PDA

View Full Version : How Much Non-Europid Blood Could Pass?



joseanton
Saturday, December 23rd, 2006, 10:34 PM
The immigration in Europe, USA, and other countries mostly europids, would be that in 50-100 years, most of these countries be mixed in some degree, is the sad true, but how much of these non-europid blood, could somebody carry and not show it, these are my examples

Prince Nicolai, is 1/4 asian (chinese)
http://worldroots.com/brigitte/gifs2/joachimdenmark-22.jpg
http://worldroots.com/brigitte/gifs2/joachimdenmark-11.jpghttp://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c91/kmev/Denemarken/Joachim%20-%20Alexandra/280106jochalex2.jpg

Almendra Gomelsky 1/8 amerindian
http://www.rpp.com.pe/images/portada/entretenimiento/almendra_gomelsky1.jpg


Soledad Oībrienīs daughter 1/16 black

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/images/obrien.soledad.jpghttp://www.pajamaprogram.org/luncheon2005/soledad.jpg


Not all the non-europids are the same and as an example the negroid is the more dominant, What do you think??

Please is you know about more examples please post it

Siegfried
Saturday, December 23rd, 2006, 10:36 PM
There's no hard and fast rule for this, of course. It depends on the type of admixture, and the particular constellation of traits in the person in question. I do think 1/32 of virtually anything is irrelevant.

some_one_number_one
Saturday, December 23rd, 2006, 10:47 PM
for my, if any person have any negrid/mongolid/semitic ancestry that person will always for me strange, somehow non-europid

Nicola_Canadian
Saturday, December 23rd, 2006, 11:01 PM
IMHO, non-European Europid admix is probably the only thing that could usually pass...

Æmeric
Saturday, December 23rd, 2006, 11:17 PM
It would depend on the non-Europid. East Asian & Amerindian types are not so dominate when mixed with Europid compared to Negro. I've seen Eurasians in Hawaii who appeared White. And individuals of Europid/Amerindian ancestry can also appear White. But if you have a population of people that look White but most persons have a substantial amount of non-Europid ancestry, there is the chance that two persons who appear White/Europid could have a child who's non-Europid ancestry would be noticeable. I supposed eventually there would developed a stablized blending of the races but the new hybrid type would be different from original Europid type.


I do think 1/32 of anything is irrelevant.I would go along with that as far as Asians & Amerindians are concerned. 1/32 is one non-Europid ancestor 5 generations ago. But for Negroes at most 1/128 (less than 1%) or one ancestor 7 generations ago.

Of course zero non-Europid ancestry would be preferable. I think there will still be a sizable unmixed population of Europids in the future , even if the worst happens and there is no Europid-majority nation left in the world. The internet will make is easy for racially-conscious persons to check on the pedigrees of perspective mates & DNA testing should evolve so that blood tests can reveal a persons actual race & not some admixture accuring thousands of years ago showing common ancestry with persons who evolved into non-Europids.

catchmeifyoukhan
Saturday, December 23rd, 2006, 11:59 PM
According to Cavalli-Sforza, genetic distance between African blacks and European Caucasians is three to four more important than that between the latter and East Asians. As a consequence, it will need three to four more generations to dissolve black admixture than for Asiatic or Amerind admixture. North African mediterraneans have experienced at their own expense the price for such an admixture. They account for two to four percent of sub-Saharan blood, but that is sufficient to make a large part of them fall outside what most white people assume to be white.

Among black Africans themselves, it seems that there is an even greater variation. The most negroids seem to me to be the pigmies.
A pigmy that would mix with a Caucasian would produce a Congoid
A Congoid that would go with a Caucasian would give birth to a Sudanid or to a Guineid
A Sudanid and a Caucasian would have an Ethiopid
An Ethiopid and a Caucasian would obtain a southern Yemenite, who himself crossed with another Caucasian would engender a North African.

Note also that an Ethiopid and an Asian would get a melano-indian
That Melano Indian with a Caucasian would give a northern Indian.

It seems that a negroid-asiatic admixture tend to neutralise the negroid phenotype, at least as concerns the form of the hear, of the lips and of the eyes. Madagascan black-malaisians as well as Brazilian black-amerindian mestissos show the way racial admixtures should preferably go before trading with whites.

joseanton
Sunday, December 24th, 2006, 07:14 AM
IMHO, non-European Europid admix is probably the only thing that could usually pass...


