PDA

View Full Version : Acceptable Amount of Non-European Admixture



Loki
Tuesday, December 30th, 2003, 09:36 PM
I saw this thread (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=106423) on Stormfront, and it intrigued me.



This is a recurrent topic in this forum...
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=79614
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=100061
Of course Alexander Pushkin was White, despite having an Ethiopian great-great-grandfather.

What do you guys/girls think of AlphaNumericus's statement (in bold)?

And here is an even more interesting one:



Having a great great grandfather means:

gggf -> ggf -> gf -> f -> Pushkin
1/16 -> 1/8-> 1/4->1/2-> 1/1

The comparison abofe shows just how "black" pushkin was if it was his great great grandfather, that adds up to 6%.
A mulatto like you sayd is typically 50% non-white, and demographic politics of Third Reich suggest that has over 75% aryan blood makes that man\woman an aryan.

Louky
Tuesday, December 30th, 2003, 09:46 PM
Well, there are Ethiopian Caucasians. In fact, Ethiopians were probably more to the Caucasian side of the race spectrum in Pushkin's gggf's era-before the migration of the southern Sudanese as refugees in the seemingly endless Sudanese civil war. Come to think of it, Ethiopia is one of the few places outside of Europe, America, and Australia that's having a problem with immigrants displacing the nationals.

I'm not sure I'd be too quick to say his great-great grandfather was a Negro. Are there any descriptions of his African ancestor?

Nordhammer
Wednesday, December 31st, 2003, 04:36 AM
Well, there are Ethiopian Caucasians. In fact, Ethiopians were probably more to the Caucasian side of the race spectrum

Care to show us a picture of these "Caucasian" Ethiopians?

Evolved
Wednesday, December 31st, 2003, 03:55 PM
The original Ethiopian East African types are considered caucasoid. They probably always had stiff crispy hair, but mixing with Negroids has made it more kinky. The differences are in the skull shape and especially the long, high-bridged nose. Also note they have more beard growth than typical Negroids.

HAMITIC RACES AND LANGUAGES (http://35.1911encyclopedia.org/H/HA/HAMITIC_RACES_AND_LANGUAGES.htm)

ETHIOPIANS (http://www.angeltowns.com/members/racialreal/ethiopians.html)

I attached some pictures of Haile Selassie and a picture of an Ethiopian actor from 1935. :)

Louky
Wednesday, December 31st, 2003, 04:06 PM
Thanks, Ladygoeth33, for your superior research skills.

Nordhammer: Don't worry, I'm not willing to share my land or family tree with any Ethiopian Caucasians.

Nordhammer
Wednesday, December 31st, 2003, 04:49 PM
Yes, I was looking forward to seeing Louky's superior research skills though. ;)

There is a big difference between claiming Ethiopians are Caucasian, and Ethiopians are a hybrid Negroid-Semitic race. Are you calling American Negroids, or perhaps a minority of American Negroids - Caucasian, Louky? Seems highly irregular to me to reference it like that.

The occurrence of E*5 212 and E*5 204 alleles in two populations of the Mediterranean basin (Turkey and Italy) but not in West Africans can be explained by taking into account that the Ethiopian gene pool was estimated to be >40% of Caucasoid derivation (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994).

I hear some people, like CI's, constantly refer to East American Indians as being purely Caucasian, and actually from Scotland! LOL In their dreams.

Sigrun Christianson
Wednesday, December 31st, 2003, 07:06 PM
Acceptable admixture to me is based on what we're being mixed with as well as how much. I have a hierarchy of "acceptable" & "tolerable" admixture, as we all do, I'm sure. There isn't a single answer.

Razmig
Wednesday, December 31st, 2003, 08:37 PM
Well, there are Ethiopian Caucasians. In fact, Ethiopians were probably more to the Caucasian side of the race spectrum in Pushkin's gggf's era-before the migration of the southern Sudanese as refugees in the seemingly endless Sudanese civil war. Come to think of it, Ethiopia is one of the few places outside of Europe, America, and Australia that's having a problem with immigrants displacing the nationals.

I'm not sure I'd be too quick to say his great-great grandfather was a Negro. Are there any descriptions of his African ancestor?

Dont be rediculous, the Ethiopians were noted as being "dark, short, and frizzy" by the Byzantinians way before 1500. Perhaps there has been settlements by the missionaries to Ethiopia, but Ethiopians are BLACK. What rubbish is this. Since then, despite Armenian, Greek, and Italian settlements, many Arabs have settled in Ethiopia. Theyre alphabet is a copy of the Armenian, given by the Holy Catholicos of Armenia to the Ethiopian people, as well as their Orthodoxy. Arab influence is obvious by their culture (eating maza, preparing coffee in the Arab way, even tho it originated in Ethiopia etc).

Razmig
Wednesday, December 31st, 2003, 08:40 PM
Yes, I was looking forward to seeing Louky's superior research skills though. ;)

There is a big difference between claiming Ethiopians are Caucasian, and Ethiopians are a hybrid Negroid-Semitic race. Are you calling American Negroids, or perhaps a minority of American Negroids - Caucasian, Louky? Seems highly irregular to me to reference it like that.

The occurrence of E*5 212 and E*5 204 alleles in two populations of the Mediterranean basin (Turkey and Italy) but not in West Africans can be explained by taking into account that the Ethiopian gene pool was estimated to be >40% of Caucasoid derivation (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994).

I hear some people, like CI's, constantly refer to East American Indians as being purely Caucasian, and actually from Scotland! LOL In their dreams.
The avergage African American has 25% or more caucasian/European admixture. Compare them to the pitch black peoples of Africa and notice that they were both bred to be taller, stronger etc, as well as lighter from being raped by white masters.

Louky
Wednesday, December 31st, 2003, 10:12 PM
Yes, I was looking forward to seeing Louky's superior research skills though. ;)

Sorry, they're rather shabby, but I'm learning


There is a big difference between claiming Ethiopians are Caucasian, and Ethiopians are a hybrid Negroid-Semitic race. Are you calling American Negroids, or perhaps a minority of American Negroids - Caucasian, Louky? Seems highly irregular to me to reference it like that.

No. Ethiopians were generally considered Caucasian on the basis of anthropological measurements before genetic analysis was available. I still have the encyclopedia where I learned that tidbit of trivia some 40 years ago. From Collier's, 1955:

Both the Semitic and Hamitic inhabitants of Ethiopia are usually classified with the Caucasian race on the basis of anthropological measurements, but their dark skin color has induced some observers to classify them with the negroid peoples of Africa with whom, undoubtedly, miscegenation has occurred.

It looks like the minority opinion turned out to be the right one.



The occurrence of E*5 212 and E*5 204 alleles in two populations of the Mediterranean basin (Turkey and Italy) but not in West Africans can be explained by taking into account that the Ethiopian gene pool was estimated to be >40% of Caucasoid derivation (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994).

But with around 40% Caucasian gene pool (If you consider the same proportion circa 1660 when Pushkin's gggf was probably born) there would be less Negroid ancestry in Pushkin than if his gggf was 100% Negro. I guess around three or four per cent. instead of six. Is that too much? is the context of the thread.

I wouldn't want it. I don't think I would call myself White with that level of Negroid admixture, but there's no way to say what Pushkin's gggf's real contribution was to Pushkin's genetic makeup. Pushkin may have been clean. Do you see Negroid admixture evident in the attached picture?


I hear some people, like CI's, constantly refer to East American Indians as being purely Caucasian, and actually from Scotland! LOL In their dreams.

That's one of the reasons I ultimately rejected them while looking for a faith for my family.

There probably were settlers from Wales or Scotland 1500 years ago here in the Ohio valley, but they would have been submerged in a foreign gene pool if not totally exterminated. I have my mother's History of Kentucky textbook published around 1915 that relates the story of White pre-Columbian settlement here. There certainly exists evidence of a more advanced culture having existed here than what was observed in the Indians. Whoever they were, they died out because Kentucky was uninhabited, by treaty among the Indian tribes, when Kentucky was settled by Whites.

Evolved
Thursday, January 1st, 2004, 03:47 AM
I think he looks a little weird.

http://www.auburn.edu/academic/liberal_arts/foreign/russian/art/kiprensky-pushkin.jpg http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/classics/russian/russianlinks/tropinin-pushkin-compressed.jpg

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/art/f_push.gif (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/famous/pushkingenealogy.html)

Razmig
Thursday, January 1st, 2004, 04:08 AM
I think he looks a little weird.

http://www.auburn.edu/academic/liberal_arts/foreign/russian/art/kiprensky-pushkin.jpg http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/classics/russian/russianlinks/tropinin-pushkin-compressed.jpg

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/art/f_push.gif (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/famous/pushkingenealogy.html)

looks a lot like a metal head friend of mine, especially with that curly hair! strange

Nordhammer
Thursday, January 1st, 2004, 05:18 AM
No. Ethiopians were generally considered Caucasian on the basis of anthropological measurements before genetic analysis was available. I still have the encyclopedia where I learned that tidbit of trivia some 40 years ago. From Collier's, 1955:

Both the Semitic and Hamitic inhabitants of Ethiopia are usually classified with the Caucasian race on the basis of anthropological measurements, but their dark skin color has induced some observers to classify them with the negroid peoples of Africa with whom, undoubtedly, miscegenation has occurred.

And they used to believe the world was flat too, but let's live in the present shall we? :)

The old classification of Caucas-oid must be taken in the context of only having a similarity to Caucasian... which has nothing to do with saying someone is purely Caucasian in ancestry. As I said, in the same manner many American Negroid or hapas could be classified as "Caucasians", but this is not in any useful context. We both know this so no sense to continue to argue about it.



But with around 40% Caucasian gene pool (If you consider the same proportion circa 1660 when Pushkin's gggf was probably born) there would be less Negroid ancestry in Pushkin than if his gggf was 100% Negro. I guess around three or four per cent. instead of six. Is that too much? is the context of the thread.

I would agree it's probable the Ethiopian wasn't fully Negroid, but we have no way to truly determine how much Negroid Pushkin was other than an estimated guess. Some say GGF rather, but in either case I think it is still observable in the phenotype, altering him in a way that most people think he looks different. Which I why I have a standard of 1/64th Negroid. Mongoloid isn't so severe and I put it at 1/16th.



I wouldn't want it. I don't think I would call myself White with that level of Negroid admixture, but there's no way to say what Pushkin's gggf's real contribution was to Pushkin's genetic makeup. Pushkin may have been clean. Do you see Negroid admixture evident in the attached picture

I'm really surprised Russia is so proud of him, considering his significant Negroid ancestry. I doubt this would fly in America. Despite the constant insults against America for racemixing, it appears Russia and perhaps other Europeans nations are more liberal than we are. It's only a matter of them not having the chance, being geographically distant... otherwise Russia and other European nations might very well be entirely mixed like South America.




That's one of the reasons I ultimately rejected them while looking for a faith for my family.

There probably were settlers from Wales or Scotland 1500 years ago here in the Ohio valley, but they would have been submerged in a foreign gene pool if not totally exterminated. I have my mother's History of Kentucky textbook published around 1915 that relates the story of White pre-Columbian settlement here. There certainly exists evidence of a more advanced culture having existed here than what was observed in the Indians. Whoever they were, they died out because Kentucky was uninhabited, by treaty among the Indian tribes, when Kentucky was settled by Whites.

Common sense and genetic studies do not show a fully European settlement as Indians anywhere in America. There are cases of blue eyes and such, like there is with some Eskimoes... but this is probably attributed to admixture. Like the point with the Ethiopians, white admixture doesn't make someone white. This is how blacks think. We shouldn't have a mongrel identity.

Evolved
Friday, January 2nd, 2004, 11:16 AM
Dont be rediculous, the Ethiopians were noted as being "dark, short, and frizzy" by the Byzantinians way before 1500.

But by comparison to whom?


Perhaps there has been settlements by the missionaries to Ethiopia, but Ethiopians are BLACK.

I think so too. They are racially predominantly caucasoid 'black people', just as Indians, Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, etc are.


What rubbish is this. Since then, despite Armenian, Greek, and Italian settlements, many Arabs have settled in Ethiopia.

Racially, the East-African type looks to be the Caucasoid-Negroid counterpart to the Caucasoid-Mongoloid Turanid category. They are an older, more stable 'contact race' rather than Negroids mixed with Armenian, Greek, and Italian settlers. Their features tell the story, if they were blacks with Caucasoid admixture they would look like lighter pigmented Negroids (like American blacks). Instead, they look like brown skinned Caucasoids with Negroid hairform and different degrees of Negroid-influence on their facial features.

Razmig
Friday, January 2nd, 2004, 12:52 PM
But by comparison to whom?
by comparison to the Byzantinian Royalty and Missionaries, who were predominatly Greeks and Armenians.


I think so too. They are racially predominantly caucasoid 'black people', just as Indians, Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, etc are.

I dont think you can compare Indians and Pakistanis to Sri Lankans and Ethiopians...the INDIANS, or INDICS are caucasoid, as are the muslim indians (pakistanis), however they are dark like arabs, but they have not become full grow negroes like africans, or full grown australoids like those in sri lanka and southern india.




Racially, the East-African type looks to be the Caucasoid-Negroid counterpart to the Caucasoid-Mongoloid Turanid category. They are an older, more stable 'contact race' rather than Negroids mixed with Armenian, Greek, and Italian settlers. Their features tell the story, if they were blacks with Caucasoid admixture they would look like lighter pigmented Negroids (like American blacks). Instead, they look like brown skinned Caucasoids with Negroid hairform and different degrees of Negroid-influence on their facial features.
I am not familiar with the racial study of the area, however, I think blacks(africans)negroes, whatever you wan to call them, have the same racial categories as whites(europids)caucasians, whatever you want to call THEM. So in opinion, I think they are simply negroes who perhaps evolved into similar facial features as the caucasoids (despite settlements). The capitol of the country, I think, describes its history (ADIS BABA), a half Armenian ADIS, half native African BABA, name. Either way I really dont care, I just want them to stop claiming our alphabet as theirs, maybe write their own and build their own churches instead of using ours! hah

Razmig
Friday, January 2nd, 2004, 12:55 PM
BTW Ethiopians are the lightest of the Africans, not including mixed black egyptians and sudanese.....so thats also another reason I was mentioning settlements by caucasoids

Louky
Friday, January 2nd, 2004, 10:23 PM
And they used to believe the world was flat too, but let's live in the present shall we? :)

Point well taken.


...I just want them to stop claiming our alphabet as theirs...

This seems ungenerous considering the Armenian alphabets (east and west) were derived from the Greek alphabet.

Origin of the Armenian Alphabet

In about 404 or 406 AD, a cleric at the Armenien royal court by the name of Mesrop-Mashtots (361-440 AD) invented the Armenian alphabet. He modelled [sic] the Armenian alphabet very losely [sic] on the Greek alphabet and was also possibly influenced by the Assyrian script.

The first attachment is the West Armenian alphabet, the second attachment, Ethiopian. It does look like the Ethiopian alphabet could be derived from the Armenian one, but I wouldn't call it a copy any more than I'd call the Armenian alphabet a copy of the Greek.

The last attachment is a synagogue (?) in the Falasha (Jew) settlement in Ethiopia.

Razmig
Saturday, January 3rd, 2004, 12:35 AM
Point well taken.



This seems ungenerous considering the Armenian alphabets (east and west) were derived from the Greek alphabet.

Origin of the Armenian Alphabet

In about 404 or 406 AD, a cleric at the Armenien royal court by the name of Mesrop-Mashtots (361-440 AD) invented the Armenian alphabet. He modelled [sic] the Armenian alphabet very losely [sic] on the Greek alphabet and was also possibly influenced by the Assyrian script.

The first attachment is the West Armenian alphabet, the second attachment, Ethiopian. It does look like the Ethiopian alphabet could be derived from the Armenian one, but I wouldn't call it a copy any more than I'd call the Armenian alphabet a copy of the Greek.

The last attachment is a synagogue (?) in the Falasha (Jew) settlement in Ethiopia.

Armenians were not united untill the adoption of Christiniaty. Pontus, Capedocia, Cilicia, Galacia, Great Hayk, Odessena, Oronto, Gazaria, and Caucaus Armenia etc all had small principalities. The Armenians were not a seperate people from the Greeks. A lot of Eastern Turkish sites are credited to Greeks because they were all Hellenic at one point, and the Turks would never claim Hittites, Tojans etc as being the forefathers of the Armenians, because that would mean the Armenian request for land would be fulfilled.

Xenephone noted that the languages spoken by the tribes in eastern and central Anatolia were understandable by both him and his troops (pre-celtic and armen settlements). Mesrop Mashdodz was a priest...there are many theories to how the Armenian alphabet came about. It was said that God sent it to him in his dream while he locked himself in a whole determined to unite the Armenian languages into a single Alphabet. Below is the evolution of the Armenian alphabet. The Ethiopians did not have language/religion let alone civilization untill the arrival of the Byzantines. Aramaic perhaps influenced Armenian alphabet, but then again Greek alphabet was taken from Phoenician as was Assyrian. But all these people, the people of Hayk, Crete, Malta, Greece, Finikia, were all Hellenic people.

Razmig
Saturday, January 3rd, 2004, 12:37 AM
btw did you know the first cave drawrings and forms of hyrogliphics were found in present day Armenia? forget Turkish Armenia, theres probably more there hundreds of years older. i bet it spread from Anatolia into egypt, seeing as how the rulers of egypt were indo-european

Louky
Saturday, January 3rd, 2004, 03:48 PM
btw did you know the first cave drawrings and forms of hyrogliphics were found in present day Armenia? forget Turkish Armenia, theres probably more there hundreds of years older. i bet it spread from Anatolia into egypt, seeing as how the rulers of egypt were indo-european

I didn't realize that and I'd appreciate some more information. I did know morphological changes occured preceding the Dynastic period in what was to become Egypt. Sometime in fourth millenium BC, the native Nile stock was replaced or altered by a wide-headed people which some anthropologists call Armenoid.

