Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: White prof finds he's not: black admixture in US whites

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 13th, 2005 @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Posts
    76
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    White prof finds he's not: black admixture in US whites

    It appears that 70 percent of whites have no African ancestors. Among the 30 percent who do, the black admixture is around 2.3 percent, which would be like having about three black ancestors out of those 128.
    http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...2-084051-5356r

  2. #2
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Nordhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Monday, February 6th, 2006 @ 08:08 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Gender
    Politics
    Nordicist
    Posts
    3,152
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts
    That information is outdated and inaccurate.

    From Refuting Racial Myths:

    Nonwhite admixture in Americans

    Showing where his hostilities really lie, RM attacks Americans on a page supposedly about Northern Europe. Of course, white Americans are not "pure", but so what? They still happen to have less non-white admixture than most Southern Europeans.

    Black admixture

    One researcher claimed that 30% of white Americans have on average about 2% Negroid ancestry, while the other 70% have no detectable trace of admixture (Mark Shriver in Sailer 2002). According to Shriver, for the US White population as a whole, the average sub-Saharan contribution is about .7%. UPDATE: Shriver now says "about 10 percent of [the European-American population] have some African ancestry" (Wade 2002) -- much lower than his previous claim of 30%. Incidentally, Shriver is now attributing his own African ancestry to "a Mexican grandmother", rather than to runaway slaves as he had implied in the Steve Sailer article. One wonders what sort of "European-Americans" Shriver is using for his sample.

    UPDATE II: As more information has come out about DNAprint's "AncestryByDNA" test (Shriver is affiliated with DNAprint, and his findings mentioned above were made using a version of the ABD test), it has become clear that the ABD test absolutely DOES NOT accurately determine low level admixture in individuals. Thus, any statement from Shriver concerning "admixture" in American whites is meaningless. Recent research on Y-chromosomes and mtDNA detected NO black admixture in American whites (Kayser et al. 2003):

    . . . African-American genetic contribution to European-Americans is below the limits of detection with these methods.

    The sample included 628 European-American Y-chromosomes and mtDNA from 922 European-Americans, and the fact that there was no evidence for black admixture whatsoever is significant. The findings here also provide further indication that the ABD test is worthless for estimating "minor admixture".

    UPDATE III: A DNAprint executive now claims "Five percent of European Americans exhibit some detectable level of African ancestry" (ABCNEWS.com, Dec. 28 2003). This represents a third downard revision of the proportion of white Americans claimed by DNAprint to have black ancestry. An amazing lack of consistency (30% -> 10% -> 5%) proves the pronouncements of DNAprint employees on the racial ancestry of Americans are unreliable. People who hereafter continue to cite such claims prove only their hostility towards Americans.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Last Online
    Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009 @ 04:34 AM
    Ethnicity
    N/A
    Gender
    Posts
    2,606
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts
    It is probably just someone changing the information to fit their purposes. I am never surprised by it, although it is quire a bit annoying. :






  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 13th, 2005 @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Posts
    76
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    I would assume that black and indian admixture in American whites varies between regions and socio-economic groups.

    Most of this admixture is the result of recent events, so there is no way it will be evenly distributed across the country...yet.

    I'd be very surprised if American whites did not have any admixture, as is claimed by Refuting Racial Myths.

  5. #5
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Nordhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Monday, February 6th, 2006 @ 08:08 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Gender
    Politics
    Nordicist
    Posts
    3,152
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Jakub
    I'd be very surprised if American whites did not have any admixture, as is claimed by Refuting Racial Myths.
    I would be surprised too... considering Europeans already had trace amounts of admixture. Otherwise studies show that North Americans are genetically just like their European brothers.

    Also selecting individuals to test can be an issue, some being "self-identified" whites. Someone with recent nonwhite ancestry in the last 2-3 generations should be automatically disqualified, like Shriver himself.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Monday, January 15th, 2007 @ 07:57 AM
    Posts
    48
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Jakub
    I'd be very surprised if American whites did not have any admixture, as is claimed by Refuting Racial Myths.
    It seems very unlikely that the vast majority of American whites, even those whose ancestors have been there for several centuries, have even the slightest trace of colonial African ancestry. The taboo against race-mixing was extremely strong, and the products of such race-mixing would have been rejected by whites, and eventually incorporated either into the black population, or a localized mulatto class (as happened in some places in the south, if I'm not mistaken).