Well in fact many pure non-european europids could pass without european mix take a look

http://forums.skadi.net/classify_man-t85715.html


According to Cavalli-Sforza, genetic distance between African blacks and European Caucasians is three to four more important than that between the latter and East Asians. As a consequence, it will need three to four more generations to dissolve black admixture than for Asiatic or Amerind admixture


Are you sure that it means generations and not aritmetic relation, this boy is 1/4 chinese and the girl 1/16 negroid, the boy has 4 times more non-europid blood and both look europid, the mothers look mixed, so IMO thatīs the threshold

http://worldroots.com/brigitte/gifs2/joachimdenmark-11.jpghttp://www.pajamaprogram.org/luncheon2005/soledad.jpg

Jwam
Sunday, December 24th, 2006, 06:30 PM
My cousinsī grandmother is bolivian mestizo and they are europid (even lighter than me), so maybe 1/8 of amerind or asiatic could pass


Of course zero non-Europid ancestry would be preferable

Of course :thumbup

Æmeric
Sunday, December 24th, 2006, 07:15 PM
According to Cavalli-Sforza, genetic distance between African blacks and European Caucasians is three to four more important than that between the latter and East Asians. As a consequence, it will need three to four more generations to dissolve black admixture than for Asiatic or Amerind admixture. North African mediterraneans have experienced at their own expense the price for such an admixture. They account for two to four percent of sub-Saharan blood, but that is sufficient to make a large part of them fall outside what most white people assume to be white.

Among black Africans themselves, it seems that there is an even greater variation. The most negroids seem to me to be the pigmies.
A pigmy that would mix with a Caucasian would produce a Congoid
A Congoid that would go with a Caucasian would give birth to a Sudanid or to a Guineid
A Sudanid and a Caucasian would have an Ethiopid
An Ethiopid and a Caucasian would obtain a southern Yemenite, who himself crossed with another Caucasian would engender a North African.

Note also that an Ethiopid and an Asian would get a melano-indian
That Melano Indian with a Caucasian would give a northern Indian.

It seems that a negroid-asiatic admixture tend to neutralise the negroid phenotype, at least as concerns the form of the hear, of the lips and of the eyes. Madagascan black-malaisians as well as Brazilian black-amerindian mestissos show the way racial admixtures should preferably go before trading with whites.

About 3 years ago there was a case in South Africa of a teenage boy by the name of Happy Sindane, who walked into a police station in South Africa, telling police that he was a White boy who had been kidnapped & raised by a Black family. It was a media sensation at the time in SA. DNA testing revealed that the boy's real name was Abbey Mzayiya, the son of a Xhosa woman named Rina Mzayiya & her German employer.
http://www.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1058035077649_2003/07/16/17happy.jpg
http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=90532&d=1166987749 Having seen the boy's picture I was puzzled how anyone could think this boy was White. He doesn't look like the typical Negro or Mulatto/White offspring you see in the States, but I don't think even the US Census Bureau would classify him as White. Obviously the Negro strain in South African Blacks is not as dominate as that in West Africans (ancestors of most US Negroes). But it made me wonder how the Afrikaners who use to run South Africa defined White.

Happy/Abbey apparently didn't take the news he was actually coloured very well, he committed suicide by throwing himself in front of a bus.

Tennyson
Monday, December 25th, 2006, 04:33 PM
I don't have problem with making the Pocahontas exception. George Randolph was partly Native American. (He was the Secretary of War of the Confederate States of America)

I am not willing to make any compromises with the Negroes. We should follow the one-drop-rule in their case.

wilhelmmichael
Tuesday, December 26th, 2006, 01:40 AM
1/16 native amerikan is the least non-europid blood that should be let in.

Theudiskaz
Tuesday, December 26th, 2006, 02:15 AM
I'm confused. Is the question how little non-Europid blood must a person have to pass as fully Europid in phenotype, or how much non-Europid blood is acceptable for a person to be racially assimilable into our society(ies)?

If the first question is the one being posed, then it depends on the ancestors of the individual. People with East Asian, Amerindian, or Near Eastern blood are more likely to look phenotypically Europid than people with equally high or even lower percentages of Negroid, Australoid (protomorphic and heavily pigmented types). I don't think that there is a good way of determining the amount of non-Europid ancestry required to make an individual no longer appear fully Europid.