The Ethiopians claim they taught the Egyptians the arts of sculpting and painting, and I looked favorably on their claim considering: (1) the unification of Egypt was accomplished from a southern conquest of the north; (2) an advanced neolithic culture, characterized by fired pottery, existed in the Sudan prior to any known advances further north; (3) the ancient Egypians, themselves, claimed to have migrated from the southeast. However, nothing I've seen of either modern Ethiopia or the Sudan shows potential for creating civilization, or even maintaining it.

Razmig
Sunday, January 4th, 2004, 12:00 AM
I didn't realize that and I'd appreciate some more information. I did know morphological changes occured preceding the Dynastic period in what was to become Egypt. Sometime in fourth millenium BC, the native Nile stock was replaced or altered by a wide-headed people which some anthropologists call Armenoid.

The Ethiopians claim they taught the Egyptians the arts of sculpting and painting, and I looked favorably on their claim considering: (1) the unification of Egypt was accomplished from a southern conquest of the north; (2) an advanced neolithic culture, characterized by fired pottery, existed in the Sudan prior to any known advances further north; (3) the ancient Egypians, themselves, claimed to have migrated from the southeast. However, nothing I've seen of either modern Ethiopia or the Sudan shows potential for creating civilization, or even maintaining it.

I'm knew I had a site about metzamor (the first evolvement of drawings to writing) in armenia but I cant seem to find the link. I'll post it up when I get ahold of it, it displays all the different drawings and hyros. I also had a paleolithic pdf that dated 32,000 years old, really cool stuff. *HD CRASHED* I can PM it to you if your interested once I get another copy. Here's a couple sites I found, it's not much but if your interested:
http://www.tacentral.com/nature/trekking.asp?story_no=4
http://www.saintsarkis.org/Language.htm

As for Black claims to teaching the Egyptians of pottery, It's as much rubbish as Black claims to teaching Greeks about geometry. What I remember from reading about Egyptian history is that the southern egyptians were lighter, and seeked refuged south from sea people invasions (hyksos) and (hitties: men of 1000 gods) and becamse successful because of not being susceptible to raids. If the original Egyptians were black, why is it that there is a clear distinction between the lighter skinned rulers, and the black slaves? Perfectly clear in early egyptian art as well. Here's some info about Egypt, a land that isnt as acient as some claim it to be:

I didn't realize that and I'd appreciate some more information. I did know morphological changes occured preceding the Dynastic period in what was to become Egypt. Sometime in fourth millenium BC, the native Nile stock was replaced or altered by a wide-headed people which some anthropologists call Armenoid.

The Ethiopians claim they taught the Egyptians the arts of sculpting and painting, and I looked favorably on their claim considering: (1) the unification of Egypt was accomplished from a southern conquest of the north; (2) an advanced neolithic culture, characterized by fired pottery, existed in the Sudan prior to any known advances further north; (3) the ancient Egypians, themselves, claimed to have migrated from the southeast. However, nothing I've seen of either modern Ethiopia or the Sudan shows potential for creating civilization, or even maintaining it.

I'm knew I had a site about metzamor (the first evolvement of drawings to writing) in armenia but I cant seem to find the link. I'll post it up when I get ahold of it, it displays all the different drawings and hyros. I also had a paleolithic pdf that dated 32,000 years old, really cool stuff. *HD CRASHED* I can PM it to you if your interested once I get another copy. Here's a couple sites I found, it's not much but if your interested:
http://www.tacentral.com/nature/trekking.asp?story_no=4
http://www.saintsarkis.org/Language.htm

As for Black claims to teaching the Egyptians of pottery, It's as much rubbish as Black claims to teaching Greeks about geometry. What I remember from reading about Egyptian history is that the southern egyptians were lighter, and seeked refuged south from sea people invasions (hyksos) and (hitties: men of 1000 gods) and becamse successful because of not being susceptible to raids. If the original Egyptians were black, why is it that there is a clear distinction between the lighter skinned rulers, and the black slaves? Perfectly clear in early egyptian art as well. Here's some info about Egypt, a land that isnt as acient as some claim it to be:
http://www.emayzine.com/lectures/egyptciv.html
http://www.2020site.org/egypt/history.html

The original Egyptian nile dwellers were semite meds, however, there was heavy aryan ruling and african slavery, and then recent Arab conquest. It's hard to beleive pottery existed in Sudan before egypt considering the materials used to create such peices are more abundant in Egypt.

The original Egyptian nile dwellers were semite meds, however, there was heavy aryan ruling and african slavery, and then recent Arab conquest.

Nordhammer
Sunday, January 4th, 2004, 10:02 PM
I dont think you can compare Indians and Pakistanis to Sri Lankans and Ethiopians...the INDIANS, or INDICS are caucasoid, as are the muslim indians (pakistanis), however they are dark like arabs, but they have not become full grow negroes like africans, or full grown australoids like those in sri lanka and southern india.

Indics are a hybrid population, mixed with Southern Asian Mongoloid. I don't know exactly how much could be divided into Mongoloid and Australoid genetically, but the female lineage is more related to other Mongoloid Asians than to Europeans. According to genetic studies the founding population comes from Eastern Europe, although they are not exclusively the male contributors.

Caucasoid and Caucasian used by many people, even anthropologists, does not mean purely European/white/Caucasian ancestry, but only resembling Europeans from some amount of admixture. For purposes of identifying pure white populations or preserving racial purity, those two terms are useless.

Nordhammer
Sunday, January 4th, 2004, 10:06 PM
The Ethiopians claim they taught the Egyptians the arts of sculpting and painting, and I looked favorably on their claim considering: (1) the unification of Egypt was accomplished from a southern conquest of the north; (2) an advanced neolithic culture, characterized by fired pottery, existed in the Sudan prior to any known advances further north; (3) the ancient Egypians, themselves, claimed to have migrated from the southeast. However, nothing I've seen of either modern Ethiopia or the Sudan shows potential for creating civilization, or even maintaining it.

Do the Ethiopians make this claim or is it militant black Americans who claim this about the Ethiopians? :)

Thorburn
Sunday, January 4th, 2004, 11:15 PM
Dont be rediculous, the Ethiopians were noted as being "dark, short, and frizzy" by the Byzantinians way before 1500. Perhaps there has been settlements by the missionaries to Ethiopia, but Ethiopians are BLACK.John R. Baker classifies the modern Ethopians as belonging predominantly to the homo sapiens europaeus, i. e. the white or Caucasian race, based on morphology, and this despite of their skin color.

In fact, the example (http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=6416) ladygoeth33 posted, is not unsimilar to the example Baker gives in his book Race.

Coloration is one of the most unsuitable criteria to distinguish between races (and sub-races).

- Thorburn

Razmig
Sunday, January 4th, 2004, 11:20 PM
John R. Baker classifies the modern Ethopians as belonging predominantly to the homo sapiens europaeus, i. e. the white or Caucasian race, based on morphology, and this despite of their skin color.

In fact, the example (http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=6416) ladygoeth33 posted, is not unsimilar to the example Baker gives in his book Race.

Coloration is one of the most unsuitable criteria to distinguish between races (and sub-races).

- Thorburn

I don't think observing modern Ethiopians does any good in finding out who the real Ethiopians were. Why is it that half blacks look so similar to them and if so that the Ethiopians are "caucasoid", why is it they are genetically closer to all other africans?

Thorburn
Monday, January 5th, 2004, 12:03 AM
I don't think observing modern Ethiopians does any good in finding out who the real Ethiopians were. Why is it that half blacks look so similar to them and if so that the Ethiopians are "caucasoid", why is it they are genetically closer to all other africans?
Baker is talking about the Ethopian sub-race (Aethiopids; homo sapiens europaeus africanus), not the population of Ethopia.

See:
http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=2265
http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=2282

- Thorburn

Razmig
Monday, January 5th, 2004, 12:28 AM
Baker is talking about the Ethopian sub-race (Aethiopids; homo sapiens europaeus africanus), not the population of Ethopia.

See:
http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=2265
http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=2282

- Thorburn
In any case, that is Baker's theory. I don't think much of it, tho. Thanks for the info.

Agrippa
Monday, January 5th, 2004, 02:29 AM
Are all Armenians typical Armenids? So why should all Ethiopians be typical Aethiopids?
In fact they arent!
There is a difference between the race and the people of Ethiopia. F.e. some of the most typical Ethiopians live in Somalia and Eritraea today.



40 percent of them is a figure on average, but I'm quite sure, if you analyse autosomal genes from some single individuals which appear to be from the pure Aethiopid type, that they are more than 40 percent Europid.

I saw Ethiopians which were to about 75 percent Orientalid or Mediterranid and some which were pure Negrids.

There are big differences between tribes and individuals.

Honestly some years ago I believed that the Aethiopids are morphologically so close to the Europids that they could be called as such or are a contact race on its own with their own position between the major races.

In fact maybe even Khoisanid admixture is possible in many Ethiopians, especially in the south.

For sure Nilotids which are the biggest black part in Ethiopians are almost pure Negrids, but the most progressive ones.
Just look at the pictures from Leni Riefenstahl.

To talk to much about Pushkin is ridiculous, for sure he is an acceptable European.

I think the quality of the person should be considered as well, but in Pushkins case this is not necessary, because the Negroid part is such a minor one that you can forget it...

Razmig
Monday, January 5th, 2004, 04:10 AM
Are all Armenians typical Armenids? So why should all Ethiopians be typical Aethiopids?
In fact they arent!
There is a difference between the race and the people of Ethiopia. F.e. some of the most typical Ethiopians live in Somalia and Eritraea today.



40 percent of them is a figure on average, but I'm quite sure, if you analyse autosomal genes from some single individuals which appear to be from the pure Aethiopid type, that they are more than 40 percent Europid.

I saw Ethiopians which were to about 75 percent Orientalid or Mediterranid and some which were pure Negrids.

There are big differences between tribes and individuals.

Honestly some years ago I believed that the Aethiopids are morphologically so close to the Europids that they could be called as such or are a contact race on its own with their own position between the major races.

In fact maybe even Khoisanid admixture is possible in many Ethiopians, especially in the south.

For sure Nilotids which are the biggest black part in Ethiopians are almost pure Negrids, but the most progressive ones.
Just look at the pictures from Leni Riefenstahl.

To talk to much about Pushkin is ridiculous, for sure he is an acceptable European.

I think the quality of the person should be considered as well, but in Pushkins case this is not necessary, because the Negroid part is such a minor one that you can forget it...

You bring up valid points. I only assumed them originally being African because it was so heavily influenced by Roman monarchs and Arab settlers etc. But perhaps there was a people living there related to the Egyptians who have been replaced with blacks? I don't know much about Ethiopia, I should start reading up about it.

Louky
Monday, January 5th, 2004, 03:46 PM
Razmig: Thanks for the links. Fascinating material and I would like the info on Metzamor and on the evolution of writing when you get it. I would encourage anyone interested in the evolution of civilization to read the articles linked in Razmigs post #21.

Nordhammer: The Ethiopians consider themselves to be the true White race and Europeans to be the Pink race. I'm sure Afrocentrists have grabbed on to Ethiopian claims to be the originators of Egyptian civilization and there's a book titled The African Origin of Civilization, which despite the crudity of the artifacts supplying the evidence of Negro involvement in Egyptian high civilization, is often referenced by Afrocentrists.

My father used to say that if you gave a Negro a job sweeping the floors in a bank, he'd tell everyone he was the bank president.



Another way of looking at the racial position of the Ethiopians is to consider that the "Out of Africa" theory for the origins of modern Homo Sapiens could also, on the basis of current finds, be called the "Out of Ethiopia" theory. The oldest remains of modern HS have been found in Ethiopia and are dated 200,000 years old. Maybe Ethiopians represented a stock which later evolved into (or were absorbed into) the other races of the world. The results of genetic analysis don't support the "Out of Ethiopia" theory, but it's hard to separate the results of migrations from the underlying native gene pool.

Nordhammer
Monday, January 5th, 2004, 05:38 PM
John R. Baker classifies the modern Ethopians as belonging predominantly to the homo sapiens europaeus, i. e. the white or Caucasian race, based on morphology, and this despite of their skin color.

In fact, the example (http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=6416) ladygoeth33 posted, is not unsimilar to the example Baker gives in his book Race.

Coloration is one of the most unsuitable criteria to distinguish between races (and sub-races).

- Thorburn

Undoubtably Baker would also classify a large number of American blacks as belonging to the homo sapiens europeaus "race" as well. :D Apparently if the nose is straight the kinky hair is negated. How smart.

Nordhammer
Monday, January 5th, 2004, 05:44 PM
The Ethiopians consider themselves to be the true White race and Europeans to be the Pink race.

Yeah, well, they probably want to distinguish themselves from the darker Negroes around them. You see this mentality a lot with young blacks in America, who when given the census want to check white and not black. You see this in mongrelized populations like Brazil, the mulattos and quadroons don't want to be called black like their more African brethren.

I was just wondering if you came into contact with any Ethiopians yourself who expressed this?

Agrippa
Monday, January 5th, 2004, 06:01 PM
Yeah, well, they probably want to distinguish themselves from the darker Negroes around them. You see this mentality a lot with young blacks in America, who when given the census want to check white and not black. You see this in mongrelized populations like Brazil, the mulattos and quadroons don't want to be called black like their more African brethren.

I was just wondering if you came into contact with any Ethiopians yourself who expressed this?

They dont just want to be called "blacks", they are no one!

I mean you seriously want to call a quadroon "black"? I dont think thats logical or in any way justified. In fact its not useful too.

Just look in the US who are the most talented, intelligent and attractive/progressive coloured people with African heritage?

The pure Sudanids or Palaenegrids? ^^

The Mulattoes and Quadroons are the best of them!
Thats because the mixed tend often more to the positive side at least in the first generations.

Its something typical American and not very intelligent to say that Mullatoe or even a Quadroon is a "black" person.
You steal yourself what speaks against mixing with Negrids first of all in my opinion and that is that they are not adapted biologically to the Northern climate, are more primitve, less intelligent and got another personality/hormone status at least on the average!

The Quadroons and mixed persons like Haley Berry or Vin Diesel are the living examples that this is "not true" because they are "coloured" or "black" persons which are more or less intelligent and attractive to many Euros.

It is logical and necessary to differ between mixed persons and pure non-Euros.

Thats not just better for the mixed but for the Euros too!!!!!!!!!!

If Haley Berry calls herself "black" thats maybe politically correct for many Americans or even "true" but its pure nonsens!

No Negrid person looks like her and if Negrid = Black such definition just destroys the concept of races at all!

If coloured/mixed persons want to be Euros/White its a good sign, because that means that the standard/ideal is White!

BTW: Pigmentation is a way of DIRECT adaptation to environmental conditions, but morphology is usually something which is not under immediate selective pressure. (Only such exceptions like long legs, arms and fingers in extreme cold f.e.)
So usually morphology should be more important than pigmentation even if the pigmented person is fully black but has Europid features he is more Europid and more Europid looking than a Sudanid Albino, isnt he?

Nordhammer
Tuesday, January 6th, 2004, 03:24 AM
They dont just want to be called "blacks", they are no one!

I mean you seriously want to call a quadroon "black"? I dont think thats logical or in any way justified. In fact its not useful too.

Just look in the US who are the most talented, intelligent and attractive/progressive coloured people with African heritage?

The pure Sudanids or Palaenegrids? ^^

The Mulattoes and Quadroons are the best of them!
Thats because the mixed tend often more to the positive side at least in the first generations.

Its something typical American and not very intelligent to say that Mullatoe or even a Quadroon is a "black" person.


My apologies to you and your brethren if they have Negroid ancestry. I know how important it is for you and others to differentiate the levels of African ancestry. However, my statement was in the context of the 3 major racial groups and the American census... in such cases, between white/European/Caucasian, black/African/Negroid, and yellow/Asian/Mongoloid -- given the general rule of dominancy and also for purposes of white racial preservation -- white-nonwhite hybrids will fall to their respective nonwhite ancestral group unless of sufficient dilution.

Patrioten
Saturday, October 14th, 2006, 09:18 PM
I'm wondering if skadi members think it's acceptable with individuals of mixed descent (in other words, the mix occured following the immigration non Europeans during the later half of the 20th century and now in the 21st century, i also added the question of Europeans of foreign nationality in the poll since it is an important one for some), if you accept any of these people as "your kind", meaning that you want them/accept them to remain in your country.


It's a multiple choice poll so please take your time and consider the options, i want the poll results to be as elaborate as possible. It's an open poll.
The options work as follows:

Someone who is fully something means a person whose fully of that race/ancestry. "One parent" means that one of that persons parents are of that race/ancestry. "One grandparent" means that one of that persons grandparents is of that ancestry/race. Remember that you can choose as many, or as few of the options as you want since it's a multiple choice poll.

The European options are meant to be individuals, typical to that region. You will all have to consider these options according to personal knowledge which makes it a bit risky i suppose, but it will have to do. I will have to trust that you all have clear and sterteotypical opinions on what a "northern european" is, or what a balkan "european" is :P .


I would of course also want you to write something about why you voted as you voted here in the thread and have a debate about it. Because i think it is an interesting one to have.

I hope that as many as possible choose to vote, and that you vote honestly (it's not meant to be a witch hunt, but i think it is a question that most of us deal with now and then).

Kurtz
Thursday, November 2nd, 2006, 06:02 PM
I know some people who are 1/8 and 1/16 Amerindian; I for sure wouldn't exclude them from a European society. While I know many fully Arabic people I would send back to the Muslim world: both their blood and culture is hurtful to our people. Mixtures are a tragedy: racially coherent people is okay as long as they stay in a precise region.

For race-mixed people, I think we should send them to Middle-East. This is the region where race-mixing historically occured repeatedly.

Hohenheim
Thursday, November 2nd, 2006, 06:18 PM
I have nothing against the mixing of different European racial sub-types, no matter north, east, south or Balkan, but only if it dose not happen too often. I would only have children with an Dinarid, Alpinid, Pontid, and... Baltid woman (sorry for that, but I really like Baltid girls, to much to give them up that easy ;) ).

