberian also doesn't mean that any British group is closer to the Spanish than continental Germanics. The article you're referring to was misleading and untruthful. It conveyed the idea that Britons are descendants of Spanish migrants, when in truth, Celtic influence present in both Spain and the British Isles has resulted in some degree of genetic similarities. There is also Celtic blood in France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, and elsewhere, but it would be ludicruous to assert that these people are also Iberians or Spaniards, and the United Kingdom is no exception. They merely share one meta-ethnic group amongst their mosaic of forbears from ancient times. Therefore, to say that North-Western Europeans are closer to Latins than Finns, in either a racial, ethnic, or cultural sense is beyond laughable.

Cythraul
Thursday, October 30th, 2008, 04:19 PM
Finns are ethnically, visually, and culturally much closer to Germanics than Southern Europeans. So, on the contrary, to be a "pigmentationalist" is an essential element of being a "Germanicist".

So where a German couple produces both an 'uber-nord' lightly-pigmented son and a darkly-pigmented daughter by chance, the daughter is less acceptable than a blonde-Finn, despite having countless generations more of Germanic ancestry than the Finn?



A blonde-haired, blue-eyed Finn, who some members (generally themselves of questionable racial origins) denounce as Mongoloid for the alleged presence of concave eyes, would have little to no impact on subsequent generations should they inter-mix with a Germanic.

Not if the only thing you take into account is pigmentation, no. However, some people understand that ethnic identity is about more than just blonde hair and blue eyes. I've seen a number of Turks with eyes as blue as the most Nordid of Nordids, and Spaniards with hair as blonde as the most archetypal Scandinavian. Do we look beyond their colouring to ascertain their ethnicity? Of course we do.



what cannot be denied is that Iberians and Italians have Moorish and Negroid blood far surpassing any non-Europid genes present in Northern Europe, among either Germanics or Finns.

Do you believe that dark pigmentation entered the caucasoid race through mixing only? From the studies I've read, light pigmentation was a mutation (and a relatively recent one at that). You seem to be projecting the idea that Meds can only be 'dark' because they have a black ancestor somewhere down the line. This happened prior to the megalithics I take it, for this could be the only explanation for dark pigmentation in the British Isles.



Even after several generations, black hair, brown eyes, swarthy complexions, short stature and other cornerstones of Romance appearance continue to be present.

Yes, and then somewhere down the line, those people could get together and have lightly-pigmented children... and then a few generations on, the light-blonde-haired, blue-eyed offspring of that bloodline will log on to preservationist forums and claim that dark pigmentation is the work of 'filthy Africans' and must be eradicated from Germanic lands quick-smart. :D



The article you're referring to was misleading and untruthful.

But you don't even know to which article I was referring. I've read at least three pertaining to the Basque/British theory and I'm not even that interested in anthropology. I'm sure there are a dozen or so independent studies drawing the same conclusions.



There is also Celtic blood in France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, and elsewhere, but it would be ludicruous to assert that these people are also Iberians or Spaniards

The 'Celts' (as a meta-tribe) are not the same as the Basques from Iberia. When people talk about the 'Celtic' element in the British Isles, what they're really referring to, collectively, are the Celts, Gauls, Picts, Iberians, Britons and pre-existing megalthics. Among them, only the Celts and Gauls settled widely throughout central Europe, therefore the 'Celtic' element in Britain has different genetic connotations to the 'Celtic' element in the more Eastern regions like Germany. And yes, the Western regions such as France would have been settled by similar Iberians to those who made Britain their home.



Therefore, to say that North-Western Europeans are closer to Latins than Finns, in either a racial, ethnic, or cultural sense is beyond laughable.
Depends where in North-Western Europe. The British (English included) are more closely related to Iberians, whilst the Scandinavians are more closely related to the Finnish.

I'm not trying to advocate intermixture with Meds but this idea that pigmentation is the overriding factor to define acceptability is ludicrous.

Loyalist
Thursday, October 30th, 2008, 05:34 PM
So where a German couple produces both an 'uber-nord' lightly-pigmented son and a darkly-pigmented daughter by chance, the daughter is less acceptable than a blonde-Finn, despite having countless generations more of Germanic ancestry than the Finn?