If the second question is being posed, then I don't think that individuals with any amount of non-Europid, or even non-European Europid ancestry should be acceptable. Why should we feel compelled to accomodate these people? What do we gain from any amount of miscegenation?:|

Kurtz
Tuesday, December 26th, 2006, 03:09 AM
for my, if any person have any negrid/mongolid/semitic ancestry that person will always for me strange, somehow non-europid

Man, you for sure got the sixth sense!:-O

Sincerely, one can't tell his general rule for he will probably someday face a mixed person (1/4, 1/8, 1/16,...) without knowing it. I think this problem is a moral one, and the answer could be culture. Many people in my nation have distant Amerind mixture: this is so subtle most of time that I could hardly get note of it. These people are perfectly Europid culturally, intellectually and phenotypically. To exclude them would be a great loss. They got no significant link with the incestuous, brutal, degenerate and alcoholic fully Amerind we have to support nowadays.

This said, of course any mixture is sad, but I think that for the New World it would be irrealistic to make a witch-hunt about some far Amerind blood. Siegfried is right: a mixture of 1/32 is pretty much nothing.

Klegutati
Wednesday, December 27th, 2006, 03:38 AM
for my, if any person have any negrid/mongolid/semitic ancestry that person will always for me strange, somehow non-europid

I'm definately strange to you then...;) I try to hide it!! That costs to MUCH!

joseanton
Thursday, December 28th, 2006, 05:03 PM
I'm confused. Is the question how little non-Europid blood must a person have to pass as fully Europid in phenotype, or how much non-Europid blood is acceptable for a person to be racially assimilable into our society(ies)?

If the first question is the one being posed, then it depends on the ancestors of the individual. People with East Asian, Amerindian, or Near Eastern blood are more likely to look phenotypically Europid than people with equally high or even lower percentages of Negroid, Australoid (protomorphic and heavily pigmented types). I don't think that there is a good way of determining the amount of non-Europid ancestry required to make an individual no longer appear fully Europid.

If the second question is being posed, then I don't think that individuals with any amount of non-Europid, or even non-European Europid ancestry should be acceptable. Why should we feel compelled to accomodate these people? What do we gain from any amount of miscegenation?:|


I donīt think anybody gain nothing with that, maybe Iīm more realistic, but itīs not a choice itīs the cruel reallity, and thatīs why I ask you

I ask you something, do you think Brad Pitt or Val Kilmer are acceptable??, maybe they lie about their american indian ancestors, but maybe not, and they have a distant one, there are studies that say that USA white population have high levels of non-white admix, maybe nobody is acceptable.

joseanton
Thursday, December 28th, 2006, 05:04 PM
Iīm sorry with everyone, but I ask for edition of the poll now is multiple choice, could you vote again :)

Theudiskaz
Thursday, December 28th, 2006, 06:15 PM
I donīt think anybody gain nothing with that, maybe Iīm more realistic, but itīs not a choice itīs the cruel reallity, and thatīs why I ask you

I ask you something, do you think Brad Pitt or Val Kilmer are acceptable??, maybe they lie about their american indian ancestors, but maybe not, and they have a distant one, there are studies that say that USA white population have high levels of non-white admix, maybe nobody is acceptable.
Joseanton, I still don't understand the question being asked in this thread. Is it "How much non-Europid blood does it take to make someone look not fully Europid?", or "How much non-Europid blood is acceptable?" ?


I ask you something, do you think Brad Pitt or Val Kilmer are acceptable??, maybe they lie about their american indian ancestors, but maybe not, and they have a distant one...
I am not aware of Brad Pitt having any native American ancestry, but I wouldn't doubt it. His relatively protomorphic features could easily hide some possible native American ancestry.;) If he does have native American ancestry it would be unfortunate for him to have children with a woman of fully European ancestry, because, no matter how Europid he might look, the children would carry his non-European genes.

As for Val Kilmer, well I think it's rather obvious that he is of native American ancestry. He does not look fully Europid. So he cannot be considered part of the white, European-American community.



I donīt think anybody gain nothing with that, maybe Iīm more realistic, but itīs not a choice itīs the cruel reallity, and thatīs why I ask you.....there are studies that say that USA white population have high levels of non-white admix, maybe nobody is acceptable.
I do not think that there are enough Americans with native American ancestry who appear white and act white, let alone think white (are 'racially' aware) to constitute a crisis for American nationalism. They are a negligible minority. And even if there were enough of them to warrant consideration, to consider these people fit for reproducing with the fully European majority, would be a tragedy. That would mean capitulation.

joseanton
Thursday, December 28th, 2006, 07:20 PM
Joseanton, I still don't understand the question being asked in this thread. Is it "How much non-Europid blood does it take to make someone look not fully Europid?", or "How much non-Europid blood is acceptable?" ?