Galaico
Thursday, November 2nd, 2006, 07:39 PM
I have nothing against the mixing of different European racial sub-types, no matter north, east, south or Balkan, but only if it dose not happen too often.
Make it my words :thumbup . I myself, though being predomiantly Atlanto-Mediterranid, am quite a West European Europid mix, but still 100% Spanish. I don't look for any specific sub-type as long as it is fully Europid, and prefering a Spanish woman.

Deary
Thursday, September 27th, 2007, 06:05 AM
What is the amount of non-European background permissible in a partner, if any? For those who live in more integrated societies, the chances of encountering someone of slightly mixed heritage would not be unlikely. How many would be willing to sacrifice an amount of non-European heritage entering the family for love and vise versa? What non-European heritage would and wouldn't be tolerable in a long-term partner?

Æmeric
Thursday, September 27th, 2007, 06:20 AM
It would depend on what kind of non-Europid background. Kate Beckinsale for example would be acceptable, she is suppose to be 1/8 Burmese. I would say for East Asian or Amerindian, perhaps 1/16 (6.25%). For non-European Caucasian - such as Arab, Armenian, Berber or Jewish - 1/8 to 1/4. That's assuming no non-Caucasian admixture. For Negro it would have to be less then 1% - that is no more then 1 out of 128 5-times-great-grandparents.

Evolved
Thursday, September 27th, 2007, 06:52 AM
I don't believe blood quantum percentages and love go hand in hand, you love who you love. But ideally (pretending I'm still single) - 0% on Black African, Australian Aborigine, other dark & primitive people. I don't hate them or anything, I just don't want offspring with their genetics. 25% Northeast Asian (Japanese, Korean, Ainu), Central Asian or Native American is acceptable to me. Caucasians originating outside Europe vary too much to place a percentage on them. Everyone else is kind of off the radar.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Thursday, September 27th, 2007, 07:17 AM
I must be really old fashioned.

Allenson
Thursday, September 27th, 2007, 04:29 PM
I suppose if one wants to get real technical--I would propose having a genetic test done, finding out if there is admixture present in oneself and basically going on that. Am I crazy to think that it would be a bit hypocritical to find oneself at 10% Amerindian for example and to demand that one's potential partner be 100% Europid?

However, if one is fully within the Europid spectrum than the parter should ideally be so as well. But, perhaps there are degrees of acceptabilty as others have mentioned above. Take myself for example--certainly the ideal is to be matched as closely as possible to myself in background. But, if that is not the case I would say that I could not 'mate' with someone with recent or significant Negroid. However a few percent of Amerindian, central or westrern Asian would surely be more acceptable than any Negroid (or Khoisanid, Australoid, Veddoid or even paleo-Mongoloid).

Just a few thoughts....

Rassenpapst
Thursday, September 27th, 2007, 05:22 PM
Legally, 1/4 of non-European Europid, 1/8 East Asian but not one drop of Negro admixture could be permissible.

Personally, I date only people who are of 100% European ancestry.

mischak
Thursday, September 27th, 2007, 06:31 PM
It would depend on what kind of non-Europid background. Kate Beckinsale for example would be acceptable, she is suppose to be 1/8 Burmese. I would say for East Asian or Amerindian, perhaps 1/16 (6.25%). For non-European Caucasian - such as Arab, Armenian, Berber or Jewish - 1/8 to 1/4. That's assuming no non-Caucasian admixture. For Negro it would have to be less then 1% - that is no more then 1 out of 128 5-times-great-grandparents.

wow I agree with you :p. I'd have to limit Arab, Armenien, Berber, etc., type mixture to 1/8 at the most, though, 1/4 is still quite a lot in my eyes. 0% Black ancestry for me, please..

Deary
Thursday, September 27th, 2007, 08:17 PM
Am I crazy to think that it would be a bit hypocritical to find oneself at 10% Amerindian for example and to demand that one's potential partner be 100% Europid?

Hypocritical, perhaps, but not impractical. If one is 90% Europid and chooses a 100% Europid partner, and their future generations perpetuate this, the Amerindian would eventually be weeded out. Wouldn't this be a better option than to mate with another who also has a percentage of Amerindian (or other non-Europid) ancestry?

Allenson
Thursday, September 27th, 2007, 08:49 PM
Hypocritical, perhaps, but not impractical. If one is 90% Europid and chooses a 100% Europid partner, and their future generations perpetuate this, the Amerindian would eventually be weeded out. Wouldn't this be a better option than to mate with another who also has a percentage of Amerindian (or other non-Europid) ancestry?

I suppose if the 100% parter doesn't mind. ;)

But yeah, I thought along those lines a little bit as I was writing my post. It's a good line of thought, for certain.

Nothing is ever fully weeded out though. We can't erase the past, only dilute it.

Kurtz
Thursday, September 27th, 2007, 10:33 PM
I agree and disagree with some here. I think 1/4 or 1/18 (even 1/16) very foreign blood is way too much, even if this is an admixture from a civilized genepool.

I am judging this issue with a non-absolutely-scientific blood scale of foreigness. North-African, Arab, Iranian (incl. Afghan) and Indian admixture, together with Lapps (given that they might be very borealized Europids), are the less harmful admixture. Then come the central Asian steppe natives, Northern Asians and Amerindians (allegedly sharing the same origin), forming the second group. The last class includes Black Africans, Southern Mongoloid, Indian negritos, Pacific islanders and Australian aboriginies.

1/8 or even 1/4 of first class of admixture is sad but not absolutely disastrous. Some Middle-Easterners are racially Meds, Indians and Persians are Indo-Europeans, etc. 1/16 and less of the second group is also sad, but could be tolerated. For the last group, I think any mixture is very problematic, even at the lower levels.

Loyalist
Thursday, September 27th, 2007, 11:42 PM
I would overlook miniscule Amerindian ancestry (less than 1/32). As for Negroid/Australoid, Semitic, or southern/eastern Mongoloid; absolutely none.

Cuchulain
Thursday, September 27th, 2007, 11:54 PM
I would prefer a part Amerindian or North Asian wife to a pure Europid with a history of dating blacks or abbos.

SwordOfTheVistula
Friday, September 28th, 2007, 05:40 AM
0%

Preferably northern European for me, either someone with 100% Germanic&Celtic ancestry, or someone from another country with light colored hair&eyes.

Next World
Saturday, September 29th, 2007, 03:02 AM
I'd be inclined to say 0%. However, those sort of things are hard to tell with a lot of people. Plenty of people who claim to be totally of European origin look mixed, and just the same, a lot of people who say they're "like 1/16 'Native American'" are hard to believe, too. I'd be willing to accept someone who looks a bit awkard to me, but not someone who looks mixed. I know there are a lot of strange features in the world that one really just cannot put an origin or race on.

However, I do think that if I were to accept something knowingly (I'd have great difficulty with it, and it'd more than likely be something that could be what I would consider the same racially, as in terms of race, certain origins are up in the air.), it'd have to be less than 1/16. Most people I know can talk about family culture they've experienced and remember back to their grandparents. I know that in my case it's further than that, but I know that to have your great grandparent(s) or further back around when you are alive is very uncommon, and older people aren't always that revealing in what they say about their parents and grandparents. In the case that someone knew a good deal about their great grandparents or further back, I would up the anty and say that anything more recent than as far back as they knew was unacceptable. I prefer to look at pictures of peoples' lineage, but yet again, not all families have been able to take pictures for the same number of generations.

But if someone doesn't know it, and doesn't show it, I'm not going to go out and get genetic testing done on them over it. Then again, if someone didn't have pictures of at least their grandparents, I'd find it very hard to decide to be with them. From that I could probably assume whether or not their great-grandparents were of acceptable stock. So, really, I guess the amount would be less than a 32nd...

But, you know, it's one of those things that really is hard to tell without being a freak about it.

Matamoros
Saturday, September 29th, 2007, 03:56 AM
I consider only people with 0% non-European ancestry to be acceptable. If it's less than 1/32 it is hard to tell, but they should know their own family history.

Susisaari
Saturday, September 29th, 2007, 12:48 PM
It would be tempting to say zero, but I think that when the non-European admixture can no longer be seen in the phenotype, it becomes meaningless.

There was somebody on the Nordish portal (R.I.P.) who asked whether he would accepted as a member even though one of his great-grandparents was from India; i.e. he was 1/8 Indian and 7/8 English. He was not accepted, but he posted a picture in which he looked purely European. He looked whiter than e.g. the average person in France. I think people like this would be acceptable partners.

I agree with what a lot of people have already said in this thread: there are lots of different kinds of non-Europeans and the amount of acceptable non-European admixture depends on the nature of the non-European element in question.

Some examples, off the top of my head:

1/4 European Jew is OK
1/8 or 1/16 Turk or Arab or Middle Eastern Jew might be OK
1/8 or 1/16 Japanese might be OK

Theoretically no amount of African admixture would be OK, but if it's one ancestor in the tenth-generation, this would be 1/1000 and it doesn't show up in the phenotype.

This raises the question: what do we think of people who are e.g. 1/8 or 1/16 African? I don't think they should be forcibly deported to Africa. Besides, there are very few of them because there have been black people in Europe only for a few decades and therefore almost all people born in Europe who have both African and Europe ancestry are 1/2 or 1/4 African.

I do think all half-Africans (AKA mulattoes) should be deported to Africa. The question becomes slightly more problematic when we consider people who are 1/4 African and 3/4 European. Ideally even they should move to Africa or e.g. the Middle East or South America. I would like Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand to be as white as possible. When it comes to people who are 1/8 or 1/16 African and 7/8 or 15/16 Europeans, there are so few of them that I wouldn't spend resources trying to hunt them down as long as there are millions of Muslims in Europe.


I would prefer a part Amerindian or North Asian wife to a pure Europid with a history of dating blacks or abbos.

I totally disagree. Even though the fully European woman who has had relationships with black men is/has been an idiot, she is still genetically preferable to a half-Japanese woman.

Next World
Saturday, September 29th, 2007, 04:02 PM
In reference to the subject of dating someone who has been with others outside of their race, to me, this would rely more on what kind of person they had been with. I could never date a guy who had been with a black girl. I'd probably even have difficulty talking to him and looking him straight in the eye--letting him touch me? That'd be out of the question.

However, I know that around here, there are a lot of guys who've dated girls who are 1/4 "Hispanic", who do have some South/Central Amerindian blood in them, but could easily be mistaken as totally European. There are some girls who are 1/2 European that look whole European, too.

I'd be forgiving if the girl looked White. If she didn't--nah.

If I were a guy, though, I think I'd have more of an issue with dating a girl who has been with any sort of non-European. I'm not totally sure I believe in telegony, but I wouldn't put it past the frame of reality.

I wouldn't say that I'd rather date someone I knew was part-non-European, but I'd rather be with someone who looked clean-gened enough who only had family photographs and history back to his grandparents on either side, than someone who was traced back over 500 years, but had been with a non-European person knowing that they weren't totally European.

Sigurd
Saturday, September 29th, 2007, 04:26 PM
Gods, what kind of strict person do I seem like, when my ex being 1/16 Polish and the rest German/Austrian was still "just alright" with me. :o

Usually, I would say that for inner-European mixtures it would generally be 1/8 of not immediately compatible ancestry (yes, I even draw my line that far to say that Southern & Eastern Europe are not my primary target - I would clearly prefer Northern, Western or Central European ancestry). Outwith that - 1/16 non-European Europid, 1/64 non-Europid admixture.


And for dating a girl who has been with a non-European person? Umm...no. Following that good old maxim of "once you go black, we don't want you back."

Yes, I said I was strict. But the more purely German, the better. :D

The Horned God
Saturday, September 29th, 2007, 08:56 PM
Nothing is ever fully weeded out though. We can't erase the past, only dilute it.

As I understand it, minority lineages are weeded out eventually, but it takes tens of generations.

For instance, say someone is 1/32 Negro, 31/32 European Caucasian, and say they marry a full European Caucasian. One would expect the offspring of the union to be 1/64 Negro on average, however while each parent gives half their dna to each of their children, which half they give is almost entirely random. In this case some of the offspring might, just possibility, inherit fully 1/32 of Negro dna but crucially,(and more likely) some might inherit no genes of the Negro ancestor at all, and be fully European genetically. Once this happens the African genetic material would be gone forever from that branch of the family unless or until further admixture took place.In this way minority linages eventually drop out of the population.

The exception to this is the case of the male Y chromosome, which is handed down from father to son almost unchanged, baring random mutation. If someone has an African Y chromosome, for instance, all of their direct male descendants through the paternal line will carry that chromosome until either their line dies out, or until the chromosome is altered by random mutation.

Matamoros
Sunday, September 30th, 2007, 03:10 AM
And for dating a girl who has been with a non-European person? Umm...no. Following that good old maxim of "once you go black, we don't want you back."
That I can certainly agree with...if I knew a girl had been with a non-European I could never have romantic feelings for her again.

a.squiggles
Sunday, September 30th, 2007, 06:49 AM
none that i would be aware of. if they have some admixture they don't know about and i can't tell from interacting with them, than it's ok. but suppose the person is 1/16th (non-european of choice), doesn't look it, but is aware of it - then no.

to me mentality is most important, so if they are aware of blood ties with something non-european their motives are compromised in my eyes...they will unwittingly sympathize with that country/race etc. and are therefore unfit.

some people have mentioned Lapp people, i would have no problem with that even if they're 100% Lapp.


African genetic material would be gone forever from that branch of the family unless or until further admixture took place.In this way minority linages eventually drop out of the population.

The exception to this is the case of the male Y chromosome, which is handed down from father to son almost unchanged, baring random mutation.

by the same token a brother and sister can in theory have completely different genes...except that in practice that's impossible...in the case of 6-7 generations having no "foreign" DNA would be very very unlikely...

and as with the Y, mDNA will survive if the admixture was through an uninterrupted line of females.

The Horned God
Sunday, September 30th, 2007, 06:40 PM
by the same token a brother and sister can in theory have completely different genes...except that in practice that's impossible...in the case of 6-7 generations having no "foreign" DNA would be very very unlikely...

There is a background level of sub-Saharan dna which Europeans have always had which is maybe 1% or so, and you only have to reach that level before an individual can be classed as European imo.

Now, I'm not saying that every individual in the 7th generation would have no foreign dna, but I think that at around that point you would start to see individuals who had avoided it.

Taking a longer view, there are only 30 thousand or so genes in the human genome, if an individual has more than 30 thousand ancestors in a particular generation, and if one goes back far enough we all do, then it is impossible to have inherited genes from all of them.
My argument is that, long before you reach the 30000 ancestor mark there will be individuals who have not inherited anything from several branches of their ancestry.


and as with the Y, mDNA will survive if the admixture was through an uninterrupted line of females.

Oh, yes of course, "mitochondrial eve", the female line which all humans alive today share.She was a woman living in east Africa around 100,000 years ago.

Isn't it interesting that although there were thousands of other women alive at the same time as "eve" that none of them went on the leave lineages which have survived down to the present day? What happened to them? Were they significantly less well adapted to their environment?

Their descendants simply left fewer offspring than eve's line, they became smaller and smaller minorities within the population, and one by one, their lines died out completely. Given enough time, extinction is the fate of every minority lineage in a population. Ultimately, there can only be two lineages, one male and one female, and baring some adaptive advantage it is very unlikely for either to hale from a minority group.

I believe the same principle applies to all genes (again baring selective advantage) and not just Y and mDna.The more common a gene is in a population the more likely it is to get transmitted to the next generation, the less common the gene is the more likely it is to die out.
out.

Æmeric
Sunday, September 30th, 2007, 07:12 PM
There is a background level of sub-Saharan dna which Europeans have always had which is maybe 1% or so, and you only have to reach that level before an individual can be classed as European imo.

Now, I'm not saying that every individual in the 7th generation would have no foreign dna, but I think that at around that point you would start to see individuals who had avoided it.
This is the reason I picked 1/128 Negro as the maximum acceptable. 128 is the number of ancestors, 7 generations removed. But in most Europeans, that very small amount of subSaharan African ancestry that is detectable (through genetic testing) could be the result of admixture that occured thousands of years ago, though it is possible it could be from the very small numbers of Nubian & later West Africans slaves brought into Europe.


Taking a longer view, there are only 30 thousand or so genes in the human genome, if an individual has more than 30 thousand ancestors in a particular generation, and if one goes back far enough we all do, then it is impossible to have inherited genes from all of them.
My argument is that, long before you reach the 30000 ancestor mark there will be individuals who have not inherited anything from several branches of their ancestry.

At 15 generations, you have 32,768 13-x-greatgrandparents. At an average of 30-years per generation, that would take you back to the early 16th century - around the time of the Reformation. But at a certain point your familytree will begin to experience "Pedigree Collapse." http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=266

Another curious fact; Europid men (and their daughters) who have an R Y-chromosome, are more closely related paternally to Amerindians, who are Q, then they are to other Europeans with I, J, K, N or EB3. But Q & R went their seperate ways, 10s of thousands of years ago, since which time R has lived in close proximity to I in particular, but also J, K, N & EB3.

Viriathus
Sunday, September 30th, 2007, 08:50 PM
I would say 0 %. I never could love a black, asian, turk or whatever girl. Don´t know why. Is just a feeling. They are in my eyes not attractive. Btw my partner, with which I have a beautiful daughter is German with French/Norse ancestors. I guess a perfect European blood mix. ;)

Drakkar
Sunday, September 30th, 2007, 10:10 PM
0% African, 1/16 Jew, 1/8 Asian, 1/16 Amerindian, 1/4 Lapp, 1/4 Iranid, 1/2 East Slav. Let's just say I'm more lenient on any other type besides African or Jew in theory, but I do admit I once dated someone who was 1/8 Jewish. :shrug
For a long term partner I would prefer the same origins as me, and I don't think prefering having 0% Amerindian influence is being hypocritical.

a.squiggles
Monday, October 1st, 2007, 06:06 AM
Oh, yes of course, "mitochondrial eve", the female line which all humans alive today share.She was a woman living in east Africa around 100,000 years ago.
personally, i find that paper highly suspect. it was done, something like 20 years ago, only about 150 samples were analyzed, and from the paper it is clear that they were looking to further prove the "out of africa theory".
putting aside the fact that i disagree with some of their analysis, they also made assumptions that have been shown to be wrong (i.e. mtDNA is not under significant selective pressure)...