No, because the dark-pigmented child is the result of a genetic variation in the indigenous Germanic, German ethnic group. On the same note, a Finn would still be preferable over a Mediterranean of any phenotype. Nordid Finns in particular are the products of inter-mixture with Germanics, reflective of the system which "Europeanized" the appearance of the Asiatic Hungarians.


Not if the only thing you take into account is pigmentation, no. However, some people understand that ethnic identity is about more than just blonde hair and blue eyes. I've seen a number of Turks with eyes as blue as the most Nordid of Nordids, and Spaniards with hair as blonde as the most archetypal Scandinavian. Do we look beyond their colouring to ascertain their ethnicity? Of course we do.

In the case of Italians, Spaniards, and Portuguese, if the dark pigmentation was simply an variant of indigenous European phenotypes, then I would agree. However, that isn't the case; the Mediterranean peoples of today obtained their colouring through inter-mixture with Moors, Conversos, and Negroes. Both history and genetics back that up. Nordid-looking Turks and Spaniards are the result of the random re-emergence of some distant Germanic ancestry, which isn't uncommon. Norman genes in Sicily tend to manifest themselves in the occasional blonde-haired, blue-eyed native of the island.


Do you believe that dark pigmentation entered the caucasoid race through mixing only? From the studies I've read, light pigmentation was a mutation (and a relatively recent one at that). You seem to be projecting the idea that Meds can only be 'dark' because they have a black ancestor somewhere down the line. This happened prior to the megalithics I take it, for this could be the only explanation for dark pigmentation in the British Isles.

There are no concrete conclusions on that matter, but rather theories. The most widely-accepted dictates that influence from non-Europeans resulted in the colouring of the Mediterranean today, along with common sense.


Yes, and then somewhere down the line, those people could get together and have lightly-pigmented children... and then a few generations on, the light-blonde-haired, blue-eyed offspring of that bloodline will log on to preservationist forums and claim that dark pigmentation is the work of 'filthy Africans' and must be eradicated from Germanic lands quick-smart. :D

There are blonde-haired, blue-eyed mulattos, but that doesn't mean the individual is white, European, or whatever other school of thought you subscribe to. Furthermore, dark ethnic groups and races are likely to make an appearance in distant subsequent generations, which could threaten this "Nordicization" you're suggesting is possible. The case of Sandra Laing in South Africa comes to mind. Furthermore, your own logic contradicts the position you've chosen. If a Finn assimilates both visually and culturally within the first generation or so, then how can they be less assimiable than a Latin whose influence, by your own acknowledgement, takes several generations of otherwise pure-breeding to erase?


But you don't even know to which article I was referring. I've read at least three pertaining to the Basque/British theory and I'm not even that interested in anthropology. I'm sure there are a dozen or so independent studies drawing the same conclusions.

There was one such article posted here last year, which also stirred up quite a debate in anthropology circles. It doesn't matter which specific news outlet reported the same study.


The 'Celts' (as a meta-tribe) are not the same as the Basques from Iberia. When people talk about the 'Celtic' element in the British Isles, what they're really referring to, collectively, are the Celts, Gauls, Picts, Iberians, Britons and pre-existing megalthics. Among them, only the Celts and Gauls settled widely throughout central Europe, therefore the 'Celtic' element in Britain has different genetic connotations to the 'Celtic' element in the more Eastern regions like Germany. And yes, the Western regions such as France would have been settled by similar Iberians to those who made Britain their home.

The Basques have nothing to do with this discussion. What I said was it is well-known that the Celts migrated into the British Isles from Iberia, the genetic legacy they left in today's Spaniards is what has resulted in this relation to the British groups, who also count the Celts among their ancestors. These studies falsely portray the British as descendants of Spaniards, when they are merely descended from Celts who were present in Spain, and thus the modern English, Scots, Irish, Welsh have a common ancestral group as today's Spanish, but they are not actually descendants of the ethnic groups as we understand them now. Also keep in mind that Galicia maintains a unique Celtic identity today, reflecting this heritage.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Celts_in_Europe.png/300px-Celts_in_Europe.png
Celtic migrations since 600 BC


Depends where in North-Western Europe. The British (English included) are more closely related to Iberians, whilst the Scandinavians are more closely related to the Finnish.