Ok I ask about how much non europan blood could carry someone and look fully european.



I am not aware of Brad Pitt having any native American ancestry, but I wouldn't doubt it. His relatively protomorphic features could easily hide some possible native American ancestry.;) If he does have native American ancestry it would be unfortunate for him to have children with a woman of fully European ancestry, because, no matter how Europid he might look, the children would carry his non-European genes.

As for Val Kilmer, well I think it's rather obvious that he is of native American ancestry. He does not look fully Europid. So he cannot be considered part of the white, European-American community.



If Pitt (fully faelid IMO) has some amerind and he married with a fully europid woman I think there are no choice to have children of mixed look, about Val Kilmer you are right is a bad example but I think is not that obvious.



They are a negligible minority. And even if there were enough of them to warrant consideration, to consider these people fit for reproducing with the fully European majority, would be a tragedy. That would mean capitulation.


Iīm not only talking about USA, europe, there are millions of blacks, asiatics, and arabs, who have more children than the main population, they still growing, and the mayority unmixed in some time would be the minority unmixed, and there will be minorities mixed-europid looking, minorities mixed looking and arabs, blacks and asiatics.

Maybe I have other perspective, because, in my country, the same process began 500 years ago, at the beggining of the Colony there was indians (mayority) and spaniards (minority 1-2%) then arrived blacks, and in 1850 chinesse, fenchs, germans, british, arabs, jews, now there are more mestizos than anything, indians (the original main population) must be 30%.

Now there are more than 5 millions of peruvians with chinese ancestry, in a country of 28 millions, the pure chinese never was more than 100,000, and how many time was necessary only 150 years, and itīs only an example.

Why do you think it could be different in Europe or USA?

OneEnglishNorman
Thursday, December 28th, 2006, 09:12 PM
I am not aware of Brad Pitt having any native American ancestry, but I wouldn't doubt it. His relatively protomorphic features could easily hide some possible native American ancestry.;) If he does have native American ancestry it would be unfortunate for him to have children with a woman of fully European ancestry, because, no matter how Europid he might look, the children would carry his non-European genes.

Just to play Devil's Advocate here,

it is possibly the case that very minor racial miscegenation has been helpful to Europeans, useful gene flow to Europeans from archaic Asians/Africans/Arabids which made the European stock stronger.

There will always have been some inter-mixing... we have African roots, then subsequently humans have never been so far apart geographically that mixing did not occur, even if the environmental surroundings were continually "pounding the constituent sub-groups in to shape" (Dinarids/tall light Meds/Nordids/Alpines etc).

However having said that, Europeans are no longer formed by their environment. All Europeans have access to food, warmth, good clothing, medical care, supplements, sun cream and so on.

Europeans therefore cannot fold in non-white blood and continue physically adapting, "throwing away" or "dispensing" unhelpful (non-Euro) traits. The physical adaption must now be over, whatever is happening in terms of IQ.

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

So we need to maintain what we have. The big problem of course is increasing, exponentially, numbers of Europeans with non-Euro blood.

Where do they go to? If someone is 1/8 Chinese, do they get banished to China? Or invent a new territory, possibly in Africa, for all these mixed cases?

I would suggest that even a person 1/4 Chinese is substantially European to "Joe Public", to the layman", and a 1/4 Chinese or 1/8 African will only cause sleepless nights for the likes of Skadi members.

That does not mean Skadi people are wrong, they are not, they are correct and sound on race preservation, but the pessimistic picture is probably the most accurate one right now.

Pervitinist
Friday, December 29th, 2006, 01:49 AM
@"How much non-Europid blood could pass?"

Very interesting question indeed. But I think it can't be resolved in a straightforward way.