...they estimated average divergence to be 0.57% while their test was sensitive to 0.03%...that, taken with the time scale (they estimated the time of "eve's" existance to be 140.000 to 290.000 years ago), sample size, and the amount of uncertainty in their estimates makes for some significant doubts as to their ability to tell one pre-historic female from the next.


I believe the same principle applies to all genes (again baring selective advantage) and not just Y and mDna.The more common a gene is in a population the more likely it is to get transmitted to the next generation, the less common the gene is the more likely it is to die out.
out.

i hardly see the parallel. mtDNA and the Y chromosome are conserved, while autosomes and X recombine, so traces of foreign autosomal DNA are likely to remain for quite a while...and if the foreign ancestor was a female you've got a whole slew of epigenetic issues to worry about as well.

on your statemen re:genetic drift - a rare allele is just as likely to be passed on as a more common one provided sufficiently large population (which we, seeing as how the earth is overpopulated, have no problem supplying) so on a small scale (5 generations, lets say) there is no significant change in allele frequency...and when we take a large timespan there's no way of telling which one will get fixed.


1/2 East Slav.
i may not be germanic, but last i checked i was still european ;)

Sigurd
Monday, October 1st, 2007, 02:57 PM
1/16 Jew, 1/8 Asian.

Would you like to clarify your preference of people of Asian (Mongoloid) genetical heritage over Jewish (at best Armenoid, i.e. extra-European Europid) heritage. I do know where you are coming from for being reluctant to enter a relationship with a person of Jewish heritage, but I fail to see why being with a partial Asian would be more preferable in any case?

Drakkar
Monday, October 1st, 2007, 09:58 PM
Would you like to clarify your preference of people of Asian (Mongoloid) genetical heritage over Jewish (at best Armenoid, i.e. extra-European Europid) heritage. I do know where you are coming from for being reluctant to enter a relationship with a person of Jewish heritage, but I fail to see why being with a partial Asian would be more preferable in any case?
ok, I admit my choices were not carefully weighed according to specific similarities within the haplogroup, etc.. I just have a fear of people with partial Jewish heritage and would rather settle for a distant asian instead of a distant Jew. There is no other reason except for that phobia.

...besides, shh!, I think I was drinking at the time I posted this. :033102st:

Beornulf
Tuesday, October 2nd, 2007, 04:53 AM
About 1/128 minimum, and even then I'd feel weird about it to be honest. And I can't think of one group of people I'd "want" that 1/128 to be.

Elgar
Thursday, October 4th, 2007, 03:46 AM
I would prefer my partner to be Anglo-Saxon or Germanic, but would happily date other Europeans - Slavs, southern Europeans and Celts. I could tolerate some non-European blood, as long as my partner wasn't obviously foreign looking and so long as it isn't negroid.

distinct_rebel
Thursday, October 4th, 2007, 02:41 PM
I would overlook miniscule Amerindian ancestry (less than 1/32). As for Negroid/Australoid, Semitic, or southern/eastern Mongoloid; absolutely none.

I don't really understand how you could accept a partner with 1/32 Amerindian ancestry and insist on not having relations with anyone with any trace of Eastern Mongoloid ancestry.

Eastern Mongloids (Koreans, Japanese and the coastal North-Eastern Chinese) were and still are not only more civilised than Amerindians; racially they look less like Negroids and Australoids than the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

Sure, we can all agree that Amerindians are basically a Trans-Pacific extension of the Mongoloid race but superficially they take on the appearance of Mongoloids with particularly Australoid accretions. The South-East Asians (Indonesians, ethnic Malays and even some Thais and Vietnamese), who are closer to typically Australoid areas (Papua New Guinea, Australia et cetera), follow much the same pattern

I think that your preference for Amerindian contamination is more based on your own geographical bias than any substantiated concept of race and underlying culture.

Loyalist
Thursday, October 4th, 2007, 11:09 PM
I don't really understand how you could accept a partner with 1/32 Amerindian ancestry and insist on not having relations with anyone with any trace of Eastern Mongoloid ancestry.

Eastern Mongloids (Koreans, Japanese and the coastal North-Eastern Chinese) were and still are not only more civilised than Amerindians; racially they look less like Negroids and Australoids than the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

Sure, we can all agree that Amerindians are basically a Trans-Pacific extension of the Mongoloid race but superficially they take on the appearance of Mongoloids with particularly Australoid accretions. The South-East Asians (Indonesians, ethnic Malays and even some Thais and Vietnamese), who are closer to typically Australoid areas (Papua New Guinea, Australia et cetera), follow much the same pattern

I think that your preference for Amerindian contamination is more based on your own geographical bias than any substantiated concept of race and underlying culture.

Eastern Mongoloids are, visually, more removed from Caucasians than Amerindians are. From my own observations, Caucasian/Amerindian mixes are more harmonious than those of Caucasian/Mongoloid origin. Eastern Mongoloids tend to have broader faces and more slanted eyes than the former, as well as smaller stature. Of course, I'm referring to those of North America, and not the inhabitants of South America which, as you pointed out, have Australoid influences. I see no visible Australoid features in North American Indians, however.

When examining the accomplishments of Eastern Mongoloids as compared to those of Amerindians, one must take into consideration the latter was at more of a disadvantage (in terms of geography, resources, etc.), and yet, was still able to carve out sophisticated empires (as with the Aztecs) and forms of democracy (Haudenosaunee).

I reiterate that any degree of non-Europid ancestry, be it Eastern Mongoloid or Amerindian, is undesirable, and I would prefer a partner to be purely European in origin as I am, but of every mixture possible, I believe what I have stated to be the least damaging, albeit on a very remote scale.

Leofric
Friday, October 5th, 2007, 05:52 AM
Good question, especially since no one on earth is of 100% pure European ancestry.

First, though, I'm going to answer as though you're talking about mate selection. If you're just talking about dating, then I think you can date whomever you want. But then, I'm one of those old-fashioned guys who thinks sex belongs in marriage and nowhere else.

So for mate selection, for my part, I sort of eyeball it to begin with. Does she have blue eyes? Fair skin? Not black hair? Then we can consider it and take it to the next level.

Next, does she have any harder-to-see physical traits in her phenotype that are characteristic of non-Europoid races? If so, this might not be the one.

Next, does she have any non-Europeans in her pedigree in the last 500 years? If so (or if she doesn't know), let's think long and hard about it before going further with the relationship.

Finally, is she at all proud of are emphatic about any non-European ancestors of hers at any date? If so, then she's not a keeper.

If she passes all these tests, then she's probably fine from the European-ness perspective. Of course, there's a lot more to consider than just that when it comes to mate selection. She really ought to be Germanic, for example.

Now I know that a lot of these tests of mine are kind of quirky and ad hoc. They're not trying to be serious and rigid about the definition — they're just sort of how I approached the problem myself. And at this point, I don't really care that much anymore, since I've made my selection and never have to make it again.

Bridie
Friday, October 5th, 2007, 07:40 AM
I don't really understand how you could accept a partner with 1/32 Amerindian ancestry and insist on not having relations with anyone with any trace of Eastern Mongoloid ancestry.

Eastern Mongloids (Koreans, Japanese and the coastal North-Eastern Chinese) were and still are not only more civilised than Amerindians; racially they look less like Negroids and Australoids than the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

Sure, we can all agree that Amerindians are basically a Trans-Pacific extension of the Mongoloid race but superficially they take on the appearance of Mongoloids with particularly Australoid accretions. The South-East Asians (Indonesians, ethnic Malays and even some Thais and Vietnamese), who are closer to typically Australoid areas (Papua New Guinea, Australia et cetera), follow much the same pattern

I think that your preference for Amerindian contamination is more based on your own geographical bias than any substantiated concept of race and underlying culture.Typical attitude from an Australian male. No wonder there is such a problem with desperate Aussie males interbreeding with East Asian women in this country. :mad: And most of the Asians that they interbreed with tend to look similar to this Chinese woman...


http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/walkingthewall/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/img_1450.jpg

Now, take a good look at her face. She is typical for a NE Asian person. Don't try to tell me that North East Asians look less Negroid than Amerinds do. Don't kid yourself.

Furthermore, as an Australian, you should be more concerned about the Asian invasion and the mass interbreeding with Asians in this country that is destroying our people and our culture, than you are about some Amerindians half way across the world that are barely even a threat in their own countries, let alone here.



As for how much non-European ancestry I would accept.... well 0% sounds about right to me.

Huzar
Friday, October 5th, 2007, 10:13 AM
I admit i'm impressed by this thread..........i didn't suspected so many "Liberal" peoples among us..........:033102st:


I mean, there is a big gap of opinion between the various members here : some find acceptable 1/4 asian , while others wouldn't accept 1/4 Spanish or Portuguese.....to cite the extreme opposites.


Personally i'd prefer 0% non-european in my ancestry. And inside the European spectrum, i'd prefer someone belonging to my seme geographical/Genetic belt (Mittel-Europe).

GreenHeart
Friday, October 5th, 2007, 11:09 AM
None, if one wants to preserve their genetics/ancestry/race.

In cases where that would not be possible, it should be nothing recent or noticeable in the phenotype or personality. I myself have already made my decision, :) but general questions one should ask regarding a potential mate should be:

1) Healthy and free of genetic disease?
2) Is the person nordish?
3) Whether or not they are sufficiently depigmented?
4) Are they attractive, creative, and intelligent?
5) Are they Aryan (twice born)?
6) Can they be easily assimilated into the Germanic genepool if not Germanic themselves?

The Horned God
Friday, October 5th, 2007, 12:02 PM
About 1/128 minimum, and even then I'd feel weird about it to be honest. And I can't think of one group of people I'd "want" that 1/128 to be.

I can; English! :D

Susisaari
Friday, October 5th, 2007, 03:26 PM
5) Are they Aryan (twice born)?


What exactly are you talking about?

Leonhardt
Friday, October 5th, 2007, 04:46 PM
What exactly are you talking about?

Twice born
of or forming one of the three upper Hindu caste groups in which boys undergo an initiation symbolizing spiritual birth.

A collective description of members of the three upper castes who have been through the thread ceremony ( A Hindu ceremony restricted to the three upper castes by which males become full members of the Vedic religion, eligible to learn Sanskrit, study); Sudras and Dalits are excluded.
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Yajnopavita/id/22947

Brahmana, the Kshatriya, and the Vaisya castes (varna) are the twice-born ones, but the fourth, the Sudra, has one birth only; there is no fifth (caste).
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu/manu10.htm
An hierarchal system, Varna, (meaning color) was instituted by the ruling class of fairer-skinned northern nomads placing them at the top and darker skinned peoples at the bottom. Today this rigid socio-religous code is called the caste system. Cruel and harsh, this caste system controlled every aspect of daily life. It was written, "A Sudra (Black) who insults a twice-born man (white), shall have his tongue cut out. If he mentions the names and castes of the (twice-born) with contempt, an iron nail, ten fingers long, shall be thrust into his mouth. If he spits on a twice-born both his lips shall be cut off; if he urinates on him, the penis; if he breaks wind, the anus." This color-orientated social order became an integral part of the newly formed Hinduism.
http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/201220012.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=yiqPYzhD-IcC&pg=PA192&lpg=PA192&dq=aryan+%22twice+born%22&source=web&ots=ORVeCAp6kI&sig=qPh77ILfSTPGGjRe5whWba31QhQ

Leonhardt
Saturday, October 6th, 2007, 02:42 PM
The upper castes are Aryan twice born. I am not sure how it relates to Germanic Aryan twice born, it was a simple Google search. They may simply be talking about baptism.

Deary
Sunday, October 7th, 2007, 11:23 AM
My experiences have shown those of more "mixed" backgrounds tend to suffer more psychological insecurities, low self-esteem and have issues regarding a sense of cultural connection. If even a small amount of non-European ancestry has the potential to make me or my future children uncomfortable with their ancestry and themselves, the integration of any non-European ethnicity is too much a risk.

My family is primarily of British descent with some members having a long-standing history in the U.S. I seek to maintain this. Since I am 25% Irish, Norman and English, it would be optimal for one of these ethnicities to also be dominant in my partner. Blonde hair and blue/grey eyes would be preferable as well. In fact, preservation of my heritage is the main reason I will be moving to the Midwest by late next year.

Susisaari
Sunday, October 7th, 2007, 12:58 PM
The upper castes are Aryan twice born. I am not sure how it relates to Germanic Aryan twice born, it was a simple Google search. They may simply be talking about baptism.


And what exactly does "Germanic Aryan twice born" mean?

Leonhardt
Sunday, October 7th, 2007, 01:23 PM
Probably it means baptised, although it is not my interest.

GreenHeart
Sunday, October 7th, 2007, 01:35 PM
Probably it means baptised, although it is not my interest.

Why would I write about baptism? Didn't you read my profile? :confused:

Leonhardt
Sunday, October 7th, 2007, 02:03 PM
All I know if from the initial Google search on Aryan twice born, which refers to Hindus. I do not know beyond that.

Huzar
Sunday, October 7th, 2007, 02:22 PM
First, though, I'm going to answer as though you're talking about mate selection. If you're just talking about dating, then I think you can date whomever you want. But then, I'm one of those old-fashioned guys who thinks sex belongs in marriage and nowhere else.



Yea, i agree.......i'm old-fashioned too on this point.





So for mate selection, for my part, I sort of eyeball it to begin with. Does she have blue eyes? Fair skin? Not black hair? Then we can consider it and take it to the next level.
Next, does she have any harder-to-see physical traits in her phenotype that are characteristic of non-Europoid races? If so, this might not be the one.


Ok......i do the same.



Next, does she have any non-Europeans in her pedigree in the last 500 years? If so (or if she doesn't know), let's think long and hard about it before going further with the relationship.


Uh, Perhaps 500 years are a bit too much........i think it's sufficient the half of this time.......250 years.




If she passes all these tests, then she's probably fine from the European-ness perspective. Of course, there's a lot more to consider than just that when it comes to mate selection. She really ought to be Germanic, for example.


On this i'm more skeptical. If you really meet the woman of your dreams (phenotypically ideal, racially aware, attriactive etc.) i doubt the selection would go further.........at least for 90% of the members here.




Now I know that a lot of these tests of mine are kind of quirky and ad hoc. They're not trying to be serious and rigid about the definition — they're just sort of how I approached the problem myself

Well, not completely quirky,but yes, there are some exaggerations. However is good to suggest some "selection scheme" to theless experts here......

Soldier of Wodann
Wednesday, October 10th, 2007, 02:08 AM
Gods, what kind of strict person do I seem like, when my ex being 1/16 Polish and the rest German/Austrian was still "just alright" with me. :o

Usually, I would say that for inner-European mixtures it would generally be 1/8 of not immediately compatible ancestry (yes, I even draw my line that far to say that Southern & Eastern Europe are not my primary target - I would clearly prefer Northern, Western or Central European ancestry). Outwith that - 1/16 non-European Europid, 1/64 non-Europid admixture.


And for dating a girl who has been with a non-European person? Umm...no. Following that good old maxim of "once you go black, we don't want you back."

Yes, I said I was strict. But the more purely German, the better. :D

Here here. :tea00000:
Though I would say Western European shouldn't be more than 1/4th (assuming it is mostly Celtic).

Geribeetus
Thursday, December 6th, 2007, 03:13 AM
I have nothing against people with trace admixture since it never seems to manifest itself in their looks/character. However the idea of having kids with an impure woman bothers me. It probably wouldn't if I wasn't worried about the possibility of all Whites in 100 years having a little bit of Negroid here and a little bit of Injun there. Keeps me up at night. :( Fortunately, a doctor in my family researched our ancestors dating back centuries so at least I'm sure of my Whiteness. :D I plan on doing my part and having a small army of kids.

Drakkar
Thursday, December 6th, 2007, 04:16 AM
I was going to rant about how people shouldn't think too much about this sort of thing if you want to be mentally healthy, but I didn't want to torture you any more than what you have already read about me on this subject. ;)

OK, I'm going to lay down the numbers again... With "Non-European" including such races as negro, asian/native american, "middle eastern", and Jewish, I would not accept anything closer than 1/16 native american/Saami, 1/8 "middle eastern", and further than 1/32 for asian/negro/jew if at all. I believe there is no chance for any physical indication further than 1/16, but then again I'm not an expert at these things. I mean, you can basically look your partner in the face and figure out what's there, right?
The negro, asian, and jewish blood do bother me and always have, but I seriously wouldn't mind with a little of Amerindian or Saami, since I guess I have a little of both and I'm sure most whites in America whose ancestors were here since the first settlers like me do as well. You can't undo history and what went on, although sometimes I'd like to!

Geribeetus
Thursday, December 6th, 2007, 04:30 AM
The negro, asian, and jewish blood do bother me and always have, but I seriously wouldn't mind with a little of Amerindian or Saami, since I guess I have a little of both and I'm sure most Whites in America do as well. You can't undo history and what went on, although sometimes I'd like to!

I've done some research and it seems that no more than 5-6% of Americans have Indian or Negro blood. You'll hear people mention a Cherokee princess great grandmother, and this became popular for some reason in the last few decades. I don't think many people actually know.

SpeedDemon
Thursday, December 6th, 2007, 04:32 AM
I would go with less then 1%. 1/8 Asian, Arab or Mexican might not seem like much individually but when such persons become common as they currently are becoming in the Unites States, they have the effect of permanently altering the genepool. One Chinese great-grandmother may not seem like a big deal and it wouldn't be if that was the exception and not the rule. But because of current trends of interracial relationships, persons calling themselves white but with 1 grandparent or greatgrandparent who was not white could be the norm in 3 generations.