The British are more closely related to Iberians than Scandinavians? So all those Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Danes, and Normans don't count? I don't know whether to break into a fit of laughter, or react with horror for the fact that you actually believe that. The only common link with the British and Spanish is that they are both of partly Celtic origin, but then again, so are the Germans, Dutch, Flemish, and Austrians.

OneEnglishNorman
Thursday, October 30th, 2008, 05:51 PM
the Mediterranean peoples of today obtained their colouring through inter-mixture with Moors, Conversos, and Negroes.

Brits have darker hair than Swedes, did they obtain that colouring from Moors/Conversos/Negroes? :roll

Shock horror, Mediterraneans are darker (!) than Austrians; Austrians are a little darker than Danes; Danes are a little darker than Finns!! Must be all those Sub-Saharan Africans in the woodpile!

Loyalist
Thursday, October 30th, 2008, 05:57 PM
Brits have darker hair than Swedes, did they obtain that colouring from Moors/Conversos/Negroes? :roll

Did you not understand the part where I made it clear physical traits can differentiate between native Europeans? I said it twice.


No, because the dark-pigmented child is the result of a genetic variation in the indigenous Germanic, German ethnic group.


In the case of Italians, Spaniards, and Portuguese, if the dark pigmentation was simply an variant of indigenous European phenotypes, then I would agree.

Dark hair in the British Isles is the result of Celtic influence. That's why it's almost invariable in populations that are particularly Celtic, with little Germanic input (Wales and south-western Ireland).

Think before you make another unintelligent one-liner again. It's called "credibility suicide".

Aptrgangr
Thursday, October 30th, 2008, 06:05 PM
Dark hair in the British Isles is the result of Celtic influence. That's why it's almost invariable in populations that are particularly Celtic, with little Germanic input (Wales and south-western Ireland).


Where do the Celts have their dark hair from? Were the inhabitants living in the British Isles before the Celts arrived per se fair haired?
Does being Germanic (here: Angel, Saxon, Jute) mean being fair haired, or can there be dark haired Germanics too? In the case of Yes: why so?


The "Thanks" was an accident, but never mind.

Loyalist
Thursday, October 30th, 2008, 06:14 PM
Where do the Celts have their dark hair from?

Celts originate in central Europe, beyond that one cannot be certain. Since they do not hail from Northern regions like Germanics and Finns, it would make sense that they possess dark hair.


Were the inhabitants living in the British Isles before the Celts arrived per se fair haired?

I've heard theories that Picts and the like were fairly dark, but little to nothing is known of pre-Celtic Britain, much less the inhabitants' physical appearance or genetic origins.


Does being Germanic (here: Angel, Saxon, Jute) mean being fair haired, or can there be dark haired Germanics too? In the case of Yes: why so?

Germanics are not exclusively blonde and blue-eyed, and of course individuals with darker features exist. I read somewhere that Alfred the Great possessed brown hair and eyes. There is also Celtic input in the Germans which could account for a further amount of atypical phenotypes. Anyway, aren't you always peddling some inane idea that there are Slavic Germans? That could explain some of your swarthy countrymen, or does that ridiculous concept not apply unless it suits you?

Cythraul
Thursday, October 30th, 2008, 06:17 PM
a Finn would still be preferable over a Mediterranean of any phenotype.

That's a matter of opinion, and a pigmentationalist would of course agree that Finns are preferable. For the record, I find both Finns and Iberians acceptable under certain circumstances - Finns being close to Scandinavians and Iberians being close to some British. I'm not unconditionally opposed to either.



In the case of Italians, Spaniards, and Portuguese, if the dark pigmentation was simply an variant of indigenous European phenotypes, then I would agree. However, that isn't the case; the Mediterranean peoples of today obtained their colouring through inter-mixture with Moors, Conversos, and Negroes. Both history and genetics back that up.

Well perhaps someone more knowledgable can confirm that. I'd been led to believe that an independent Mediterranean-type emerged from the Caucasoid race and that the Nordid type was a mutation of this. I'll happily be proven wrong - like I said, I don't profess to be an expert.



Nordid-looking Turks and Spaniards are the result of the random re-emergence of some distant Germanic ancestry, which isn't uncommon.