First, there is the problem of non-European Europids. All of them are "White" according to the usual White/Nonwhite dichotomy. But in what sense? This depends on the individual case. The average Europid Indian or Pashtoon is quite different from a Europid Armenian, Palestinian or Tunisian. Jews are technically "White" as well, but have become something like a race of their own. So what is interesting in the case of a mixed European-Europid - Non-European-Europid individual is the individual combination of subracial traits that can look more or less familiar or "normal" from a European perspective. In any case, as long as there is no non-Europid admix in him (or her), a mixed European-Non-European Europid is still fully Europid - what else? There may be something more or less "alien" about him. But "alien" is not an anthropological category (as long as one doesn't identify anthropology with cultural anthropology). Phenotypical outlandishness relative to (Northern) European standards is no criterion for Non-Europidness.

I'd also say that mixing between European and non-European Europids is not necessarily a bad thing as long as it remains an exception and as long as European-European Europid (ideally also same-ethnicity) marriages are the rule. But this is a political statement, not an anthropological one.

Now, when it comes to Europid - Non-Europid mixed individuals, things get even more complicated. First, a racially mixed person is always racially mixed, as long as there is one single allele left in his genotype that can be traced back to a former non-Europid admixture. So even someone with a 1/2048 Negroid admix will in all probability still be - technically - racially mixed and not "fully Europid", no matter if it shows in the phenotype or not (and what doesn't show in him may still show in his children even if they are 1/4096 Negroid).

On the other hand, what are the criteria for "looking European" or "looking White"? The Brazilian football star Ronaldo once called himself White. As someone who is not very much acquainted with Amerindid phenotypes I have to confess that I never suspected that Val Kilmer is not fully Europid. Even now that I know that he's half-Cherokee he looks at least predominantly Europid (and doesn't he look very much like John Travolta?). Not only are the criteria for having the distinctive "Europid look" too ambiguous. The problem is also that the Europid spectrum is perhaps too diverse in itself to separate untypical Europid features from apparently Europoid but actually non-Europid features in the case of such mixed individuals.

Moreover, the amount of aesthetical "Europidness" in an individual's looks depends on the subracial composition and idiosyncrasies of the Europid part as well as on the type and subtype of the non-Europid part. E.g. the offspring of a pure Nordid woman and a Nordsinid man will probably (?) "look more Europoid" (whatever that means) than let's say the offspring of a purely Alpinid man and an Australoid woman. We would need different standards and criteria for every possible combination of (sub-) races - and even that would still be far too imprecise.

This is probably why we could discuss endlessly whether e.g. Val Kilmer is "White", "Red" or something in-between ("Pink"?). Genetically he's half Europid (phenotypically rather 3/4 or even 7/8 or so), but that's about all we can really say about it from an anthropological point of view. The rest is aesthetics, politics, tradition, culture. We can "whitewash" him like the US census or call him a "mud" like Stormfront. It doesn't matter as far as his genes are concerned.

Another thing is that we should be extremely careful not to turn our ideas about miscegenation into some sort of quasi-religion. I don't see why miscegenators should be treated as "sinners" who did something metaphysically wrong. There is no divine or natural law that "prohibits" miscegenation. Miscegenation is a pity when it happens on a small scale and a disaster when it becomes more widespread. But when it happened, it happened and we should think of rational and humane ways to deal with its products (which are mostly ugly and miserable anyway). What we need is not hate, bigotry or moralizing, but a realistic view of (present) human nature, its imperfection and fallibility. Miscegenation should be restricted - I'd even say prosecuted -, but without any irrational witch-hunts. Similar to the question of eugenics, we need a calm (or cold-blooded ;)) approach to the matter - one that can actually be put into practice on a large scale and in a civilized - nice and efficient - way. Any suggestions?

Æmeric
Friday, December 29th, 2006, 03:27 AM
Now, when it comes to Europid - Non-Europid mixed individuals, things get even more complicated. First, a racially mixed person is always racially mixed, as long as there is one single allele left in his genotype that can be traced back to a former non-Europid admixture. So even someone with a 1/2048 Negroid admix will in all probability still be - technically - racially mixed and not "fully Europid", no matter if it shows in the phenotype or not (and what doesn't show in him may still show in his children even if they are 1/4096 Negroid).

One thing to remember when determining how much admixture is acceptable is the number of genes in the human genome. The number of genes is estimated at 20,000 to 25,000. At 15 generation you have 32768 ancestors, more than the number of genes. And only a small percentage determine racial differences.