    Most American blacks have some white ancestry, of course, but this simply reinforces the point that the products of race-mixing were incorporated into the black society. They would not have been socially accepted by whites.

    The idea that many American whites have colonial African ancestry is, I think, a myth frequently (though not exclusively) perpetrated by the more viciously anti-American European racialists, since it gives them one more reason to hate Americans.

  7. #7
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Nordhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Monday, February 6th, 2006 @ 08:08 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Gender
    Politics
    Nordicist
    Posts
    3,152
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts
    Americans and especially Southern Americans did a great job keeping such a large nonwhite group from being absorbed. Most populations wouldn't be able to coexist like that for centuries without significant admixture. South Americans sure didn't.

  8. #8
    Member Triglav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, April 25th, 2006 @ 01:24 PM
    Subrace
    Arya/Paleoeuropeidal (norda) :D
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Location
    European Union
    Gender
    Politics
    Fairness
    Posts
    2,404
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Nordhammer
    Americans and especially Southern Americans did a great job keeping such a large nonwhite group from being absorbed. Most populations wouldn't be able to coexist like that for centuries without significant admixture. South Americans sure didn't.
    Indeed, just look at Europe and countries like France and Sweden. :

    The times and the social acceptance of non-whites is totally different over here, though. They mostly don't carry the past stigma of "backward spear-chuckers" in Europe and they mostly have a somewhat higher social status. Instead they enjoy a hyped reputation of being bearers of new and rich cultures who in turn will enrich us, and, ironically, add to our diversity, while in fact mixing will erase all existing diversity and uniqueness.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Last Online
    Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009 @ 04:34 AM
    Ethnicity
    N/A
    Gender
    Posts
    2,606
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts
    Richard McCulloch's reply,

    Regarding the claim mentioned by "A.P." that white South Africans are 7% Congoid or Capoid, I include below a rather lengthy edited excerpt from my book Destiny of Angels (1986) that addresses this very subject in the American context. (Funny how the same multiracialist tactics keep popping up in different countries.)

    The growing effort to discourage resistance to interracial mixture by asserting that the Nordish race is already thoroughly mixed beyond hope of correction -- thereby also disparaging Nordish racial integrity and identity -- has a tendency to grow bolder, and more reckless and irresponsible in its claims, as its prior false assertions go unchallenged in the dominant multiracialist intellectual environment.

    An example of how far this process has gone -- to the point where almost "anything goes" and any exaggeration is accepted, provided it is consistent with the designs and interests of multiracialism -- appeared in an article in People Weekly magazine (Dec. 6, 1982, page 156.) about a Louisiana woman whose ancestry was one-sixteenth (6.25 percent) "black," but who regarded herself as "white" and had been raised in, and accepted by, the white community. Her mother and her mother's sister, both "octoroons" (one-eighth or 12.5 percent black, having the equivalent of one black great-grandparent), had gone by different paths, the mother "passing" as white while the aunt remained part of the black community. The woman was challenging a Louisiana law (since repealed) which required that any person more than one-thirty-second (3.125 percent) of black ancestry be classified as black in the state's legal records.

    According to the article, Dr. Munro Edmonson, a professor of anthropology at Tulane University appearing as an expert witness on the woman's behalf, testified that "modern genetic studies show that blacks around the country average 25 percent white genes and whites five percent black genes. By these statistics, said Edmonson, and assuming the one-thirty-second law prevailed, the entire native born population of Louisiana could be considered black!"

    The first criticism of Edmonson's above claim is obvious. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the "average" white person in the United States had five percent black genes (more on this assumption later) only a few would actually be the exact "average" of five percent or one-twentieth black ancestry. (Hybridization requires many generations after its total completion before achieving a level of stabilized uniformity even remotely approaching homogeneity.) Many would have no black genes at all, while many others would have far more than five percent in order to counterbalance the effect of those who had no black genes and still achieve the five percent average. If half of the white population had no black genes, the other half would have to average ten percent black genes in order to maintain the five percent overall average. Of the half with black genes some, again, would be far less than ten percent black, while others would have to be proportionately more in order to sustain the group's ten percent average. If three-quarters of the white population had no black genes, the remaining quarter would have to average twenty percent black genes to uphold the overall five percent average, and some would have to be considerably more than this. If nine-tenths of the members of the white population had no black genes, the remaining tenth would have to average fifty percent black genes (that is, be half black, or mulattoes) to keep a five percent overall average, and many would actually have to be more than half black to compensate for those who were less.