SineNomine
Thursday, December 6th, 2007, 04:40 AM
No non-European admixtures whatsoever.

Elysium
Thursday, December 6th, 2007, 05:51 AM
I would avoid any mixture where ever possible. If I HAD to, then I would except the following:

No more than 1/8th East Asian
No more than 1/32nd Negroid (:D)
No more than 1/8th Arab
No more than 1/32nd Australoid
No more than 1/8th Indian

Hermelin
Sunday, December 9th, 2007, 12:30 PM
Only the thought of non-European background in a partner makes me sick. So, it is none for me.

Teutonic
Sunday, December 9th, 2007, 11:53 PM
ive thought about this many times. Im way to picky when it comes to blood. for me nothing means so much as blood. so for someone to have non european blood in them anywhere, no thank you, your not for me.i want my girlfreind to be German the purer the better.all the girls ive ever dated have all been german some with viking blood though as well. and if a girl has been with a black guy then shes not for me.

i had this girl i kinda liked and she liked me as well, she chased me but i new she was like 1/16 indian so i didnt want to really have anything to do with her, i dont date just to date. well after turning her down a couple times she finally gave up on me and went after one of my freinds.lol he dated her for a couple months and then told me she used to have a black boyfreind.lol hes not racist but was sickened by the fact that she had been with a black guy.for me it only confirmed what i already knew, that she was definitely not the girl for me.im glad i used my brain when dealing with her.

Drakkar
Wednesday, December 12th, 2007, 06:51 AM
hes not racist but was sickened by the fact that she had been with a black guy.for me it only confirmed what i already knew, that she was definitely not the girl for me.im glad i used my brain when dealing with her.
I'm fond of my neighbor who's at Brown for grad school, and she had dated a black guy as an undergrad. That doesn't make me look any less of her, though. She is a respectable, intelligent, beautiful, upright woman who just happened to find a guy who was black who she liked. Not all black guys are primitive, mumbling, balling thugs from the ghetto.

Soten
Wednesday, December 12th, 2007, 07:13 AM
I do agree. It may be rare, but nevertheless you do find blacks who are quite intelligent. Just like you find absolutely retarded Europeans and Asians at times.

As an example of an intelligent Black man I can't help but think of that black astro-physicist...I can't think of his name off hand. He shows up on the History channel and other networks fairly often. But he knows more about the universe than I could ever hope to know.

Ossi
Thursday, April 17th, 2008, 06:27 AM
What is the amount of non-European background permissible in a partner, if any? For those who live in more integrated societies, the chances of encountering someone of slightly mixed heritage would not be unlikely. How many would be willing to sacrifice an amount of non-European heritage entering the family for love and vise versa? What non-European heritage would and wouldn't be tolerable in a long-term partner?
How about NONE?

Loftor
Thursday, April 24th, 2008, 12:56 PM
zero

this post is 100 characters long
this post is 100 characters long
this post is 100 characters long
this post is 100 characters long
this post is 100 characters long
this post is 100 characters long
this post is 100 characters long
this post is 100 characters long
this post is 100 characters long
this post is 100 characters long

Amorsite
Thursday, April 24th, 2008, 01:41 PM
zero. any sort of race mixing is a form of idiocy.

Bärin
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 06:20 AM
I'd like to see what the level of tolerance is. How much nonwhite blood would you accept in someone in order to consider him white? Does it vary according to what kind of nonwhite blood? Why?

Rassenhygieniker
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 06:37 AM
I'd like to see what the level of tolerance is. How much nonwhite blood would you accept in someone in order to consider him white? Does it vary according to what kind of nonwhite blood? Why?

The clear answer is more complicated than this simple answer. It is safe to say that a country such as America, the Gene Pool is tainted with various nonwhite markers and so someone (aside from newer generation of immigrants) might believe that he is pure white, whilst at the same time pocessing nonwhite markers.

We can see such cases in these regions (among others) Spain, Southern France, Portugal, Greece, Southern Italy et alii.

TheGreatest
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 07:17 AM
Never...!
I've never believed the whole "Mediterranean women are so gorgeous" BS that Hollywood was spewing a decade ago. A lot of those Mediterraneans are borderline nappy-haired, for pete sakes. I often ask myself, other than the Arab who wears a burka, what difference is there between an Arab and a Mediterranean? Same skin color - same nose - same hair texture - same everything...



The Mediterranean countries haven't done a whole lot since the 15C. Italy and Greece would both be resembling third world countries (much like Turkey), if it wasn't their proximity to the Germanic world, thus Germanic technology and investment. All the major infrastructure in Greece is built by Germanic contracts... no different in Italy

rainman
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 07:27 AM
When it makes the person genetically incompatable with the "white" community. In the sense of a Germanic community- when its makes them incompatable with Germanics. This can vary. Two people with the same amount of non white ancestory could have totally different numbers of non white genes depending on what they inherit. Of course it matters what they are mixed with. The more different whatever they mixed with is then the less of it that is tolerable.

Lets say a Germanic community absorbs a Celt. You can breed the "Celticness" out of the person within not so many generations. Or someone who has a significant amount of Celtic ancestory but is mostly Germanic may be able to blend into a Germanic community quite well. Now as you expand outward to Asians then you have greater difference or then to Semites and Africans etc. the difference grows.

Once you go back so many generations it starts to become irrelevant. Go back far enough and we were single celled organisms. Yet because a person can look white yet have certain mental or other hidden traits that are not white or can have genes that aren't showing but may pop up in children we can't go 100% by a person's appearance. But once you start going back say 5 generations with all 5 generations conforming to "white" then you are pretty well out of the woods, though the ideal would be to avoid such in a racial community. But lets say 7 generations ago you had a black ancestors. And another person 7 generations ago had an East Asian ancestor. Some people who are half asian can pretty much pass for white. A half black could never do this just from the physical and mental differences. Thus its far more likely that if you are mixed with something more distant the ancestory would have to go back further.

In the old racist laws of America a 1/64 negro was considered white again if there was no sign of non white traits. That was written in the law. Anything else would be considered black i.e. if you are 1/16 black you are still considered black. This was called the one drop rule. So even in the hey day of racism we didn't see the extremism that some people on the internet support. Even the Nazis themselves tolerated 1/4 Jews in their community! All depending on how well they conformed.

TheGreatest
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 07:30 AM
When it makes the person genetically incompatable with the "white" community. In the sense of a Germanic community- when its makes them incompatable with Germanics. This can vary. Two people with the same amount of non white ancestory could have totally different numbers of non white genes depending on what they inherit. Of course it matters what they are mixed with. The more different whatever they mixed with is then the less of it that is tolerable.

Lets say a Germanic community absorbs a Celt. You can breed the "Celticness" out of the person within not so many generations. Or someone who has a significant amount of Celtic ancestory but is mostly Germanic may be able to blend into a Germanic community quite well. Now as you expand outward to Asians then you have greater difference or then to Semites and Africans etc. the difference grows.

Once you go back so many generations it starts to become irrelevant. Go back far enough and we were single celled organisms. Yet because a person can look white yet have certain mental or other hidden traits that are not white or can have genes that aren't showing but may pop up in children we can't go 100% by a person's appearance. But once you start going back say 5 generations with all 5 generations conforming to "white" then you are pretty well out of the woods, though the ideal would be to avoid such in a racial community. But lets say 7 generations ago you had a black ancestors. And another person 7 generations ago had an East Asian ancestor. Some people who are half asian can pretty much pass for white. A half black could never do this just from the physical and mental differences. Thus its far more likely that if you are mixed with something more distant the ancestory would have to go back further.

In the old racist laws of America a 1/64 negro was considered white again if there was no sign of non white traits. That was written in the law. Anything else would be considered black i.e. if you are 1/16 black you are still considered black. This was called the one drop rule. So even in the hey day of racism we didn't see the extremism that some people on the internet support. Even the Nazis themselves tolerated 1/4 Jews in their community! All depending on how well they conformed.


Well the National Socialists lost the Second World War. Perhaps allowing all those quarter Jews free reign was a mistake? ;)

Rassenhygieniker
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 07:35 AM
I often ask myself, other than the Arab who wears a burka, what difference is there between an Arab and a Mediterranean? Same skin color - same nose - same hair texture - same everything...

And not to mention their overall behavior, which I identify as nonwhite. How to smokeout the Arab hiding inside of the Med? Throw a Nordic in a room full of Meds.

Mediterraneans are only one step ahead from the arabs.

Nachtengel
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 07:35 AM
In the old racist laws of America a 1/64 negro was considered white again if there was no sign of non white traits. That was written in the law. Anything else would be considered black i.e. if you are 1/16 black you are still considered black. This was called the one drop rule. So even in the hey day of racism we didn't see the extremism that some people on the internet support. Even the Nazis themselves tolerated 1/4 Jews in their community! All depending on how well they conformed.
Yes and that was a mistake. We are going to go nowhere if we just repeat what our predecessors did. We need to progress and for that we have to learn from their mistakes too.

rainman
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 07:40 AM
So you think the Nazis weren't extreme enough?

Rassenhygieniker
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 07:48 AM
So you think the Nazis weren't extreme enough?

The NS were lax on many things, mainly because they had to fight a war in which they were greatly outnumbered. In order to have a chance to win the war, they had to make compromises, compromises which were quite questionable to not say outright scandalous, but in these times of struggle compromises had to be made.

TheGreatest
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 07:50 AM
And not to mention their overall behavior, which I identify as nonwhite. How to smokeout the Arab hiding inside of the Med? Throw a Nordic in a room full of Meds.

Mediterraneans are only one step ahead from the arabs.



I traveled with a large group of Mediterraneans and you wouldn't imagine the amount of Nordic and Celtic bashing they'll do. So much for a ''White America'' :| Italians will just be the next blacks

jamini
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 07:52 AM
I’m probably not as strict as some of you guys are. When someone looks acts and identifies as x, and has parents who look and act like x too, then they are x as far as I’m concerned.

Nachtengel
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 07:54 AM
Some of the Jews in the Reich looked Aryan:

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/images/righitgoldberg.jpg

http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=928776&postcount=3

The Jews have adapted for centuries to deceive and infiltrate in all nations possible.

Freja_se
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 10:36 AM
I traveled with a large group of Mediterraneans and you wouldn't imagine the amount of Nordic and Celtic bashing they'll do. So much for a ''White America'' :| Italians will just be the next blacks

Italians, especially South Italians, are very sensitive when it comes to the issue of race, for obvious reasons. They have a love-hate relationship with Nordics. They love the Vikings and the Nordic history of strong wild warrior men and fair and blonde women, and at the same time they are angry and hostile and quick to badmouth us, probably due to an inferiority complex.

Blod og Jord
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 10:40 AM
Hm I'm think it's not possible to be pure but the farther nonwhite ancestry is the better.
But it depends on the country and community too.
In Nordic Europe even some South Europeans look alien. Like A Sicilian.

Bärin
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 10:53 AM
So you think the Nazis weren't extreme enough?
They weren't if they allowed 1/4 Jews. It's 1/4! That's a lot. Even 1/8 is too much in my opinion.


Italians, especially South Italians, are very sensitive when it comes to the issue of race, for obvious reasons. They have a love-hate relationship with Nordics. They love the Vikings and the Nordic history of strong wild warrior men and fair and blonde women, and at the same time they are angry and hostile and quick to badmouth us, probably due to an inferiority complex.
Yes they're contradictory. Not just the Italians, the Spanish, Greeks and other kinds of Meds. They bash Nordic men, but they salivate over Nordic women and they even want to procreate with them. Where is the national pride? That attitude explains why they're against Nordicism and Germanicism. Because it would exclude them from prying over Nordic and Germanic women like scavengers. Their women are ugly (see the swarthy and greasy slut Penelope Cruz :puke) it's no wonder they look at the Nordic ideal. But some Nordic and Germanic men started to worship swarthy women from Spain, Greece, Italy too. :thumbdown

Rassenhygieniker
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 11:00 AM
In Nordic Europe even some South Europeans look alien. Like A Sicilian.

From what I have heard from Scandinavians, this is slowly changing. More individuals who pocess dark complexions are emerging in Scandinavia and mix with the Scandinavians of the Nordic extraction, sickening.

Nachtengel
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 11:03 AM
From what I have heard from Scandinavians, this is slowly changing. More individuals who pocess dark complexions are emerging in Scandinavia and mix with the Scandinavians of the Nordic extraction, sickening.
I suppose considering there are more and more immigrants from Africa and the Muslim countries flooding into Scandinavia, Sicilians don't look that alien there anymore. They might even be considered "white".

Blod og Jord
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 11:06 AM
I'm didn't mean to say Sicilians or South Europeans aren't white.
I'm mean with all discussions about white, sometimes just white is not enough.
The European countries are diverse and have specifics.
A blond Scandinavian would look alien in South Italy too.

Wulfram
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 11:11 AM
Some of the Jews in the Reich looked Aryan:

The Jews have adapted for centuries to deceive and infiltrate in all nations possible.

One way in which they are doing this is in the form of hybrids. Scarlett Johanssen, Jake Gay-enhall, James Franco, etc. all had Gentile fathers and Jewish mothers. But on first glance they appear to be pure gentiles. It is only when you take a really close look that the more obscure physical traits of their ancestry begin to show.
It is these hybrids who pass themselves off as white and who go around and espouse feminism, homosexuality, interracial relationships.
When a gentile child sees this behavior from his fellow "whites", particularly when they are famous and are seen as role models, he will automatically assume such behavior is perfectly okay. He will never be given the chance to understand that these people will stoop to the greatest depths to bring our race to their level.

Genfluss
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 11:13 AM
When Does Nonwhite Ancestry Become Irrelevant? It depends on the person as it's all self-based. There are no universal rules judging what is acceptable and what isn't. What is acceptable to one is disastrous and a nightmare for another. Personally, I'd rather have absolutely none nonwhite people register or troll with accounts promoting their agenda to be accepted as Germanic and "white" into the community and then cry later on and accuse us of "racism", we'd be much happier and safer that way.

The user that said 1/8 Negro is acceptable is extremely ridiculous. But due to some people's unfair and miscegenated lineages, if it really comes down to me being very liberal and fair to others, I'd say these mixtures are acceptable and not acceptable. In the end I'd rather have none of these "Acceptable" mixtures come here. If some must still insist and be liberal, and let only a couple in who are loyal to Germanic Preservation then ok. If they misbehave and don't believe in it, they should be banned and go to another forum, flood and flock over their if they really aren't so loyal to a Germanic movement.

1/8 admixture is still a lot, generally it should be less than that, but I said up to a 1/4 if those are truly loyal to Germanic Preservation and possess those predominant 3/4 Germanic personality traits and behavior. For the truly non-European admixture I'd rather have it be back at least 1000-3000 years in a lineage, but since I'm being fait and realistic I said 300-500 years.

Maybe Acceptable/Borderline:

7/8 Germanic/Celtogermanic and 1/8 European Mediterranean (Romance, Hellenic, Shqiptar, Basque)

7/8 Germanic/Celtogermanic and 1/8 European Slav (North, South, East, West Slav)

3/4 Germanic/Celtogermanic and 1/4 European Mediterranean (Romance, Hellenic, Shqiptar, Basque)

3/4 Germanic/Celtogermanic and 1/4 Baltic (North-East Europe)

3/4 Germanic/Celtogermanic and 1/4 European Slav (North, South, East, West Slav)

3/4 Germanic/Celtogermanic and 1/4 Finnic (Finnish etc.)

3/4 Germanic/Celtogermanic and 1/4 Magyar (Hungarian)

1/2 Germanic/Celtogermanic and 1/2 Baltic (North-East Europe)

1/2 Germanic/Celtogermanic and 1/2 Finnic (Finnish etc.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Never Acceptable:

7/8 Germanic/Celtogermanic and 1/8 Ugric or Uralic or Negro or Amerindian or Gypsy or Jewish or Middle Eastern/Caucasus or Australian Aborigine or North African or Southwest Asian such as Indian, Tajik, Afghan, Paki, or Mestizo or Zambo or any other non-European etc. (None of these are acceptable unless you have only 1 of these ancestor's 300-500 years ago in your lineage).

Rassenhygieniker
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 11:24 AM
I'm didn't mean to say Sicilians or South Europeans aren't white.

Well,

J1 (Middle Eastern, Arabid marker)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)



In general J1 has a very low frequency in Europe. However, higher frequencies has been reported in the central Adriatic regions of Italy Gargano (17.2%), Pescara (15%), in the Mediterranean Paola (11.1%), South Sicilian Ragusa (10.7%), Crete (8.3%), Malta (7.8%), Cyprus (6.2%), Greece (5.26%)


The distribution of J1 outside of the Middle East may be associated with the Semites who traded and conquered in Sicily, southern Italy, Spain, Azerbaijan, Dagestan (Russia), and Pakistan. In Jewish populations, J1 constitutes 19.0% of the Ashkenazim results and 11.9% of the Sephardic results


J2 (Near Eastern, Arabid marker)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J2_(Y-DNA)



Haplogroup J2 is found mainly in the Fertile Crescent, the Mediterranean (including Southern Europe and North Africa), the Iranian plateau, and Central Asia. More specifically it is found in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Israel, Palestine, Greece, Italy and the eastern coasts of the Iberian Peninsula, and more frequently in Iraqis 29.7% (Sanchez et al. 2005), Lebanese 29.7% (Wells et al. 2001), Syrians 29%, Sephardic Jews 29%, Kurds 28.4%, Jordan 14.3%, Oman 15% (Di Giacomo et al. 2004) & 10% (Luis et al. 2004), UAE 10.4%, Yemen 9.7%, in Israel, in Palestine, in Turkey, and in the southern Caucasus region. According to Semino et al and the National Geographic Genographic Project, the frequency of haplogroup J2 generally declines as one moves away from the Northern fertile crescent. Haplogroup J2 is carried by 6% of Europeans and its frequency drops dramatically as one moves northward away from the Mediterranean.