PRECISELY! That's the point I was trying to make. These types are not the norm, and yet if we were to analyse them from a pigmentationist point of view whereby colouring is the overriding factor in their acceptability into the Germanic meta-ethnicity, then they would be acceptable. In order to discover why they're not acceptable as Germanics, we would need to look at factors other than pigmentation, right? The same rule applies to Finns (and Meds/Iberians, for argument's sake).



There are no concrete conclusions on that matter, but rather theories. The most widely-accepted dictates that influence from non-Europeans resulted in the colouring of the Mediterranean today, along with common sense.

Surely (in addition to the previous admittance that we require direction from someone with more expertise) environment/climate plays a part. Dark pigmentation is roughly proportionate to sun exposure. Again, I may be wrong.



Furthermore, your own logic contradicts the position you've chosen. If a Finn assimilates both visually and culturally within the first generation or so, then how can they be less assimiable than a Latin whose influence, by your own acknowledgement, takes several generations of otherwise pure-breeding to erase?

But 'visually' and 'culturally' are not the only important factors in ethnicity. The person must assimilate visually, culturally, AND genetically. In fact, I'd say 'genetics' is a more vital factor than 'visuals' because visuals can be subject to chance and thus mislead us. I've been told that Finnish culture is similar to Scandinavian culture (Swedish imparticular) but I don't have any first-hand experience in that as I've never been there. Here, I must suggest that whilst Finns might be culturally similar to Swedes, they have less in common with England or Holland.



The Basques have nothing to do with this discussion.

Yes they do.



What I said was it is well-known that the Celts migrated into the British Isles from Iberia,

Along with (at different times) Basques.



thus the modern English, Scots, Irish, Welsh have a common ancestral group as today's Spanish, but they are not actually descendants of the ethnic groups as we understand them now.

No, it is not that Britons and Spanish have a common ancestral group in the 'Celts', it is that some of the Britons' ancestors were the Iberian Spanish. By the way, how would you explain the dark pigmentation of many indigenous Welsh (aswell as some Irish and Scottish)?



The British are more closely related to Iberians than Scandinavians?
No you misunderstood me. What I meant was that Scandinavians are more closely related to Finns than they are to Iberians, and that Britons are more closely related to Iberians than they are to Finns. Point being that in England, Iberians are more acceptable than Finns, and in Scandinavia, Finns are more acceptable than Iberians.

Cythraul
Thursday, October 30th, 2008, 06:27 PM
Germanics are not exclusively blonde and blue-eyed, and of course individuals with darker features exist.
So if dark pigmentation can be indigenous to Germanics, then it follows that it is not necessarily the result of Non-European admixture. So then what reason do you have for saying Meds MUST be descended from Africans like you did here?:


The most widely-accepted dictates that influence from non-Europeans resulted in the colouring of the Mediterranean today, along with common sense.

Could Med colouring not be indigenous to the region in the same way you claim it is indigenous to Germanics?

Loyalist
Thursday, October 30th, 2008, 06:38 PM
That's a matter of opinion, and a pigmentationalist would of course agree that Finns are preferable. For the record, I find both Finns and Iberians acceptable under certain circumstances - Finns being close to Scandinavians and Iberians being close to some British. I'm not unconditionally opposed to either.

Even if the Finn and Iberian are visually compatible, the former has minute Mongoloid ancestry, while the latter has minute Negroid ancestry. The point of the article in the original post was that Mongol blood is not as significant or damaging as the same amount of sub-Saharan input.


Well perhaps someone more knowledgable can confirm that. I'd been led to believe that an independent Mediterranean-type emerged from the Caucasoid race and that the Nordid type was a mutation of this. I'll happily be proven wrong - like I said, I don't profess to be an expert.

There are indigenous Europeans who adapted to their unique climate, thus becoming darker; the Celts, ancient Romans and Greeks, etc. In the subsequent two millenia, specifically in Italy, Spain, and Portugal, a constant influx of invaders and Slaves introduced Semitic and Negroid blood to those nations, whose populations resemble neither dark, unmixed Europeans or those ancestors who existed before this miscegenation took place.