Another thing is that we should be extremely careful not to turn our ideas about miscegenation into some sort of quasi-religion. I don't see why miscegenators should be treated as "sinners" who did something metaphysically wrong. There is no divine or natural law that "prohibits" miscegenation. Miscegenation is a pity when it happens on a small scale and a disaster when it becomes more widespread. But when it happened, it happened and we should think of rational and humane ways to deal with its products (which are mostly ugly and miserable anyway). What we need is not hate, bigotry or moralizing, but a realistic view of (present) human nature, its imperfection and fallibility. Miscegenation should be restricted - I'd even say prosecuted -, but without any irrational witch-hunts. Similar to the question of eugenics, we need a calm (or cold-blooded ;)) approach to the matter - one that can actually be put into practice on a large scale and in a civilized - nice and efficient - way. Any suggestions?


The problem with miscegenation is that a child of a Europid parent & a mixed-race, partially Europid parent may appear White/Europid. A purely Europid person could marry & have children with that White looking but racially mixed individual. It could take several generations of breeding with pure Europids to render the non-europid admixture insignificant. So how to prevent that from happening? Should it be a crime for someone to misrepresent their racial background? Personally I would like to see the US, Canada, Australia/New Zealand & Europe made into reserves for Whites/Europids. Miscegenation would be outlawed & anyone of mixed-race or Whites who engage in miscegenation would be forced to migrate to lands set aside for racially mixed populations. Like Mexico or the northern half of Brazil.

joseanton
Friday, December 29th, 2006, 05:06 PM
Val Kilmer is "White", "Red" or something in-between ("Pink"?). Genetically he's half Europid (phenotypically rather 3/4 or even 7/8 or so)


He is really 1/4 indian



.... He has stated in TV interviews, about how his grandmother, who was a Cherokee Indian....

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:FkIm_2TvNxAJ:www.nativece lebs.com/profiles/mainstream_hollywood1.htm+val+kilmer+che rokee&hl=es&gl=pe&ct=clnk&cd=2



There will always have been some inter-mixing... we have African roots, then subsequently humans have never been so far apart geographically that mixing did not occur, even if the environmental surroundings were continually "pounding the constituent sub-groups in to shape" (Dinarids/tall light Meds/Nordids/Alpines etc).


Agree



a racially mixed person is always racially mixed, as long as there is one single allele left in his genotype that can be traced back to a former non-Europid admixture. So even someone with a 1/2048 Negroid admix will in all probability still be - technically - racially mixed and not "fully Europid", no matter if it shows in the phenotype or not (and what doesn't show in him may still show in his children even if they are 1/4096 Negroid).



WOW 1/4096 that is 12 generations ago, how many people could say who was each one of his 4096 ancestors 12 generations ago, I canīt and Iīm sure you neither




E.g. the offspring of a pure Nordid woman and a Nordsinid man will probably (?) "look more Europoid" (whatever that means) than let's say the offspring of a purely Alpinid man and an Australoid woman


Thatīs true, but thatīs talking about 50%, and the nordsinid is the most progresive and close to europids among the non-europoids and australoid is the most primitive one, but to me is simple, usualy 1/8 of any amerind or mongoloid and 7/8 of any europid, looks fully europid and negroid/australoid could need one or two generations more to looks europid, about strange traits that could show in new generations, the chance is remote if it exist

Lissu
Tuesday, January 23rd, 2007, 02:28 AM
The non-Europid phenotype of these children may appear more visibly when they get older - and it may pop out in their descendants if they won't show any non-Europid traits.


Well in fact many pure non-european europids could pass without european mix take a look

http://forums.skadi.net/classify_man-t85715.html



Are you sure that it means generations and not aritmetic relation, this boy is 1/4 chinese and the girl 1/16 negroid, the boy has 4 times more non-europid blood and both look europid, the mothers look mixed, so IMO thatīs the threshold

http://worldroots.com/brigitte/gifs2/joachimdenmark-11.jpghttp://www.pajamaprogram.org/luncheon2005/soledad.jpg

Mesopotamian
Monday, February 12th, 2007, 09:00 PM
Negroid blood in all honesty makes a high impact when mixed with europid. Most mulattos ive seen have more of there negroid parental facial features then there europid. However i wouldint mind a person with 1/5 or 1/8 mongloid, it oftenly doesnt show.

Mattis
Wednesday, June 15th, 2011, 02:24 PM
Zero non-Europid ancestry is of course preferable!

But I would accept 1/16 as far as East Asians like the Chinese and the Japanese are concerned. As for South Asians like the Burmese and the Filippinos and SS Africans I'd say no more than 1/32.