V (Maghrebid marker)
http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/berber-and-arab-dna-in-europe-from-the-moorish-occupation/



North African Berber and Arab Influences in the Western Mediterranean Revealed by Y-Chromosome DNA Haplotypes

We have analyzed Y-chromosome diversity in the western Mediterranean area, examining p49a,f TaqI haplotype V and subhaplotypes Vb (Berber) and Va (Arab). A total of 2,196 unrelated DNA samples, belonging to 22 populations from North Africa and the southern Mediterranean coast of occidental Europe, have been typed. Subhaplotype Vb, predominant in a Berber population of Morocco (63.5%), was also found at high frequencies in southern Portugal (35.9%) and Andalusia (25.4%). The Arab subhaplotype Va, predominant in Algeria (53.9%) and Tunisia (50.6%), was also found at a relatively high frequency in Sicily (23.1%) and Naples (16.4%); its highest frequency in Iberia was in northern Portugal (22.8%) and Andalusia (15.5%). In Iberia there is a gradient of decreasing frequencies in latitude for both subhaplotypes Va and Vb, related to eight centuries of Muslim domination (8th to 15th centuries) in southern Iberia.

During the 7th century A.D., Muslim people coming from the Arabian peninsula and the Middle East invaded North Africa. The most important population movement relating both sides of the Mediterranean Sea was the conquest of the Iberian peninsula by North African populations (with recruited Berbers), soon after the first Muslim invasion. More than eight centuries (8th to 15th centuries) of Muslim domination in the southern part of Iberia imparted an important cultural legacy (Conrad 1998) and probable gene exchanges between North African and Iberian populations.

Variations in DNA sequences specific to the nonrecombinant part of the Y chromosome, relating to paternal ancestry, are particularly interesting from a human population genetics point of view. The first published and most informative probe used in Southern blots for this objective is p49 (locus DYSl), which is able to identify at last five TaqI male-specific fragments (A, C, D, F, and I) that are polymorphic between individuals (Lucotte and Ngo 1985). Sixteen main corresponding haplotypes (numbered I-XVI) were identified using the p49 probe on DNA samples of unrelated males living in France (Ngo et al. 1986). Only recently has the molecular basis of the p49 TaqI polymorphisms been established (Jovelin et al. 2003); the polymorphisms correspond to variable TaqI sites located in the four DAZ genes located in the AZF-c region of the Y chromosome.

In fact, the conventional p49 TaqI polymorphisms were the most popular markers used in various populations because of their ability to detect more than 100 different haplotypes [for a compilation on the subject until the end of 1995, see Poloni et al. (1997)]. Haplotype XV (A3,C1,D2,F1,I1) was the most widespread haplotype in our initial study (Ngo et al. 1986). Haplotype XV was also predominant in the first European study we published (Lucotte and Hazout 1996), with elevated frequencies in French Basques. The geographic distribution of haplotype XV in Europe reveals a gradient of decreasing frequencies from this Basque focus toward eastern peripheral countries (Lucotte and Loirat 1999) but also toward southwestern countries. According to the Y Chromosome Consortium (2002) nomenclature, haplotype XV corresponds to the M173 lineage (Diéterlen and Lucotte 2005).

Haplotype V (E3b1b) (A2,C0,D0,F1,I1) is the most frequent haplotype in North Africa (Lucotte et al. 2000), with a particularly high frequency (55%) in the populations with a relative predominance of Berber origin. Our previous study on the subject examined the relative frequencies of haplotype V in four Iberian populations compared with a Berber population living in North Africa (Lucotte et al. 2001). The highest frequency of haplotype V (68.9%) was observed in Berbers from Morocco, and the geographic distribution of haplotype V revealed a gradient of decreasing frequencies with latitude in Iberia (40.8% in Andalusia, 36.2% in Portugal, 12.1% in Catalonia, and 11.3% in the Basque Country) (Lucotte et al. 2001); such a cline of decreasing haplotype V frequencies from the south to the north in Iberia clearly established a gene flow from North Africa toward Iberia.

According to the Y Chromosome Consortium (2002) nomenclature, haplogroup E is characterized by the mutations SRY4064, M96, and P29 on a background defined by the insertion of an Alu element (YAP + ). The third clade, E3 (defined by the mutation P2), of haplogroup E is further subdivided into two monophyletic forms, the second one (E3b) being characterized by mutations M35 and M125. All of the 110 p49 TaqI haplotype V subjects from Morocco (51 Berbers and 59 Arabs) that we had previously tested correspond to haplogroup E3b.

In the present study we have subdivided haplotype V into its Berber (Vb) and Arab (Va) components in order to distinguish the relative contributions of these two ethnicity-specific markers in the gene pools of the populations living in Iberia and in other populations in the northern part of the western Mediterranean area.

DNA Samples. This study concerns 2,196 unrelated male DNA samples (Table 1). We collected 904 new unrelated males subjects, from three different countries (Portugal, France, and Italy): 79 from North Portugal and 59 from South Portugal; 243 from the Marseilles region of France; 192 from Genoa, 64 from Rome, and 128 from Naples in continental Italy; 39 from Sicily; and 100 from Sardinia. All these new samples correspond to adult males, whose origin is based on the local birthplace of their fathers and (at least) grandfathers. We have obtained informed consent from each of the French subjects studied.

We add for comparison the following subjects, already tested as bearing haplotype V in previous studies: 11 subjects from Mauritania, 51 Berbers from Morocco, 59 Arabs from Rabat, 80 subjects from Algeria, 39 subjects from Tunisia, and 17 subjects from Libya (Lucotte et al. 2000); 29 Spaniards from Sevilla (Lucotte et al. 2001); 4 Spaniards from Barcelona and 9 French Catalans from Perpignan (Lucotte and Loirat 1999); 11 French Basques, 1 subject from Montpellier, and 7 subjects from Grasse in France and 6 subjects from Milan in Italy (Lucotte and Hazout 1996); and 44 subjects from Corsica (Lucotte et al. 2002).

Results

Table 1 summarizes the frequencies we obtained for haplotype V and sub-haplotypes Vb and Va in the 22 study populations. For the 2,196 males typed, 491 (22.3%) bear haplotype V. The frequency of haplotype V is 35.5% in Portugal, with a more elevated proportion in the south (49.2%) than in the north (25.3%). The frequency of haplotype V in the Marseilles region (11.1%) has a value similar to the mean value in continental France (9%). In Italy the highest frequency is attained in Sicily (28.2%), followed by Naples at 17.2%. As previously shown (Lucotte et al. 2000), haplotype V is found at the highest frequency (68.9%) in Berbers from Marrakech in Morocco; an apparently increasing east-west cline in haplotype V frequencies is shown in North Africa from Libya (44.7%) to Rabat (57.7%), with intermediate values for Tunisia (53.4%) and Algeria (56.7%). In Spain haplotype V is much more frequent (40.9%) in the south of the country [in Andalusia (Sevilla)] than in the north (12.9%) [in Catalonia (Barcelona)].

Subhaplotype Vb is the Berber subhaplotype because its most elevated relative value (63.5%) is obtained for the Berber population of Marrakech. In the non-Berber population of Rabat in Morocco, the frequency of subhaplotype Vb is only 20.6%, whereas the frequency of subhaplotype Va (Arab) is 37.3%. In order of decreasing values, the subhaplotype Vb frequencies are 40% in Mauritania, 35.9% in South Portugal, 25.4% in Andalusia, and 15.8% in Libya. Low frequencies of subhaplotype Vb are found in Sicily (5.1%), Algeria (2.8%), Tunisia (2.7%), and North Portugal (2.5%); frequencies less than 2% are found in French Basques (1.9%), in Naples (0.8%), and in Corsica (0.6%), Subhaplotype Vb is absent in Catalonia (Barcelona and Perpignan), in the south of France (Montpellier, Grasse, and the region of Marseilles), in continental Italy (Milan, Genoa, and Rome), and in Sardinia.

Table 2 summarizes the frequencies of subhaplotype Vb in North Africa, Iberia, the south of France, and Italy. The maximum value (63.5%) concerns the Berber population, but this frequency is notably lower (9.3%) for other populations from North Africa. In southern Iberia an elevated value (30%) is observed, but the frequency of subhaplotype Vb is only 1.8% in northern Iberia. These frequencies are less than 1% in France and Italy.

Figure 2 shows the isofrequency map of subhaplotype Vb in the western Mediterranean area (coordinates on the map: x = longitude, y = latitude). From the Berber focus in Berbers from southern Morocco, the frequencies of subhaplotype Vb decrease in North Africa to the north of Morocco and to the east in Algeria and Tunisia. For Iberia the most elevated value of subhaplotype Vb frequencies is in southern Portugal; relatively elevated values are observed in Andalusia, moderate values are observed in the southern part of Spain, and low values are seen in Catalonia.

In the present study all haplotype V non-subhaplotype Vb subjects are termed subhaplotype Va (Arab) subjects. Their maximum relative frequencies are 53.9% (Algeria), 50% (Tunisia), and 37.3% (Rabat) in North Africa. Table 3 summarizes the frequencies of subhaplotype Va in North Africa, Iberia, southern France, and Italy. The maximum value (45.8%) is found in North Africa. In northern Iberia a slightly more elevated value is observed (20%) compared to southern Iberia (14.6%). A frequency of 10.3% is seen in France, and in Italy the 14.6% value observed in the south is relatively more elevated than in the north (3.4%).

Figure 3 gives the isofrequency map of subhaplotype Vb. In North Africa frequencies decrease from east to west and southward. For southern Europe the map shows the relatively higher percentages observed in the south of Italy versus the north and (to a lesser degree) in the north of Iberia versus the south.

In our PCR assay the 68 Moroccan subjects with subhaplotype Vb (47 Berbers and 21 Arabs) were tested for the M81 marker: All subjects were positive for the M81 marker, so subhaplotype Vb is homologous with subhaplogroup E3b2. The 38 Moroccan non-Berber subjects were further tested for the M78 marker: Only 31 of them (80.8%) were positive for the M78 marker; we conclude that, in Morocco at least, subhaplotype Va corresponds only partly to subhaplogroup E3b1.

P49a,f TaqI haplotype V, which is homologous with haplogroup E3b according to the Y Chromosome Consortium (2002) nomenclature, is the predominant Y-chromosome haplotype in North Africa (Lucotte et al. 2000), where its geographic distribution shows an east to west cline. In the present study we have extended the research of haplotype V frequencies (Lucotte et al. 2001) in various European populations located in the western Mediterranean basin to include France, Portugal, and Italy. The frequency of haplotype V in the Marseilles region is 11.1%, a value similar to the main value we obtained previously for continental France (Lucotte and Hazout 1996). In continental Italy we observed the highest haplotype V frequency in Naples (17.2%); Sicily, with a frequency of 28.2%, corresponds to the most elevated value we observed for Italy. In South Portugal the frequency of haplotype V is very high (49.2%); we had previously obtained a similar value for Libya and for Mauritania. The frequency of haplotype V for North Portugal (25.3%) is similar to the value we obtained for Sicily in the present study.

Related Results
Y-chromosome DNA haplotypes in North African populations

To better divide haplotype V into its ethnic components, we have subdivided it into subhaplotypes Vb (Berber) and Va (Arab). We have established that subhaplotype Vb is the Berber haplotype, because it is present at very elevated frequencies (63.5%) in our Berber population from Morocco but at relatively low frequencies (20.6%) in our non-Berber population of Rabat. Such a distinction of a Berber component was also realized by Scozzari et al. (2001), because they observed that the haplogroup they named 25.2 was also more frequent in the Berber population from Morocco than in Arabs. Our present results show that subhaplotype Vb frequencies in North Africa decrease from west to east, starting from the Berber focus in Morocco; in the western Mediterranean area subhaplotype Vb is at low frequencies along the south coast of Europe but occurs at relatively elevated frequencies in southern Iberia (peaking at 35.9% in South Portugal). Flores et al. (2004), in their important study of various locations in Iberia, observed that subhaplogroup E3b2 is more frequent in southern Iberia, attaining a maximum value of 11.5% in the region of Málaga.

In the present study all the non-subhaplotype Vb subjects bearing haplo-type V are classified as subhaplotype Va (Arab); they probably correspond to a heterogeneous group representing various ethnicities (our results concerning the incomplete correspondence between subhaplotypes Va and E3b1 in Morocco suggest that). We have shown here that in North Africa the focus of subhaplotype Va frequencies is in Algeria (53.9%) and Tunisia (50.6%); from this focus frequencies of subhaplotype Va decrease in the south and the west of the region.

Subhaplotype Va attains substantial frequencies along the southern coast of Europe; these frequencies reached relatively elevated frequencies in France (Perpignan, 11.8%) and in southern Italy (Naples, 16.4%; Sicily, 23.1%). For Iberia, relatively more elevated values are attained for Andalusia (15.5%) and for North Portugal (22.8%). Brion et al. (2004) also showed relatively higher frequencies of haplogroup E* (xE3a) (up to 18.3%) in their study concerning northern Iberia.

We had previously established (Lucotte et al. 2001) that haplotype V showed a gradient of decreasing frequencies with latitude in Iberia, and we interpreted this pattern as a consequence of the historical Islamic occupation of the peninsula (Conrad 1998). The results reported in the present study concerning subhaplotypes Vb and Va (subhaplotype isofrequencies maps given in Figures 2 and 3) have again shown both of these gradients. From this perspective, the opposite pattern of gradient frequencies observed in Iberia for the western European haplotype XV (Diéterlen and Lucotte 2005) is reconciled with the slow reconquest of the Iberian peninsula from the north by the Christians, which lasted seven centuries and ended in Granada in 1492.

Nachtengel
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 11:34 AM
It depends. Sicilians are a diverse and varied group. Due to the proximity to Africa, some are mixed. But there are some Europid ones too.

http://www.sicilianculture.com/people/dinardo.jpg

Rassenhygieniker
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 11:39 AM
It depends. Sicilians are a diverse and varied group. Due to the proximity to Africa, some are mixed. But there are some Europid ones too.

http://www.sicilianculture.com/people/dinardo.jpg

Yes of course, but like Americans some of them are Europids whilst most of them are mere Meds at best. But just like Jews they probably pocess nonwhite markers in them, no matter how small it might be or how “white” they might look, it still will be there in hiding waiting to propagate itself. This is how nonwhite markers migrated from Spain all the way to Southern France.

Huginn ok Muninn
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 12:05 PM
This is a very vague question with an even more vague answer.

Better question: In the ideal state, say a German Reich victorious in WW2, what would the racial policy be? In this case, with Lebensraum acquired and a victorious peace secured, policies could be implemented to encourage purely Nordic Germanics to have many more children than others and to breed exclusively with their own kind. There might be provinces declared Germanic Urheimats into which no one but the approved types might immigrate, which would maintain the purity of these preferred types. For example, a province of Friesland consisting of the Dutch provinces of Friesland, Groningen, and Drenthe, and the German area of Ost Friesland could be a purely Friesen and Nordic Dutch enclave. Other such areas could include Niedersachsen and Schleswig-Holstein for those of the pure Saxon type, and so on. No one but the most pure examples of these peoples would be allowed to live there, and those young people who are most worthy to breed, say the healthier, more talented, more intelligent, better looking people, would be given special incentives and allowances to enable them to have more children. When the population of these enclaves becomes excessive, emigration outward could occur, increasing the amount of pure Germanic genes throughout the Reich.

At the same time, those with some non-White ancestry would have their own province far away, say in the northern Caucasus. If these policies were in place, the compromise inherent in the original question would be unnecessary.

Jäger
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 02:29 PM
How much nonwhite blood would you accept in someone in order to consider him white?
1/1024 non-white, this roughly equates to no non-white ancestry since 1750, following the SS-Ahnenpass :).


Does it vary according to what kind of nonwhite blood?
No.

Thusnelda
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 03:27 PM
I´ve already stated my opinion in the others thread of yours: :)

My personal view is that, for example, 1/32 Amerindian influence is no big business. Sure, it´s nothing we endorse or support in any way but it´s a fact we have to accept: Not less White Americans have distant nonwhite heritage. But if the bigger part of their heritage is Germanic ( 31/32 or maybe 15/16) and their orientation is in favour of Germanic preservation then I think they´re acceptable as worthy members indeed.

If the nonwhite influence is larger than 1/16 (I´d exclude negro influence from this rule because negro influence is more dominant. 1/32 or even 1/64 is the border for me when it comes to negro influence!) and the non-Germanic influence larger than 1/4 then I´d say that they´re wrong in our board. This is point where I draw the line between acceptance and rejection.

------

This counts for American members only, of course. I´m a little bit more strict when it comes to people of European heritage. Here we have other problems drawing a line between Germanics, Celts, Balts and - particularly - Slavs and so on since they´re all "white" and "European".

Sigurd
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 05:02 PM
To determine whether someone of another ethnic group is assimilable one needs to look both at culture and race, and full or near-full cultural AND racial compatibility must be ascertained.

On a level of cultural influence, ancestry usually becomes irrelevant at 1/16 and becomes assimilable at 1/4. I set this as a divider, because I consider anything up to someone's great-grandparents as relevant: Most of us grew up with at least some grandparents still alive, and their view will also be influenced by their parents. Culturally, therefore relevant, is "last living generation + 1 generation extra". This is uniform for any ancestry.

On the level of genetic/racial influence, ancestry usually becomes irrelevant much later, and never becomes assimilable at any stage before the genetics become irrelevant, since they may still be strong carriers of a gene. Usually, beyond one's great-grandparents, i.e. at 1/16, most genetic pointers are irrelevant as a rule. However, this rule can only be considered as such for those of reasonable genetic kin, i.e. those of Europid heritage, where the re-emergence of dormant genes is less damaging to the gene pool.

With non-Europid racial ancestry, this pointer needs to be shifted upwards somewhat. Whilst genetic influence is reasonably unlikely beyond one's great-grandparents - there is always a chance for re-emergence of a dormant gene, and with those genetically further removed, this chance is much more dangerous to the gene pool. Therefore, the chances need to be decreased that such may happen.