PRECISELY! That's the point I was trying to make. These types are not the norm, and yet if we were to analyse them from a pigmentationist point of view whereby colouring is the overriding factor in their acceptability into the Germanic meta-ethnicity, then they would be acceptable. In order to discover why they're not acceptable as Germanics, we would need to look at factors other than pigmentation, right? The same rule applies to Finns (and Meds/Iberians, for argument's sake).

Blonde Finns are evidence that this ethnic group mixed with Germanics during their gradual establishment. It's the same process by which Asian Magyars inter-bred with Europeans and were pulled into the "Europid" fold. Finns are closer to Germanics in every way, including genetically.


Surely (in addition to the previous admittance that we require direction from someone with more expertise) environment/climate plays a part. Dark pigmentation is roughly proportionate to sun exposure. Again, I may be wrong.

I agree, but the dark pigmentation seen among Mediterranean peoples today is the result of mixture with non-Europeans. Genetics and history provide clear evidence of that.


But 'visually' and 'culturally' are not the only important factors in ethnicity. The person must assimilate visually, culturally, AND genetically. In fact, I'd say 'genetics' is a more vital factor than 'visuals' because visuals can be subject to chance and thus mislead us. I've been told that Finnish culture is similar to Scandinavian culture (Swedish imparticular) but I don't have any first-hand experience in that as I've never been there. Here, I must suggest that whilst Finns might be culturally similar to Swedes, they have less in common with England or Holland.

Finns would look quite Mongol, and certainly in no way Nordic, had they not mixed with Germanics in the region. They are genetically similar to Germanics, and much more so than any Mediterranean group.


Yes they do.

No, they don't.


Along with (at different times) Basques.

No, they didn't. Any genetic similarities between the British and the Basques is explained by Celtic mixture with the latter, providing a common link, but not descent.


No, it is not that Britons and Spanish have a common ancestral group in the 'Celts', it is that some of the Britons' ancestors were the Iberian Spanish.

That is impossible and utter nonsense. The Spanish ethnic group, as it's accepted today, was far, far from existence when these events occured. The link between the modern Britons and Spaniards is solely the result of the Britons' descent from Celts who migrated into Britain via Spain. Some stayed behind and consequently left a genetic imprint, but no "ethnic Spaniard" travelled on to Britain.


By the way, how would you explain the dark pigmentation of many indigenous Welsh (aswell as some Irish and Scottish)?

Celts, Celts, Celts.

How many times have I explained that in this thread alone? I'll make it simple.

1) Celts are dark.

2) Some Celts became lighter by mixing with Germanics (Celtogermanics, or, in the case of England, where migration was so great that the Celts disappeared in most places).

3) The Celts remained dark in places where they didn't mix with Germanics, at least to any great extent (Wales, south-western Ireland, etc.)


No you misunderstood me. What I meant was that Scandinavians are more closely related to Finns than they are to Iberians, and that Britons are more closely related to Iberians than they are to Finns. Point being that in England, Iberians are more acceptable than Finns, and in Scandinavia, Finns are more acceptable than Iberians.

No British Isles group is genetically closer to Iberians than Finns. You're confusing Celtic input with Spanish, which is, again, total nonsense.

Loyalist
Thursday, October 30th, 2008, 06:46 PM
So if dark pigmentation can be indigenous to Germanics, then it follows that it is not necessarily the result of Non-European admixture. So then what reason do you have for saying Meds MUST be descended from Africans like you did here?:

Historical and genetic evidence shows that there has been extensive inter-mixture between Mediterraneans peoples and non-Europeans, including Moors, Jews, and African slaves.


Could Med colouring not be indigenous to the region in the same way you claim it is indigenous to Germanics?

Not when it's accompanied by evidence, both genetic and historical, that such mixture occured, and to a large extent.

Aptrgangr
Thursday, October 30th, 2008, 06:52 PM
Celts originate in central Europe, beyond that one cannot be certain. Since they do not hail from Northern regions like Germanics and Finns, it would make sense that they possess dark hair.

But there are blonde Celts as well...


I've heard theories that Picts and the like were fairly dark, but little to nothing is known of pre-Celtic Britain, much less the inhabitants' physical appearance or genetic origins.
We, of course, must be careful with claims about their phenotypes, still it is possible to isolate and decode genes that are responsible for hair color etc.
And Yes, we can track back the genetical origins, the tracks show the way to the Iberian Penninsula.


Germanics are not exclusively blonde and blue-eyed, and of course individuals with darker features exist. I read somewhere that Alfred the Great possessed brown hair and eyes.
Exactly. We have to think about where the Germanics genetically stem from. From the same people the Celts stem from as well...


There is also Celtic input in the Germans which could account for a further amount of atypical phenotypes.
Yes of course there is, and I would not call it atypical, I would say it is more typically for people in some regions, and not so in others.


Anyway, aren't you always peddling some inane idea that there are Slavic Germans?
I take all influences into account. There is no other option than saying there is a good number of Germans that have Slavonic ancestors, Yes.
You should read this (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=35620).


That could explain some of your swarthy countrymen, or does that ridiculous concept not apply unless it suits you?
Germany´s east, where those Germans of Slavonic origin are natives, is way more "blonde and blue eyed" than Germany´s south, where Germany´s most swarthy natives (of Celtic, Romanic origin) live.

Siebenbürgerin
Thursday, October 30th, 2008, 07:08 PM
Just because dark pigmentation can be found in some Germanics doesn't mean we should be more open to mixtures with Latins. Dark pigmentation doesn't necessarily need to come from a single source or a single ancestor. Every population has several degrees of pigmentation.

The Germanics are very varied phenotypically. For example,

Carsten Ramelow, German footballer, very light pigmentation, both skin and hair and eye colour:

http://www.n24.de/media/import/sid/sid_20080313_12/198859.jpg

Christina Stürmer, Austrian singer, light skin with dark hair and dark eyes (her hair is naturally brown, but she dyes is black)

http://www.essstoerungshotline.at/export/sites/fsw/essstoerung/bilder/artikel/11_christina_stuermer_unterstuetzt/C.Stuermer_KASSKARA_essstoerungen.jpg

Freddie Ljungberg, Swedish footballer, darker skin pigmentation but light hair and eyes

http://www.khampha24h.com/images/Image/Freddie%20Ljungberg.jpg

Kristanna Loken, Americ an actress of Norwegian ancestry, tanned skin pigmentation, but light hair and eye colour

http://www.fotos.org/galeria/data/502/medium/3Kristanna-Loken.jpg

Jörg Haider, Austrian politician, darker skin pigmentation with light eyes

http://www.wienweb.at/pictures/pict50/big/wg50120.jpg

Timea Gunthner, Austrian model, both darker skin pigmentation and dark hair and eyes

http://images.fashionmodeldirectory.com/model/000000066717-timea_gunthner-fullsize.jpg

But these people with daker pigmentation are more at home in Germania than someone like the Spanish Kiko Vega.

http://www.elmolin.com/piraguasycanoas/f_piraguas/kiko_vega_maraton.jpg

Pigmentation fetishism has no place in Germanic preservation in my view. Or else we should as well just breed with Albinos.

Sissi
Thursday, October 30th, 2008, 10:58 PM
I don't care if Southern Europeans have significant sub-Saharan admixture or not (although it's obvious from these studies their admixture is higher than in Germanic people), they are alien from our people because they aren't Germanic, and that's why we should avoid mixing with them. I don't care if Finns are lighter than Southern Europeans, they are alien from our people because they aren't Germanic. Why would we want to mix in the first place? Why should we consider such possibilities? It looks to me like the people who aren't Germanic have some sort of inferiority complex which keeps them from being proud of what they are. Some people become over-emotional when this sub-Saharan admixture is mentioned. It exists in Austrians too, on low levels, and I am not shedding a tear over it. So why should you deny it, close your eyes and pretend it isn't there?

Anyway, I'm sorry, but how is this even relevant to us? This is a Germanic forum, isn't it? So what is it with all these threads discussing the genetic makeup of foreign, non-Germanic people? Let the non-Germanics be concerned with their kind and let us think about out own people. ;)

SwordOfTheVistula
Friday, October 31st, 2008, 02:49 PM
www.white-history.com is back up now, the owner was traveling and doing political work and forgot to renew and had to find his password, but it's back now :)