    At this point we confront the definition of what is "white." The phenomenon of partial blacks "passing" as white is a complex one. Passing is a form of deception, and whether it will succeed depends on both the racial knowledge and sensitivity of the person being deceived and the detectability of the black traits, which varies greatly even when the degree of intermixture -- or percentage of black genes -- is the same, as among siblings (see the above example of the Louisiana woman's mother and aunt). The same partial black may successfully deceive some whites while failing to deceive others whose level of racial knowledge and sensitivity is greater. Under present levels of racial knowledge and sensitivity, an octoroon generally cannot successfully pass as an unmixed or full-blooded white, while a person who is one-sixteenth black generally, but not always, can. However, when they do succeed in passing as white, it is usually as a marginal and indistinct type of white under the broad, less sensitive and discriminating definition of the term. They usually do not pass as a distinctively Northern European type of white. A white who was five percent black in ancestry would, in nearly all cases, know it. For him not to know it would require that he not know his parents or grandparents, and even then he would probably still know or suspect it. That so few whites, including Louisiana whites, have knowledge of any black ancestry indicates how rare and uncommon such ancestry actually is.

    The second objection to Edmonson's assertion is twofold. If 6.25 percent black intermixture is the maximum level that can generally successfully pass as a marginal white, how is it possible for the claimed average degree of intermixture -- five percent -- to be so close to the maximum permissible degree for passing, when the upper end of the range should far exceed the average in order to counterbalance the lower end and the large number who have no black genes at all? Also, since persons who are one-sixteenth (6.25 percent) of black ancestry tend to bear a physical resemblance to less distinct, borderline or marginal whites, such as the typical inhabitants of Andalusia or Tunisia, why is it that the white population of the United States bears no resemblance to those two peoples? In fact, the Northern European population of America -- which in 1980 constituted about 79 percent of the white population -- shows no identifiable sign or trace of black intermixture, and remains essentially indistinguishable racially, physically and esthetically -- showing no significant difference -- from the other members of the same branches of their race who remain in northern Europe, free from any evident black interracial mixture. If the Northern European population of America were five percent, or even one percent, black it would obviously show. It would not look the way it does. The physical-esthetic difference would be definite and undeniable, especially among the more recessive, fragile and distinct traits -- whose frequency of occurrence would be greatly reduced and quality of expression and realization distorted and diminished, suffering severe losses in both quantity and quality. If the population of northern Europe from which Nordish-Americans came is accepted as a control group, it must be admitted that there is no significant racial-physical-esthetic variation between the two, and the percentage of fractionally-black hybrids in the Nordish-American population must be so small as to escape attention.

    Genetic studies of hybridization are based on variations in blood group frequencies. Like paternity tests they cannot actually prove intermixture, but only establish the possible limits of it, unless the frequency variations are so large that they cannot be accounted for by any other explanation. For example, if a black population has a frequency of fifty percent for a blood group trait and a white population has a frequency of ten percent for the trait, while a second white population has a frequency of twelve percent for the same trait, it may be inferred -- depending on certain variables, such as the dominant or recessive nature of the trait -- that the second white population has a possible degree of black intermixture as high as five percent. But the natural variation which occurs within populations in the frequency of such traits (due to genetic drift and other reasons other than intermixture), and the margin for error inherent in such studies, are both large enough that any indication of intermixture below ten percent could in fact be zero -- too small to provide certain proof or evidence of any degree of intermixture -- and we could therefore be discussing something which is virtually nonexistent except in the minds of men. Even in a population as comparatively homogeneous -- and with as little variation -- as that of Japan, the variation which will unavoidably exist between different groups (such as the populations of different islands) will be sufficient to establish a possibility of some small degree of intermixture with any other population on earth. Only a population which exhibited zero variation -- and none such exist or can exist -- could prove the impossibility of any degree of intermixture.

    Here again there is the problem of definition to consider. A wide spectrum of racial types in the population of the United States -- Northern Europeans, Armenids, Mediterranids, Orientalids, Irano-Afgans, and even some groups (such as the Puerto Ricans) who exhibit an obvious degree of black intermixture -- are commonly defined and classified as "white." The degree of variation existing between the diverse racial types in this broadly defined population is so extreme that it defies as absurd any attempt to classify it as a coherent whole in relationship to any other race.