Wittmann
Wednesday, June 15th, 2011, 03:32 PM
1/4 for Near Slav (Poland, Czech, etc.)
1/8 for "Far Slav" (Russians, etc.)
1/16 for Southern Europeans (Italians, Southeren French, etc.), and European Jews.
1/32 for European Spanish (Spain, Portugal), East Asian (Japanese, Chinese, etc.), Middle Easterners, and American Indians.
1/64 for South Asians, South Americans, True Jews, and Mexicans.

No African admixture is acceptable, unless it is in the 1/1000's

The Aesthete
Wednesday, June 15th, 2011, 04:37 PM
Preferably there should be none

Angela
Saturday, June 25th, 2011, 10:30 PM
The immigration in Europe, USA, and other countries mostly europids, would be that in 50-100 years, most of these countries be mixed in some degree, is the sad true, but how much of these non-europid blood, could somebody carry and not show it, these are my examples

Prince Nicolai, is 1/4 asian (chinese)
http://worldroots.com/brigitte/gifs2/joachimdenmark-22.jpg
http://worldroots.com/brigitte/gifs2/joachimdenmark-11.jpghttp://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c91/kmev/Denemarken/Joachim%20-%20Alexandra/280106jochalex2.jpg


Alexandra, Countess of Frederiksborg, is 1/4 Asian. Her father was half-Chinese and half-British and her mother of Czech and Austrian descent. That makes Prince Nicolai and Prince Felix 1/8 Asian.

I think Alexandra looks much more Asian than 1/4. Both African and Asian blood have a high impact then mixed with Europids.

Linden
Saturday, June 25th, 2011, 11:34 PM
Non-Europid interaction will have an adverse affect on future Germanic populations, and I strongly oppose relationships between Europids and those who aren't Europids.

However, I have met people with some non-Europid influences who look perfectly Europid. An example would be a girl who went to my Rowing Club. She had a Burmese grandparent, but had ginger hair and was an almost perfect example of the Borreby type.

A famous example of a person with no physically identifiable non-Europid influence is Mayor of London, Boris Johnson. His Great-Grandfather was Turkish (although born in Istambul, his ancestors originated from central Turkey).

Boris Johnson
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Boris_Johnson_-opening_bell_at_NASDAQ-14Sept2009-3c_cropped.jpg

celticviking
Sunday, June 26th, 2011, 06:11 PM
Kate Beckinsale
British people of Burmese descent
http://jojonews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Kate-Beckinsale1.jpg

Nicollette Sheridan
English people of Indian descent
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/photos/uncategorized/2009/02/11/edie.jpg

Russell Crowe
Crowe's maternal great-great-grandmother was Māori,[2] and his paternal grandfather was from Wrexham, Wales;[4] Crowe also has Scottish, Norwegian, English, and German ancestry.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_flvBI2iuCqo/S-5WN8KXADI/AAAAAAAAAb0/c9lODQTcIIM/s1600/Russell-Crowe_1.jpg

Northern Paladin
Sunday, June 26th, 2011, 07:16 PM
Nicollette Sheridan certainly looks odd,

http://0.tqn.com/d/movies/1/0/N/Q/O/codenamepic2.jpg
http://imstars.aufeminin.com/stars/fan/D20060314/1899_0_Nicollette_Sheridan_Is_Eng_H20012 9_L.jpg
http://download-desperate-housewife-episodes.edogo.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/nicollette_sheridan_.jpg

Her jaw has a very sharp gonial angle (not very European), and there is quite a bit of disharmony present in her face. I wonder what she would look like with her natural hair color, and without make-up.

Kate Beckinsale looks a little better, but still not what I would consider the epitome of Germanic beauty, or even homeliness.

---

Burt Reynolds, part-Cherokee.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQaCzUkZuEbT6w2jpfQ0A-4WIZLzwSu8vVWg6GJxfYu20A6TxlPXw&t=1

Billy Bob Thornton, part-Choctaw.

http://ecdn0.hark.com/images/000/004/402/4402/original.jpg

Johnny Depp, 1/8 Cherokee.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Gc2xhJizTTo/TLACdPA5DnI/AAAAAAAAANE/y4UcytAogNs/s1600/johnny+depp+young.jpg

Tommy Lee Jones, part-Native American

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/tommyleejones3.jpg

These people have very little Native American admixture, yet it shows up. I think very little can pass, probably somewhere around 1/128 or 1/256. All mixed individuals have something slightly off about them.