Therefore, I would see it on a case-to-case basis for those of non-Europid ancestry, however never accept them as racially assimilable before 1/16, and in most cases see 1/64 as irrelevant enough to not probe into genetic possibilities: This is uniform with early US Eugenicists who, as has already been stated, considered someone as White only if non-White ancestry was 1/64 or less.

TheGreatest
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 09:56 PM
I'm disturbed that you guys think that 1/16 is acceptable for us Americans. 1/16 is a Great Great Grandfather who was non-white! Jesus Christ! My Great Great Grandfather was alive (died at 103 or so) till the 1980's!

So you're in full support of a GG Grandparent who was a Chink or Arab? Ya... i don't think so... try again

Ragnar Lodbrok
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 10:25 PM
I'm disturbed that you guys think that 1/16 is acceptable for us Americans. 1/16 is a Great Great Grandfather who was non-white! Jesus Christ! My Great Great Grandfather was alive (died at 103 or so) till the 1980's!

So you're in full support of a GG Grandparent who was a Chink or Arab? Ya... i don't think so... try again

I know right, it strikes me as naive and awfully hypocritical when someone makes it sound like someone whose a Germanic Octoroon(1/8 non-white) or German and 1/8% Jew is really a German or white american. I know that all my great grandparents were either Alpinids from Austria and Germany or Nordid and paleo-Atlandids from England and Ireland. I'd say that a person can be offically be called White Germanic when that person is less than 1/32% non-White.

TheGreatest
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 10:36 PM
I know right, it strikes me as naive and awfully hypocritical when someone makes it sound like someone whose a Germanic Octoroon(1/8 non-white) or German and 1/8% Jew is really a German or white american. I know that all my great grandparents were either Alpinids from Austria and Germany or Nordid and paleo-Atlandids from England and Ireland. I'd say that a person can be offically be called White Germanic when that person is less than 1/32% non-White.

The number I would put it at is a 64. I don't know a lot of people who can track all GGGG/GGGGG Grandparents on all branches. But 1/16 is just plain hypocritical. 1/16 is so recent that someone in your family (not necessarily you but a parent or Grandparent) remembered this non-white in the household

Genfluss
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 11:05 PM
The number I would put it at is a 64. I don't know a lot of people who can track all GGGG/GGGGG Grandparents on all branches. But 1/16 is just plain hypocritical. 1/16 is so recent that someone in your family (not necessarily you but a parent or Grandparent) remembered this non-white in the household

Yes, I know 1/16 is rather quite recent. I have all pictures of 16 of my great-great grandparents and they are all European stock with well defined detail. I have 8 different lineage pictures of my great-great-great-great grandparents, my great-great grandparents grandparents and they also seem to be European, as I've traced back some of their great-grandparents to England in the Colonial Era. I'd say I'd draw the line at 1/1024 Amerindian/Mid 18th Century Amerindian admixture for non-white that's also including Gypsy, Middle Eastern and Jewish. As far as the SW/SE Euro Mediterranean/Slav/Baltic admixture goes I'd say 1/4, anything more than that is far too much.

Freja_se
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 11:20 PM
I suppose considering there are more and more immigrants from Africa and the Muslim countries flooding into Scandinavia, Sicilians don't look that alien there anymore. They might even be considered "white".

Yes, Sicilians do look "alien" here, and are not considered white. It is true that we have a great immigration problem here like almost all Western and traditionally white countries, but that doesn't make us incapable of setting whites and our own kind apart from the others.

TheGreatest
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 11:49 PM
Yes, Sicilians do look "alien" here, and are not considered white. It is true that we have a great immigration problem here like almost all Western and traditionally white countries, but that doesn't make us incapable of setting whites and our own kind apart from the others.

Interesting to note is that in the KKK's history, the second most lynched group, after blacks, were Sicilians and Southern Italians. I imagine it had very little to do with Catholicism and very few German Catholics (if any) were lynched.

Huginn ok Muninn
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 11:57 PM
Interesting to note is that in the KKK's history, the second most lynched group, after blacks, were Sicilians and Southern Italians. I imagine it had very little to do with Catholicism and very few German Catholics (if any) were lynched.

Contrary to jew propaganda, the KKK didn't lynch people because they "hated" them, but because they committed crimes and were somehow not brought to justice. It was the only way order could be maintained in a fragmenting multicultural environment. Now order is simply not maintained. Black on White crime is ignored by the jewsmedia, but if a White commits a crime against a black, all hell breaks loose. :mad

SouthernBoy
Sunday, April 19th, 2009, 12:01 AM
Never.

triedandtru
Sunday, April 19th, 2009, 12:08 AM
Never...!
I've never believed the whole "Mediterranean women are so gorgeous" BS that Hollywood was spewing a decade ago. A lot of those Mediterraneans are borderline nappy-haired, for pete sakes. I often ask myself, other than the Arab who wears a burka, what difference is there between an Arab and a Mediterranean? Same skin color - same nose - same hair texture - same everything...



The Mediterranean countries haven't done a whole lot since the 15C. Italy and Greece would both be resembling third world countries (much like Turkey), if it wasn't their proximity to the Germanic world, thus Germanic technology and investment. All the major infrastructure in Greece is built by Germanic contracts... no different in Italy

I disagree. Mediterraneans contribute today in a lot of different ways, and I think it is unfair to compare the amount being contributed in modern times because their ancient contribution was remarkable.

I also tend to see a lot of difference in the physical characteristics of an Arab and someone from the Mediterraneans. I almost think it ignorant to put them in the same category. There's even a difference between Italians and Greeks in appearance, never mind either one and someone from the Middle East. Take more than a glance? They also tend to have very clear skin, and can come in many pretty shades of white. Just in my personal experience, I have seen very few "dark" as in "Arabic" dark Mediterranean folk. I would also say it seems ignorant to make it seem as though Germanic countries are the only reason for Greek success. First you say they are completely different and then they borrowed (so they are somewhat alike)? Which is it.

TheGreatest
Sunday, April 19th, 2009, 12:19 AM
I disagree. Mediterraneans contribute today in a lot of different ways, and I think it is unfair to compare the amount being contributed in modern times because their ancient contribution was remarkable.

I also tend to see a lot of difference in the physical characteristics of an Arab and someone from the Mediterraneans. I almost think it ignorant to put them in the same category. There's even a difference between Italians and Greeks in appearance, never mind either one and someone from the Middle East. Take more than a glance? They also tend to have very clear skin, and can come in many pretty shades of white. Just in my personal experience, I have seen very few "dark" as in "Arabic" dark Mediterranean folk. I would also say it seems ignorant to make it seem as though Germanic countries are the only reason for Greek success. First you say they are completely different and then they borrowed (so they are somewhat alike)? Which is it.


Most Sicilians (i.e. the 'Guy from Boston') http://images-cdn01.associatedcontent.com/image/A2235/223551/300_223551.jpg look like Arabs to me.
Just like the sitcom "everyone loves Raymond" features an Italian family that looks like spics and Arabs.

TheGreatest
Sunday, April 19th, 2009, 12:21 AM
Here's a site I found on google about Italian-American celebrities. Even if we don't think they consider each other Italian, they certainty do!

http://www.italiaunita.org/celebs.html

A lot of those people wouldn't have a problem fitting in the Middle East

Genfluss
Sunday, April 19th, 2009, 12:28 AM
I disagree. Mediterraneans contribute today in a lot of different ways, and I think it is unfair to compare the amount being contributed in modern times because their ancient contribution was remarkable.

I also tend to see a lot of difference in the physical characteristics of an Arab and someone from the Mediterraneans. I almost think it ignorant to put them in the same category. There's even a difference between Italians and Greeks in appearance, never mind either one and someone from the Middle East. Take more than a glance? They also tend to have very clear skin, and can come in many pretty shades of white. Just in my personal experience, I have seen very few "dark" as in "Arabic" dark Mediterranean folk. I would also say it seems ignorant to make it seem as though Germanic countries are the only reason for Greek success. First you say they are completely different and then they borrowed (so they are somewhat alike)? Which is it.

There may be a difference between Northern Italians and Greeks, but certainly not Southern Italians and Greeks, also I'd say Albanians and Greeks are quite similar as far as phenotypes and culture as well. Like I stated, no more than 1/4 European Mediterranean is acceptabe in my opinion with the rest 3/4 Germanic/Celtogermanic. I think you're 1/4 Greek, so you're barely qualifiable in my books.

I'd say an indigenous Middle Easterner is somewhat different than a Greek, but lots of Greek have Middle Eastern genetic markers and such ancestry back to the Neolithic. Besides there was a good percentage of Middle Eastern influenced Greeks that came from Asia Minor in the 17th and 18th centuries. Although, I read a study that said all Europeans cluster together at one point or another and that Northern Europeans were closer to Southeast Europeans, than Southeast Europeans were to Middle Easterners, it seems very far fetched and untrue, but apparently that's what the study indicated. I guess this somewhat makes sense considering some of the Northern European genes were imported to Southeast Europe from Ostrogoths and other Paleo-Europeans that showed up, whereas Middle Easterners had more SSA slave contact than Southeast Euros.

Occasionally, we'll find British Islanders that can end up looking Hispanic, Catherine Zeta Jones looks Hispanic, and Rowan Atkinson looks Caucasus, but very few overall look like this and this is most of the time ancient Paleo-European genes we're dealing with, rather than such indicated ancestry, plus most Germanics/Celtogermanics have far less SSA/Middle Eastern influence than Mediterraneans.

triedandtru
Sunday, April 19th, 2009, 12:47 AM
Here's a site I found on google about Italian-American celebrities. Even if we don't think they consider each other Italian, they certainty do!

http://www.italiaunita.org/celebs.html

A lot of those people wouldn't have a problem fitting in the Middle East

These people are also "American," even if of Italian ancestry.

rainman
Sunday, April 19th, 2009, 12:49 AM
There's only 3 primary root races. Black, Aryan, and Asian. Your middle easterners, souther europeans, hispanics etc. are just a mixture of those races in some form. I have seen pure bred northern europeans mix with pure bred black africans and turn out children and grand children that look like Arabs, hispanic, Indian (from India) etc. Though I guess over time if a group of mixed breeds only breeds with each other they can develop their own regional racial characteristics. Though essentially we might as well consider all these people "mixed".

As far as most Native Americans and such they look either entirely like Asians or like Asian/Aryan mixes. Asians themselves are a mixed race with some Aryan in them, but not a lot.

triedandtru
Sunday, April 19th, 2009, 12:54 AM
There may be a difference between Northern Italians and Greeks, but certainly not Southern Italians and Greeks, also I'd say Albanians and Greeks are quite similar as far as phenotypes and culture as well. Like I stated, no more than 1/4 European Mediterranean is acceptabe in my opinion with the rest 3/4 Germanic/Celtogermanic. I think you're 1/4 Greek, so you're barely qualifiable in my books.

I am 1/4 Greek, and proud of it. I find it funny when I find people who consider themselves National Socialists, not necessarily yourself, who blast Italy and Greece. Hitler, and the Nazis, gained all kinds of inspiration from Ancient Greece and Rome, partly because they were male dominated societies and partly because they were looking to connect themselves to a sophisticated past. You'll find VERY few, educated, Volkish people having a true dislike for the Greeks/Italians. Greeks are even debatably considered Aryans.

Freja_se
Sunday, April 19th, 2009, 01:09 AM
I am 1/4 Greek, and proud of it. I find it funny when I find people who consider themselves National Socialists, not necessarily yourself, who blast Italy and Greece. Hitler, and the Nazis, gained all kinds of inspiration from Ancient Greece and Rome, partly because they were male dominated societies and partly because they were looking to connect themselves to a sophisticated past. You'll find VERY few, educated, Volkish people having a true dislike for the Greeks/Italians. Greeks are even debatably considered Aryans.

I don't think ancient Greece and the Roman Empire, which had both good and bad qualities to them, are what matter to us today, racially or otherwise. You can dislike someone and still find good qualities in their ancient past history.

Saying Greeks are aryans is ridiculous if you infer by that that they are Nordics/Germanics. This is not the right forum for someone who wants to promote Mediterraneans, by the way. I am new here but this is what it would seem to me.

Saying you are proud of your Greek roots seems to me a little odd. It would make more sense on this forum to say you are proud of your non-Greek, Germanic roots. Maybe you are less Germanic than you would like to admit. Just my thought on it.

triedandtru
Sunday, April 19th, 2009, 01:22 AM
I don't think ancient Greece and the Roman Empire, which had both good and bad qualities to them, are what matter to us today, racially or otherwise. You can dislike someone and still find good qualities in their ancient past history.

Saying Greeks are aryans is ridiculous if you infer by that that they are Nordics/Germanics. This is not the right forum for someone who wants to promote Mediterraneans, by the way. I am new here but this is what it would seem to me.

Saying you are proud of your Greek roots seems to me a little odd. It would make more sense on this forum to say you are proud of your non-Greek, Germanic roots. Maybe you are less Germanic than you would like to admit. Just my thought on it.

I am more German than I am Greek, and obviously proud of it to have such interest in this forum. It seems a little odd to me to be accused of not having enough pride in being Germanic while participating on such a forum. I do not think I should have to be ashamed of having Heritage other than German in order to be proud of my Germanic heritage, and not entirely sure I feel that I would be proud of having such rich German heritage if it means I must focus only on the negatives of other groups. I have no problems of admitting my heritage. You are what you are. Just because you leave something out of your description wouldn't hide it. I am EXACTLY what my heritage is listed as on my profile, thanks very much. :D
And really, were we to have a contest about "Who is more Germanic than who," really only native Germans and debatably Austrians would "win."

Freja_se
Sunday, April 19th, 2009, 01:46 AM
And really, were we to have a contest about "Who is more Germanic than who," really only native Germans and debatably Austrians would "win."

Germanic is not the same thing as German. lol

I am a 100% Swedish Hallstatt Nordic and therefore 100% Germanic.

triedandtru
Sunday, April 19th, 2009, 01:57 AM
Germanic is not the same thing as German. lol

I am a 100% Swedish Hallstatt Nordic and therefore 100% Germanic.

I am well aware of the difference. There are however looser rules for what is considered Germanic than what is considered German, depending upon individual viewpoints and whether or not you follow National Socialist standards of "Germanic." My own heritage that I am calling "German" does in fact come directly from Germany, on both sides.

Genfluss
Sunday, April 19th, 2009, 01:58 AM
There's only 3 primary root races. Black, Aryan, and Asian. Your middle easterners, souther europeans, hispanics etc. are just a mixture of those races in some form. I have seen pure bred northern europeans mix with pure bred black africans and turn out children and grand children that look like Arabs, hispanic, Indian (from India) etc. Though I guess over time if a group of mixed breeds only breeds with each other they can develop their own regional racial characteristics. Though essentially we might as well consider all these people "mixed".

As far as most Native Americans and such they look either entirely like Asians or like Asian/Aryan mixes. Asians themselves are a mixed race with some Aryan in them, but not a lot.

There are many different races (breeding isolates/genetic pools), however one would like to refer to them as. There is the West Eurasian "Caucasian" belt which includes Europeans, Middle Easterners, North Africans and Southwest Asians inside that category, then inside those smaller categories we have unique breeding isolation/genetic pools in different parts of those countries, proximity and areas constituting their "uniquely isolated genetic variation" profiles.

In Europe we have Northwest Europe, Western Europe, Northeast Europe, British Isles, Central Europe, East Europe, Southeast Europe, Southwest Europe - Germanics, Celtics, Baltics, Finnics, Slavs, Romance, Shqiptars and Hellenics all having unique breeding isolation/genetic variation profiles, and related as well as clustering to varying degrees to other Europeans in different directions, as far as their genome structure goes because of all their ancient shared Paleo-European invasions as well as ancient shared Chromosomal Y-DNA and MtDNA mutations with each other. As a whole, Europeans cluster together but their are still huge differences.

I don't really believe that there are only three races Aryan, Black and Asian. I also believe there are major profound differences between Northwest Europeans and Southeast Europeans, but they're still more closer to us, than let's say a Middle Easterner or Southwest Asian is to them, despite most Southeast Europeans looking more like Arabs/Middle Easterners. We may genetically have more in common with a Southeast European, but phenotypically and culturally lots of differences are significant and that's far more important in my opinion. A Northwest European phenotype is very rare in Southeast Europe. Having said that, generally the closer you are to a different country/continent the more genetically you'll have in common with them, but the Northwest Europe and Southeast Europe cline is the exception, there are many other exceptions but generally that's the rule based on genetic research.

TheGreatest
Sunday, April 19th, 2009, 02:11 AM
There are many different races (breeding isolates/genetic pools), however one would like to refer to them as. There is the West Eurasian "Caucasian" belt which includes Europeans, Middle Easterners, North Africans and Southwest Asians inside that category

'Caucasian' in other words. But now it's very rare to see 'Caucasian' on a form unless it's worded as "Caucasian/White" or "White/Caucasian".



I don't really believe that there are only three races Aryan, Black and Asian. I also believe there are major profound differences between Northwest Europeans and Southeast Europeans, but they're still more closer to us
The idea of a single ''Aryan'' race is that it promotes intermixing between all the Europeans.
I'm repulsed with Mediterranean women and want nothing to do with an unibrow Balkan Slav. And the Russians, discounting the Mongoliform and Asian ones, are very anti-West, anti-American and anti-European in their views.



than let's say a Middle Easterner or Southwest Asian is to them, despite most Southeast Europeans looking more like Arabs/Middle Easterners.The relationship between Northern and Southern Europeans is akin to Chinese and Flipino; or Japanese with Thai. Outsiders might ignorantly regard them as being the same but someone with a three-digit IQ knows otherwise.



We may genetically have more in common with a Southeast European, but phenotypically and culturally lots of differences are significant and that's far more important in my opinion. A Northwest European phenotype is very rare in Southeast Europe.People will pretend otherwise. Personally, I've found that Mediterraneans tend to be of dark complex, have certain ''facial attributions'' and are of short stature. It reminds me how Tacitus wrote how the Germanic was 6''0 and well built and the Roman was short, thin and frail...



Having said that, generally the closer you are to a different country/continent the more genetically you'll have in common with them, but the Northwest Europe and Southeast Europe cline is the exception, there are many other exceptions but generally that's the rule based on genetic research.This exception is called the Alps. Mountain chains in Europe helped preserved genetics and ultimately created these geographical divisions (I.E. North and South European. )


Germanic is not the same thing as German. lol

I am a 100% Swedish Hallstatt Nordic and therefore 100% Germanic.

Someone such as you would be considered a Teuton, and if Nazi Germany had survived, no doubt encouraged to reproduce in order to create the Ubermensch.

Genfluss
Sunday, April 19th, 2009, 02:14 AM
'Caucasian' in other words. But now it's very rare to see 'Caucasian' on a form unless it's worded as "Caucasian/White" or "White/Caucasian".




The idea of a single ''Aryan'' race is that it promotes intermixing between all the Europeans.
I'm repulsed with Mediterranean women and want nothing to do with an unibrow Balkan Slav. And the Russians, discounting the Mongoliform and Asian ones, are very anti-West, anti-American and anti-European in their views.




The relationship between Northern and Southern Europeans is akin to Chinese and Flipino; or Japanese with Thai. Outsiders might ignorantly regard them as being the same but someone with a three-digit IQ knows otherwise.




People will pretend otherwise. Personally, I've found that Mediterraneans tend to be of dark complex, have certain ''facial attributions'' and are of short stature. It reminds me how Tacitus wrote how the Germanic was 6''0 and well built and the Roman was short, thin and frail...




This exception is called the Alps. Mountain chains in Europe helped preserved genetics and ultimately created these geographical divisions (I.E. North and South European. )

You can take the studies with a grain of salt, but that's what I've seen, I'm not promoting them, but apparently through some genetic companies like AncestryByDNA and others. They claim that all Europeans are related in one way or another. I don't want anything to do with a Mediterranean or Balkan Slav either, but if we genetically have more in common fine, phenotypically the differences are enormous and that's the most important.

TheGreatest
Sunday, April 19th, 2009, 02:21 AM
You can take the studies with a grain of salt, but that's what I've seen, I'm not promoting them, but apparently through some genetic companies like AncestryByDNA and others. They claim that all Europeans are related in one way or another. I don't want anything to do with a Mediterranean or Balkan Slav either, but if we genetically have more in common fine, phenotypically the differences are enormous and that's the most important.

Yep. While I've not poured tens of hours into these studies, I've read posts from people who did and some of these ''scientists'' are saying stuff like East Africans are "40% White". (Which kind of White they don't explain but I imagine it's more like Sicilian/Maltese than a Stockholm Swede)

Same scientists also seem obsessed with pointing out ''Caucasian'' markers in Thai (huh?) and Brahmins.
I'm suspicious about their intentions. Less than a century ago we had anthropologists who spoke rather low of Alpinoids and Mediterraneans... But now they seem in favor of making it more ''persuasive'' to intermix with North Africans?


Personally I've seen a lot of half-Italians half-Englishman in the U.S and CAN.
They all look like John Lynch. Google ''John Lynch Actor" - he is English/Italian and doesn't look remotely Germanic, nor English. (And folks that is no exaggeration. He's not even Atlantid! Maybe Atlanto-Med...)

http://www.joanneobrien.co.uk/uploads/05_John-Lynch.jpg

Genfluss
Sunday, April 19th, 2009, 02:27 AM
Yep. While I've not poured tens of hours into these studies, I've read posts from people who did and some of these ''scientists'' are saying stuff like East Africans are "40% White". (Which kind of White they don't explain but I imagine it's more like Sicilian/Maltese than a Stockholm Swede)

Same scientists also seem obsessed with pointing out ''Caucasian'' markers in Thai (huh?) and Brahmins.
I'm suspicious about their intentions. Less than a century ago we had anthropologists who spoke rather low of Alpinoids and Mediterraneans... But now they seem in favor of making it more ''persuasive'' to intermix with North Africans?


Personally I've seen a lot of half-Italians half-Englishman in the U.S and CAN.
They all look like John Lynch. Google ''John Lynch Actor" - he is English/Italian and doesn't look remotely Germanic, nor English. (And folks that is no exaggeration. He's not even Atlantid! Maybe Atlanto-Med...)

http://www.joanneobrien.co.uk/uploads/05_John-Lynch.jpg

Yeah, he does look pretty alien, but then again some dark haired West Irish can look similar, it's probably through his Italian admixture his dark looks. As far as the East Africans 40% "White" they're probably referring to Arabs. Most East Africans mixed with Arabs, and some censuses list Arabs as "White."

TheGreatest
Sunday, April 19th, 2009, 03:32 AM
Yeah, he does look pretty alien, but then again some dark haired West Irish can look similar, it's probably through his Italian admixture his dark looks. As far as the East Africans 40% "White" they're probably referring to Arabs. Most East Africans mixed with Arabs, and some censuses list Arabs as "White."

Can look similar on basis of complexion, perhaps. It's just that I know a couple of ''dark Welsh" and they seem more Alpinoid (round headed and all) as opposed to the dark, gracile, Mediterranean look.
Paint a Swedish man black and he doesn't turn into a Mediterranean - he's just a Swede with a complexion :D
John Lynch on the other hand looks completely Italian and could walk in Rome without a local batting an eyelash.

Freja_se
Sunday, April 19th, 2009, 04:11 AM
I am well aware of the difference.


It didn't look that way. You seem to confuse Germanic with German.

Your words;

"And really, were we to have a contest about "Who is more Germanic than who," really only native Germans and debatably Austrians would "win.""

It is confusing in English, I know, since the names are so similar. The fact is that the original Germanics were more Scandinavian than German if you look at the map.



There are however looser rules for what is considered Germanic than what is considered German, depending upon individual viewpoints and whether or not you follow National Socialist standards of "Germanic."

My own heritage that I am calling "German" does in fact come directly from Germany, on both sides.


If you are ethnically German you have German and therefore Germanic heritage, just as if you are ethnically Swedish you have Germanic heritage. There is no such thing as looser rules for Germanics than for Germans or Swedes, for example, even though they are more spread, naturally.



The picture shows Germanic tribes in the Bronze age. As you can see only the very Northern part of Germany was Germanic at that point. Later on the Germanics spread to the South.

The original Germanics came from Scandinavia and the very North of Germany.

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv185/newdawn99/-Nordic_Bronze_Age.jpg

This shows how Germanics spread to the South in later times;

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv185/newdawn99/Germanic_tribes_750BC-1AD.jpg

TheGreatest
Sunday, April 19th, 2009, 04:24 AM
Germanic is commonly used to denote the spread of Germanic Culture throughout Europe. I.E. the British Isles and Germany.


I don't consider myself a ''Germanic'' - in the sense that you're using the term - i.e. to denote a Scandinavian or someone who would had been considered a ''Teuton''.

But I am (like most of the 'Germanic' world) nevertheless a Celto-Germanic. I am your equal but not in that kind of fashion. I'm not looking for ''equal access'' to Scandinavian women. Rather I see that we have mutual beliefs and aspirations. In fact some would consider me a little of an idealist, because technically, Celto-Germanics have been the Germanic's greatest enemies (i.e. Hapsburg vs. Hohenzollerns. Britain vs. Germany)

Jäger
Sunday, April 19th, 2009, 09:23 AM
There's only 3 primary root races.
Eh, no.


Your middle easterners, souther europeans, hispanics etc. are just a mixture of those races in some form.
No.

If you make up your own theories, then prove them by scientific means.


Saying Greeks are aryans is ridiculous if you infer by that that they are Nordics/Germanics.
Not are, were.
That's why their inspirational power lies in the past. :)

Rassenhygieniker
Sunday, April 19th, 2009, 01:17 PM
Personally I've seen a lot of half-Italians half-Englishman in the U.S and CAN.
They all look like John Lynch. Google ''John Lynch Actor" - he is English/Italian and doesn't look remotely Germanic, nor English. (And folks that is no exaggeration. He's not even Atlantid! Maybe Atlanto-Med...)

http://www.joanneobrien.co.uk/uploads/05_John-Lynch.jpg

Here is another one of these swarthy individuals
http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/5554/r18r18.jpg

TheGreatest
Sunday, April 19th, 2009, 03:44 PM
Mediterranean blood is extremely dominant - akin to Negroid blood.

Cassaundra
Monday, April 20th, 2009, 08:54 PM
Occasionally, we'll find British Islanders that can end up looking Hispanic, Catherine Zeta Jones looks Hispanic,

That's because her Mother is Spanish. She is only half Welsh.
(That's where the zeta in Zeta-Jones comes from)

Wittmann
Sunday, August 29th, 2010, 10:00 PM
I have a friend, and we have known each other for a very long time, over that time I developed feelings for her, but just recently found out about her genetic mix, it's by far mostly English, but she has mixed in a very small amount of French, and an even smaller amount of Cherokee Indian. Is that enough to bump her down (figuratively) on the suitability track? I, being pure German, am very conscious about this sort of thing.

(Note: You would have no idea by looking at her that she is anything but white, I had no idea until she told me)

Northern Paladin
Sunday, August 29th, 2010, 10:19 PM
I have a friend, and we have known each other for a very long time, over that time I developed feelings for her, but just recently found out about her genetic mix, it's by far mostly English, but she has mixed in a very small amount of French, and an even smaller amount of Cherokee Indian. Is that enough to bump her down (figuratively) on the suitability track? I, being pure German, am very conscious about this sort of thing.

(Note: You would have no idea by looking at her that she is anything but white, I had no idea until she told me)

So how much Native blood does she have exactly, 1/16? 1/8? The French isn't so bad, since it's White, but the Cherokee is something to think about. Keep in mind that many Americans claim Cherokee ancestry just to be "hip" or "exotic" without actually having it, so it's something I always take with a grain of salt. If you love her, and if she looks White (doesn't give off any alien vibes like Cher or Johnny Depp) stay with her and don't worry about it.

I must add however that distant Native ancestry can give people a weird look, take Sarah Palin's daughter Bristol as an example:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_HnLbsK_Xq-w/SZsSpPDRyxI/AAAAAAAAAlo/PLXZzshLDe0/s400/art.bristol.palin.fox.jpg

Her father looks 100% White yet he has distant Native roots and Sarah is 100% White as far as I know, however their daughter Bristol has a subtle Mexican look to her.

Wittmann
Sunday, August 29th, 2010, 10:28 PM
This isn't her, it's an example from google, but she looks very similar to this, with maybe a slightly shorter face, and she has a brown/red hair color mix.

http://image18.webshots.com/19/5/88/55/226158855LCKYIG_ph.jpg

Northern Paladin
Sunday, August 29th, 2010, 10:29 PM
nope, there's nothing Native about the girl you posted.

What's her natural hair/eye color and where is she from? Some geographic locations are more likely to have people with Native blood.

Wittmann
Sunday, August 29th, 2010, 10:43 PM
Natural eyes are light blue and her hair color has a brown predominant color with red and blonde mixed in. Her skin color is a bit more tan then the photo.

Rev. Jupiter
Sunday, August 29th, 2010, 10:44 PM
Genetic purity isn't the point. Genetic excellence is what matters.

Personally, I can't see any real genetic benefit from mixing with people that aren't Germanic or closely related to Germanics, but if you feel that it is possible to have genetically excellent children with someone who isn't pure-blooded, then by all means, go right ahead.

goersfour
Sunday, August 29th, 2010, 11:29 PM
I have a friend, and we have known each other for a very long time, over that time I developed feelings for her, but just recently found out about her genetic mix, it's by far mostly English, but she has mixed in a very small amount of French, and an even smaller amount of Cherokee Indian. Is that enough to bump her down (figuratively) on the suitability track? I, being pure German, am very conscious about this sort of thing.

(Note: You would have no idea by looking at her that she is anything but white, I had no idea until she told me)

The Bible says to not be unequally yoked. That should be a good guide for your decision. I would not have aproblem with her as a wife. Her genetic code should be strong since she comes from Europe primarily, and keep in mind that France borders Germany and Alsace was actually part of Germany at one time. Alsace has a preponderance of blue eyed people.

Rassenhygieniker
Sunday, August 29th, 2010, 11:33 PM
French is nothing to be worried about, unless we are talking about Occitania French in that case I would be worried about her having some kind of swarthy and hairy Alpinized Mediterranid, or swarthy and greasy Gracile Mediterranid ancestry.

The Amerindian part is the most troubling, you do what you want but if I was in such a situation I would not pursue having any kind of sexual/romantical relationship with someone who tells me they have Mongoloid redskin blood in them. Especially not if one wants to build a strong and proud Germanic familly, because the Amerindian part no matter how small is always going to be there.



Her father looks 100% White yet he has distant Native roots and Sarah is 100% White as far as I know, however their daughter Bristol has a subtle Mexican look to her.

Subtle are you kidding? Her head looks like a watermelon who's about the explode. Nowadays plenty of Mexicans look far more Caucasoid than she does, she looks like a cross between a Sami and an Eskimo.

Northern Paladin
Monday, August 30th, 2010, 12:25 AM
Can you tell me where she's from? I've known 4 individuals who claimed and had visible Cherokee ancestry, and they've all been from the upper South (Tennessee, Kentucky, and two from far southern Illinois)

Wynterwade
Monday, August 30th, 2010, 12:46 AM
You shouldn't worry about it. Why? Because most Amerindians intermarried with whites in the south in the early 1700's. If the average kid was born at age 32, as in many families, (the English had kids slightly earlier than Germans- not sure when French had kids though) that was about 9 generations ago. Everybody has 512 g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-grandparents.

If she is part Amerindian it is probably in the neighborhood of 1/512 or 9 thousands of a percent. This percentage is so small it is difficult to even conceptualize.

It could easily be even 10 generations ago making it one thousandth of a percent.

Considering the fact that you seem shocked when she told you this, I'm pretty sure the math I showed you would apply, and it's really not a big deal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also by the way, I have a few ancestors from Alsace, France. They migrated in the 1700's and spoke German, had German names because Alsace used to be in Germany.

I seriously wouldn't fully trust anybody that hasn't looked up their ancestry and just says a few countries. My family hid the fact that I had German ancestors from me because of the two world wars. You have to do the looking up yourself really. Tell her to check out Ancestry (dot) com

Wittmann
Monday, August 30th, 2010, 01:08 AM
She said her ancestors moved out West from Alabama, but I have no idea where they originally were, I assume New England, as she said they came over in the early 1800s.

Northern Paladin
Monday, August 30th, 2010, 01:41 AM
She said her ancestors moved out West from Alabama, but I have no idea where they originally were, I assume New England, as she said they came over in the early 1800s.

Then it may very well be true, there are and were Cherokees in Alabama, namely the Echota Cherokees, but one cannot be 100% certain. Again, most people who say they have Native roots are either misinformed or lying themselves. Take Johnny Cash, his parents told him he was part-Native, and he later found out he was pure European American. You could never be sure of these things, but they are more likely to be true if the person's ancestors were from the South.

I say don't worry about it my friend, if you REALLY like her don't be stupid and tell her! Who knows when you'll meet another girl like her.

Wittmann
Monday, August 30th, 2010, 02:09 AM
Yeah, I'm just concerned, she and I have been friends for around, 3 years or so, and I started having feelings for her about 2 years ago, but I neglected to mention it, as I felt it would ruin our friendship.

Northern Paladin
Monday, August 30th, 2010, 02:13 AM
Yeah, I'm just concerned, she and I have been friends for around, 3 years or so, and I started having feelings for her about 2 years ago, but I neglected to mention it, as I felt it would ruin our friendship.

That's how one of my female friendships went to hell :~(

I think you should do what your heart tells you honestly, maybe try spending more time with her and see how she reacts to having you around more often.

What's the closest you've ever been to her? I mean, have you ever done things together which could be interpreted as "stereotypical couple behavior" like seeing a movie together (just the two of you), going out together (just the two of you), or going on a quiet walk together?

Wynterwade
Monday, August 30th, 2010, 02:52 AM
Quote "as she said they came over in the early 1800s."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If that is what she told you then I seriously think she knows nothing about her ancestors.

Most that lived in Alabama in the early 1800's probably migrated there from states like South Carolina and Virginia in the 1700's and were colonial Americans.

Most Americans have something like 200-400 ancestors that migrated over here. The Americans with predominate English ancestry probably have like 200-500 immigrant ancestors (closer to upper estimate). Remember every generation the amount doubles.

She said she was French- most of the French migrated to the Louisiana Purchase area in the 1700's. In 1803 I believe that most immigration from France stopped for the most part. 1800 was about 8 generations ago (if avg. age to have kids is 30)- in 1800 most of us had about 256 g-g-g-g-g-g-g-grand parents.

I highly doubt she had 256 ancestors migrate all the way over to far away Alabama in the early 1800's.

My ancestors came over between the 1590's and 1850's. I don't think many people understand how complex genealogy really is.

Before I looked up my ancestors, I was told I was 25% French, 50% Scottish and 25% Irish. As you can see by my sidebar my family had absolutely no idea what they were talking about. (my percentages are rounded on the left side- If I gave the exact percentages it would be too long- Ireland, Scotland, England, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, Denmark, Germany, Prussia as far as I know)

Wittmann
Monday, August 30th, 2010, 04:27 AM
That's how one of my female friendships went to hell :~(

I think you should do what your heart tells you honestly, maybe try spending more time with her and see how she reacts to having you around more often.

What's the closest you've ever been to her? I mean, have you ever done things together which could be interpreted as "stereotypical couple behavior" like seeing a movie together (just the two of you), going out together (just the two of you), or going on a quiet walk together?

Yes we have gone to films, spent time together, and she and I have stayed at each other's houses overnight (nothing sexual in the slightest, were both rather Conservative).