    The final answer to Edmonson's testimony is historical in approach. Scholars and anthropologists in the earlier part of this century, or in the previous century, never suspected or indicated a significant absorption of black genes into the white population. There is no record of racially mixed offspring being raised by, or accepted into, the white community to any measurable extent. Before the middle of this century, interracial marriage between white and black was socially unacceptable (and often illegal) and so rare as to be almost nonexistent in statistical terms. Thus the overwhelming majority of racially mixed children (mulattoes, quadroons and octoroons) were illegitimate and were virtually always raised by -- and absorbed into -- the black population. Nearly all the black-white intermixture which occurred before this century involved white males and black females (unlike the present situation, where three-fourths of the wives in black-white marriages are white). Then, as now, the children overwhelmingly tended to stay with the natural mother and her family rather than with the father. The practice of racism acted to protect the white race from intermixture and prevent the acceptance of racially mixed children into its ranks.

    That nearly all the mixed offspring were absorbed into the black population is indicated by the high proportion (25 percent) of white genes in its genetic composition. Assuming that for most of American history the white population outnumbered the black by a ratio of about ten to one, the above percentage indicates that the black community, over the course of about eight generations, absorbed the equivalent of one-fortieth or 2.5 percent of the white population into itself. For whites to average five percent black genes while blacks average 25 percent white genes -- a mixture ratio of five to one, when the population ratio as given above was ten to one -- would require that twice as many of the racially mixed offspring were absorbed into the white population as were absorbed into the black population (or that two-thirds, or 67 percent, of the mixed children were absorbed into the white race and one-third into the black). A five percent average of black genes, assuming the ten to one population ratio, would indicate that the white population absorbed the equivalent of one-half or 50 percent of the black population into itself (50 percent divided by ten equals five percent), and that the white race absorbed twice as many black genes as the black race absorbed white genes. But this contradicts the fact, which ordinary observation should qualify as common knowledge, that as a result of the "color bar" created by white racism the racially mixed children were almost invariably raised by and absorbed into the black community, and that the proportion who were absorbed into the white population, rather than the 67 percent required to create a five percent degree of intermixture, was probably much less than one percent.

    For the Nordish race, existence in a multiracial society, in close and unnatural proximity to other races, has always resulted in interracial mixture by wayward and irresponsible members who endangered the future integrity and well-being of their kind. In this racially unhealthy environment, fraught with danger to racial survival by the ever-present threat of absorbing dominant alien genes, only the practice of racism protects the integrity, identity and continued existence of the race -- and its vulnerable recessive traits -- by isolating it from the effects of intermixture. Until recently the practice of racism has preserved the Nordish race, so that it still exists in unaltered form with its identity still intact. The recent trend toward multiracialism is stripping the Nordish race of its defense and protection from intermixture, and its consequent destructive effects of extinction and racial death. (With the resultant intermixture of Northern Europeans with virtually every other race on earth, through both marriage and adoption.) The apologists and proponents of intermixture -- who presently enjoy such dominance that the once great academic disciplines created by the white race have been enlisted in the cause of its destruction -- employ every opportunity to disparage and cast doubts on the racial integrity, uniqueness and value of the Nordish race, thereby weakening its will to resist by depriving it of belief in itself. The goal of their misleading distortions is to prevent Northern Europeans from learning the truth until it is too late to do anything about it. Their hope is that if the Nordish race falsely believes it has already fallen, then it will fall, when it really falls, without a struggle.

    http://www.racialcompact.com/intermixture.html

    This seems to sum it up pretty good. I'm sorry if y'all are tired of hearing McCulloch.






Similar Threads

  1. The Seven Elements of the White Man's Mentality [Prof. Revilo Oliver]
    By einsatzkommando in forum Psychology, Behavior, & Neuroscience
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Monday, April 10th, 2017, 09:09 AM
  2. 'Implicit Whiteness': Psychology & White Ethnocentrism [Prof. Kevin MacDonald]
    By Ahnenerbe in forum Cultural & Linguistic Anthropology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, June 13th, 2016, 05:07 AM
  3. The Psychological Mechanism of White Dispossession [Prof. Kevin B. MacDonald]
    By Loyalist in forum Psychology, Behavior, & Neuroscience
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Tuesday, April 5th, 2016, 09:25 AM
  4. Whites Genetically Weaker Than Blacks, Study Finds
    By Dagna in forum Medical & Behavioral Genetics
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: Friday, November 21st, 2008, 08:39 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Saturday, March 29th, 2008, 10:46 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •