PDA

View Full Version : Who is white?



Viking
2010-01-08, 20:03
Alright, let's do this. :evilgrin:

I decided not to include "Europeans" as an alternative, as it would be too political. A Southern European Caucasoid might as well be on the "same level" as a Middle Eastern Caucasoid, as Middle Easterners usually go into the Southern European cluster (if I'm correct?).

ColdEye
2010-01-08, 20:07
Even Arthur Kemp said Europeans cluster, and yes, that's the defination.

Pallantides
2010-01-08, 20:14
Voted Freja_se for the Lulz
according to Brin on Skadi I'm part mongoloid and my maternal line is non-white.:lol:

Aino
2010-01-08, 20:21
I couldn't care less about who is white.

bleck
2010-01-08, 20:47
I couldn't care less about who is white.

So you don't mind Whites being bred out of existence?

Cail
2010-01-08, 20:47
Most caucasoids from Europe (except some rare freak cases in the Bulgaria, Southern Italy, Canarias et cetera).

Aino
2010-01-08, 20:57
So you don't mind Whites being bred out of existence?

White is an American concept. I have little interest in Americans and I don't care about them. It has been a mixed society fron the start, and what happens to them is none of my concern.

What I do care about is Finland remaining Finnish.

I would also like to see other European countries (or any non-European country for that matter) retain their ethnic makeups and cultures, although it might be too late for some of them.

Sevastopol
2010-01-08, 20:59
It's basically obvious that 'white' is anyone who adapted to northern climates and reduced sun exposure. Both Asians and Europeans qualify as being 'white', although there are varying degrees of whiteness. Bruenn/Borreby is the only type that comes close to being 'snow white' in color.

Balder
2010-01-08, 21:07
I agree with every word that Freja-se said. Viking where she is from in Sweden? Perhaps Skne?

Should I invite her for a Saturday night? :evilgrin: I imagine her hoooot!

EliasAlucard
2010-01-08, 21:13
I voted All Caucasoids. However, I want to make one thing clear: I don't consider all Indians and all north Africans, Caucasoids. At least not fully Caucasoids. This is also true for the Middle East to some extent, as there has been recent non-Caucasoid gene flow to this region (mostly with Arabs).

Caucasoids = unmixed Europeans and genetically very close non-European populations. There are non-European Indians who are predominantly Caucasoids (mostly Nord-Indid), but many Indians have considerable admixture from pre-Aryan populations, which is why their drag toward East Asia and Oceania is increased compared with other Caucasoids.

In the case of the Middle East and North Africa, the racial purity of many (although not all, of course) individuals from these regions is questionable and there might be some non-Caucasoid admixture from Negroids.

So, in this sense, one has to keep in mind that Caucasoid shouldn't be applied indiscriminately on everyone who isn't Negroid or Mongoloid. Because there are many individuals who are predominantly Caucasoid yet they have admixture from other races.

Interestingly, the ethnic group with most distance to Negroids and Mongoloids, aren't northern Europeans, but rather, southern Europeans (more on that later in a thread of its own).

At the end of the day: white = racially pure Caucasoids with fixation of inherited genotypes of skin mutation genes SLC24A5 and SLC45A2.

That's the scientific approach to whiteness, imho (or at least it should be). But white is also a political status, with social privileges and influence in society. So because of that, there's also a very exclusive concept of whiteness that is limited to blue-eyed blond Scandinavians and pretty much excludes most of Europe outside of the Germanic speaking regions. Even the Irish people and Russians (and Finns) are often not considered white in this context.
Alright, let's do this. :evilgrin:Whiteness topics are always fun :D
I decided not to include "Europeans" as an alternative, as it would be too political. A Southern European Caucasoid might as well be on the "same level" as a Middle Eastern Caucasoid, as Middle Easterners usually go into the Southern European cluster (if I'm correct?).The "Middle East" is a heterogeneous cluster. The extreme "northern" part of the Middle East is arguably within the southern European cluster. But this is not the case with the entire Middle East.

Viking
2010-01-08, 21:14
I agree with every word that Freja-se said. Viking where she is from in Sweden? Perhaps Skne?

Should I invite her for a Saturday night? :evilgrin: I imagine her hoooot!

Yes, you are actually right that "she" is from Skne.

I think "she" was the starter of this Swedish thread :evilgrin: : http://www.nordisk.nu/showthread.php?t=39702 (I'm not UrEuropa defending himself. :D)

Azvarohi
2010-01-08, 21:16
Yes, you are actually right that "she" is from Skne.

I think "she" was the starter of this Swedish thread :evilgrin: : http://www.nordisk.nu/showthread.php?t=39702 (I'm not UrEuropa defending himself. :D)


"jkfkjdfkjdghffg
fgbgb rttgthhg"

ICA-Jerry approves.

EliasAlucard
2010-01-08, 21:27
It's basically obvious that 'white' is anyone who adapted to northern climates and reduced sun exposure. Both Asians and Europeans qualify as being 'white'No:

Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians (https://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=1544)

If you by "Asians" refer to Chinese, Japanese and Koreans, they have different genotypes for their light skin colour that evolved independently of Europeans.

Kid From Timbuktu
2010-01-08, 22:01
If you can't pass for a Northern European, please do not check the white box on the census. :D

ethioboy
2010-01-08, 22:19
I voted All Caucasoids. However, I want to make one thing clear: I don't consider all Indians and all north Africans, Caucasoids. At least not fully Caucasoids. This is also true for the Middle East to some extent, as there has been recent non-Caucasoid gene flow to this region (mostly with Arabs).

Caucasoids = unmixed Europeans and genetically very close non-European populations. There are non-European Indians who are predominantly Caucasoids (mostly Nord-Indid), but many Indians have considerable admixture from pre-Aryan populations, which is why their drag toward East Asia and Oceania is increased compared with other Caucasoids.

In the case of the Middle East and North Africa, the racial purity of many (although not all, of course) individuals from these regions is questionable and there might be some non-Caucasoid admixture from Negroids.

So, in this sense, one has to keep in mind that Caucasoid shouldn't be applied indiscriminately on everyone who isn't Negroid or Mongoloid. Because there are many individuals who are predominantly Caucasoid yet they have admixture from other races.

Interestingly, the ethnic group with most distance to Negroids and Mongoloids, aren't northern Europeans, but rather, southern Europeans (more on that later in a thread of its own).

At the end of the day: white = racially pure Caucasoids with fixation of inherited genotypes of skin mutation genes SLC24A5 and SLC45A2.

That's the scientific approach to whiteness, imho (or at least it should be). But white is also a political status, with social privileges and influence in society. So because of that, there's also a very exclusive concept of whiteness that is limited to blue-eyed blond Scandinavians and pretty much excludes most of Europe outside of the Germanic speaking regions. Even the Irish people and Russians (and Finns) are often not considered white in this context.Whiteness topics are always fun :DThe "Middle East" is a heterogeneous cluster. The extreme "northern" part of the Middle East is arguably within the southern European cluster. But this is not the case with the entire Middle East.
I disagree with this view as it essentially states that any west asian (caucasoid) that is not white skinned has some kind of admix. In my opinion this is false. Again while it may seem that mid easterners and indians are "admixed" populations on 2 dimensional PCA plots such as this

https://www.forumbiodiversity.com/images/upload/misc/EliasAlucard_deCODEme_PCA_plot_World_maps.png

It is only a paradox, as when one looks closer (or in this case simply rotating the 3d PCA plot on decode me) It isnt that they are mixed, rather it seems that both their phenotype and genotype are localized variants. To see this at play, in your decode me map of kinship, go to all of the dimensions that end in 6. If you can rotate the map a bit to either the left or right, you can see that infact europeans and the mid east are the same distance from africa, but on opposite sides of the plane. Check out the attached pic

bleck
2010-01-08, 22:34
I disagree with this view as it essentially states that any west asian (caucasoid) that is not white skinned has some kind of admix. In my opinion this is false. Again while it may seem that mid easterners and indians are "admixed" populations on 2 dimensional PCA plots such as this

https://www.forumbiodiversity.com/images/upload/misc/EliasAlucard_deCODEme_PCA_plot_World_maps.png

It is only a paradox, as when one looks closer (or in this case simply rotating the 3d PCA plot on decode me) It isnt that they are mixed, rather it seems that both their phenotype and genotype are localized variants. To see this at play, in your decode me map of kinship, go to all of the dimensions that end in 6. If you can rotate the map a bit to either the left or right, you can see that infact europeans and the mid east are the same distance from africa, but on opposite sides of the plane. Check out the attached pic


WE INDIANS ARE FOR THE MOST PART, MUTTS. Theres no way around this.

We look like mutts. We have 5 macro linguistic phylums / 1652 dialects. Our culture is very diverse. There is not a single ydna that exceeds 25% in India. We are the most genetically diverse nation.

ethioboy
2010-01-08, 22:41
WE INDIANS ARE FOR THE MOST PART, MUTTS. Theres no way around this.

We look like mutts. We have 5 macro linguistic phylums / 1652 dialects. Our culture is very diverse. There is not a single ydna that exceeds 25% in India. We are the most genetically diverse nation.

No you are not a mix. Unless you have any recent admix. I dont consider deep ancestry which makes up certain ethnic groups to be mutts. You are the product of localized variation+migration/back migration. I could go very deep into discussion but that is as simple as I can make it.

EliasAlucard
2010-01-08, 22:53
Off Topic discussion split to a new thread of its own, here (https://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=1724).

//mod

bleck
2010-01-08, 22:55
No you are not a mix. Unless you have any recent admix.

I dont consider deep ancestry which makes up certain ethnic groups to be mutts.

Mongrelization has been taking place since the dawn of mankind in India.

But most important admixture that defines India is between neolithic West Eurasian agriculturalists - Dravidians - and primitive hunter gatherers - Austrics -

This occurred more recently, roughly since the meso-neolithic times.

So typical Indian, is a mixed race person with varying amounts of West Eurasian or Asiatic.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3192/2788857428_d6303c84ba.jpg



You are the product of localized variation+migration/back migration. I could go very deep into discussion but that is as simple as I can make it.

You should create a thread. I'm interested in reading what you have to say.

EliasAlucard
2010-01-08, 22:59
I disagree with this view as it essentially states that any west asian (caucasoid) that is not white skinned has some kind of admix. In my opinion this is false.You're entitled to your opinion on the matter, thing is, it doesn't matter if they have non-Caucasoid admixture or not. I wrote specifically, fully Caucasoid + fixation of SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. This is not always the case with the Middle East and north Africa. I think it's about time I start an informative thread about this just to clarify the topic.
you can see that infact europeans and the mid east are the same distance from africa, but on opposite sides of the plane. Check out the attached picThe distance to Africa is about the same for Europe and Middle East, depending on which ethnic populations and the amount of recent admixture they might have. But clearly, for the most part, the Middle East has an increased drag toward Africa compared with Europe, with or without admixture. We're talking minor, very minor drag. But still, there's a drag. It's not a big deal really.

ethioboy
2010-01-08, 23:05
You're entitled to your opinion on the matter, thing is, it doesn't matter if they have non-Caucasoid admixture or not. I wrote specifically, fully Caucasoid + fixation of SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. This is not always the case with the Middle East and north Africa. I think it's about time I start an informative thread about this just to clarify the topic.The distance to Africa is about the same for Europe and Middle East, depending on which ethnic populations and the amount of recent admixture they might have. But clearly, for the most part, the Middle East has an increased drag toward Africa compared with Europe, with or without admixture. We're talking minor, very minor drag. But still, there's a drag. It's not a big deal really.

Sure theres a drag, but I dont think it is necessarily meaningful in any way. I still think the middle east is simply primarily the product of localized variation. Dark skin would make sense as the area is exposed to large amounts of UV rays as well as the fact that it has a hot dry environment. Thus darker phenotypes would be able to survive more than lighter phenotypes.


Mongrelization has been taking place since the dawn of mankind in India.

But most important admixture that defines India is between neolithic West Eurasian agriculturalists - Dravidians - and primitive hunter gatherers - Austrics -

This occurred more recently, roughly since the meso-neolithic times.

So typical Indian, is a mixed race person with varying amounts of West Eurasian or Asiatic.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3192/2788857428_d6303c84ba.jpg
Yes but that was in the Neolithic. Those are migrations and what I would call Deep ancestry as they are what come together to make the population that we now call marthai or south indian brahmin or tamil, etc (there were no such ethnic groups that far back in history). Irregardless, those populations have settled in india and have made their home there thus now to call them "mixed race" would be nonsense. Also localized variation and phenotypes I think play a large part as well. Because if you mix a modern day south indian weddid with a modern day central asian or west asian. You will not get an indian. The local variation is what I think distinguishes population from population. (for example though a mid easterner for the most part clusters together with a european in a global PCA plot, you can distinguish the two even based on phenotypic characteristics.. for example if you were to take a pure yemeni from the highlands of yemen and depigment him/her.. they would still look atypical for a european, you could tell there would be something else in play).



You should create a thread. I'm interested in reading what you have to say.
Maybe later :) (busy at the moment) or elias could break our discussion into another thread.

Nephilim
2010-01-08, 23:40
I belive only Europeans are White.

Middle Eastern Caucasoids are not White, their mostly from olive to dark brown

However the term is very useless, and its an American concept.

plus many half-breed ME's look White but their ME parent is usually olive/brown or even dark brown at times.

jonboyclem
2010-01-08, 23:41
I voted for light skinned caucasoid. If these depigmented Afghans below were in western clothing and hid thier ancestry in the United States, no one would think of them as anything other than White.

http://pastmist.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/afghanman_arte.jpg?w=460&h=345

http://i40.tinypic.com/2v82tk1.jpg

http://pastmist.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/afghangirlkabul2.jpg?w=335&h=500

http://pastmist.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/afghans1.jpg?w=257&h=256

Nephilim
2010-01-08, 23:45
I voted for light skinned caucasoid. If these depigmented Afghans below were in western clothing and hid thier ancestry in the United States, no one would think of them as anything other than White.

http://pastmist.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/afghanman_arte.jpg?w=460&h=345

http://i40.tinypic.com/2v82tk1.jpg

http://pastmist.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/afghangirlkabul2.jpg?w=335&h=500

http://pastmist.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/afghans1.jpg?w=257&h=256


My dad has Red hair, and hazel eyes, and people don't think he is 100% Middle Eastern lol.

And his brothers look like those Afghans you posted.

To the untrained eye, but to the trained eye their something Near Eastern about their looks.

Americans think more about skin color, hence why many of them belive that Sicilians are not White because their dark, but many Siclians have strong European facial features.

jonboyclem
2010-01-08, 23:52
My dad has Red hair, and hazel eyes, and people don't think he is 100% Middle Eastern lol.

And his brothers look like those Afghans you posted.

To the untrained eye, but to the trained eye their something Near Eastern about their looks.

Americans think more about skin color, hence why many of them belive that Sicilians are not White because their dark, but many Siclians have strong European facial features.

Those blond Afghans would be a lot less "ethnic" looking in mainstream American society compared to these Italian Americans below.

http://www.doobybrain.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/mtv-jersey-shore.jpg

bleck
2010-01-08, 23:55
http://pastmist.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/afghans1.jpg?w=257&h=256

Those are Nordic boys from Hindu Kush. The people of Hindu Kush are the only ones who constantly resisted against Islam.

---------- Post added 2010-01-09 at 07:57 ----------



To the untrained eye, but to the trained eye their something Near Eastern about their looks.

Are you nuts? These boys are the very definition of Aryan. They are much more "White" than 75% of Europe. They are fully Nordic.

http://pastmist.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/afghans1.jpg?w=257&h=256

Wulffie
2010-01-09, 00:01
Considering the term was originally coined to differentiate Caucasian people from the Native Americans and West African slaves, I chose pale skinned Caucasoids.

Although I consider a tan skinned portuguese as "white" as a pale brit, as long as both are 100% Caucasian.

Edit: Also to add, in American society anyone who looks European will be seen as "white".

Inquiring Mind
2010-01-09, 05:00
White is somebody who has a white skin so i voted pale skinned caucasoids

Prophetess
2010-01-09, 06:23
I voted all Caucasoid but I agree with Elias, there are some exceptions to that like Australoid-mixed folks in India and Pakistan, Negrid-mixed folks in the Middle East, etc. Then again, it also depends on the amount of admixture I guess, I don't really favor the one-drop rule :)

Ozrage
2010-01-09, 06:28
Who is "white" to me" That is such a bad term. Should be Euro os something simple like that. To me the western world is actually white. The ones who colonized and went ape on Africa and the dudes who landed on the fucking Moon.

And again who's white. Well any one who do not have a permanent tan. It is that simple.

Iyengar
2010-01-09, 11:14
Those are Nordic boys from Hindu Kush. The people of Hindu Kush are the only ones who constantly resisted against Islam.

---------- Post added 2010-01-09 at 07:57 ----------



Are you nuts? These boys are the very definition of Aryan. They are much more "White" than 75% of Europe. They are fully Nordic.

http://pastmist.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/afghans1.jpg?w=257&h=256

I suggest you visit this thread-the whole thing.
https://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=272

Godamnit,I wanted to vote for pale skinned Caucasoids I voted for all Caucasoids :mad:
Though many anthropologists considered North Western Indians as a continuation of the original IE's save their skin tone.

bleck
2010-01-09, 16:44
I voted all Caucasoid but I agree with Elias, there are some exceptions to that like Australoid-mixed folks in India and Pakistan, Negrid-mixed folks in the Middle East, etc. Then again, it also depends on the amount of admixture I guess, I don't really favor the one-drop rule :)

Pakistan is strongly Europid/Caucasoid especially the "standard" Pakistanis; Punjabis/Sindhis/Kashmiris.

Nephilim
2010-01-09, 17:15
Those blond Afghans would be a lot less "ethnic" looking in mainstream American society compared to these Italian Americans below.

http://www.doobybrain.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/mtv-jersey-shore.jpg

That might be true. However thats because Americans only see hair/ eye color, but still to the trained eye you can tell they have something that directly of Near Eastern origins.

Their eye shape is not European or the nose.

Americans frankly think a depigmented Metis to be White.

Example the Afghans look like this mixed race person

Iraqi Arab/ Danish mixture

http://i47.tinypic.com/6zpv0y.jpg

shofet
2010-01-09, 18:15
I voted All Caucasoids. However, I want to make one thing clear: I don't consider all Indians and all north Africans, Caucasoids. At least not fully Caucasoids. This is also true for the Middle East to some extent, as there has been recent non-Caucasoid gene flow to this region (mostly with Arabs).

Caucasoids = unmixed Europeans and genetically very close non-European populations. There are non-European Indians who are predominantly Caucasoids (mostly Nord-Indid), but many Indians have considerable admixture from pre-Aryan populations, which is why their drag toward East Asia and Oceania is increased compared with other Caucasoids.

In the case of the Middle East and North Africa, the racial purity of many (although not all, of course) individuals from these regions is questionable and there might be some non-Caucasoid admixture from Negroids.

So, in this sense, one has to keep in mind that Caucasoid shouldn't be applied indiscriminately on everyone who isn't Negroid or Mongoloid. Because there are many individuals who are predominantly Caucasoid yet they have admixture from other races.

Interestingly, the ethnic group with most distance to Negroids and Mongoloids, aren't northern Europeans, but rather, southern Europeans (more on that later in a thread of its own).

At the end of the day: white = racially pure Caucasoids with fixation of inherited genotypes of skin mutation genes SLC24A5 and SLC45A2.
.

By those criterion definitions very few could pass both. As many caucasoid in most diaspora's to some degree have had none-Caucasoid ancestor's. One cannot ensure a continuum of similar ancestors unless they have a form of isolatory factor like living on a isle or some geographical location that makes approximation to foreigners very unlikely.

The SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 business is nothing more then mere bull. Any population can have any mutation provided there is an external factor, which is why the diversity of selection is very high in every population. Northern asians versus oceanians and melanesians. Indians versus middle-easterners and europeans, etc etc. The two criterions are too limited and narrowly scoped to include only a few select inviduals who have no geographical ancestors that are were not mixed.

Kid From Timbuktu
2010-01-09, 18:27
http://www.dac.neu.edu/holocaust/images/nordic_ideal.JPG

This is white, anything other is something else! :thumbsup:

Pallantides
2010-01-09, 18:59
http://www.dac.neu.edu/holocaust/images/nordic_ideal.JPG

This is white, anything other is something else! :thumbsup:

Wasn't that guy Jewish or something?

Sevastopol
2010-01-09, 20:08
When you look at someone and have trouble deciding if he's white... Than he really is white.

Trog
2010-01-09, 20:44
I think very much like Aino with the concept of 'white'. But the idea of 'pale-skinned' Caucasoids qualifying seems to exclude certain types.

For example, here is my brother, I doubt very much he can be called 'pale-skinned'. So exactly how pale does one have to be?

shofet
2010-01-09, 20:47
You forgot to mention that you're brother is some Sicilian who was adopted by you're family a long time ago. He could even pass as an unethnic pathan or south-west asian.

Trog
2010-01-09, 20:49
I see ^^^. This always troubles a few people seeing an individual from Scotland/Ireland who goes against the typical stereotype.

He just took after his Gran.

Anodyne
2010-01-09, 20:52
Those blond Afghans would be a lot less "ethnic" looking in mainstream American society compared to these Italian Americans below.

http://www.doobybrain.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/mtv-jersey-shore.jpg

The short big breasted woman was adopted from Chile.

pinguin
2010-01-09, 20:54
I think very much like Aino with the concept of 'white'. But the idea of 'pale-skinned' Caucasoids qualifying seems to exclude certain types.

For example, here is my brother, I doubt very much he can be called 'pale-skinned'. So exactly how pale does one have to be?
...

That's why the term Caucasoid is better.
But even better it is the term European.

Viking
2010-01-09, 20:54
Wasn't that guy Jewish or something?

You're probably thinking of Werner Goldberg, half Jewish on his fathers side.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/30/WernerGoldberg.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Goldberg

pinguin
2010-01-09, 20:55
oopps. mistake

Wulffie
2010-01-09, 20:55
I see ^^^. This always troubles a few people seeing an individual from Scotland/Ireland who goes against the typical stereotype.

He just took after his Gran.



Actually he looks exactly like a old high school classmate of mine, pigmentation and all, who was predominately Scottish. :)

He was also the hairiest guy in our grade, with hairy legs, arms, and chest by sophomore year ;)

shofet
2010-01-09, 20:58
I see ^^^. This always troubles a few people seeing an individual from Scotland/Ireland who goes against the typical stereotype.

He just took after his Gran.



What the heck.. more Italian stereotypes. With the kind of olive-palish complexion which is very commonly found in south and central Italy. The man even look's a stereotypical slick italian type with a prominent nose, and long hair. And the females range from italy to greece, to turkey all the way to azerbajian, with their ambigious looks.

Trog
2010-01-09, 21:02
^^ Point is, they're white. I simply seek a definition of a pale-skinned Caucasoid.

Decimator
2010-01-09, 21:02
I think Trog's brother is just a little tanned

Wulffie
2010-01-09, 21:05
^^ Point is, they're white. I simply seek a definition of a pale-skinned Caucasoid. Need I exhaust my entire family album? Here, this is pale-skinned, but dark haired. This is me when I was 11.



"pale caucasoids" extends to swarthy white surely.

Trog
2010-01-09, 21:06
The short big breasted woman was adopted from Chile.

Who says they're Italian-Americans anyway? Surely finding bona fide Italians to demonstrate is not that tough?

bleck
2010-01-09, 21:17
^^ Point is, they're white. I simply seek a definition of a pale-skinned Caucasoid.

Your bro is brunet white. I don't know what you Europeans classify as dark but that man in the pic with 2 others looks atleast based on that pic normal Euro to me.

And the only "dark" thing about him is his black hair and non-rosy white skin. He looks much fairer than those pakies you like to collect.

Trog
2010-01-09, 21:21
Your bro is brunet white. I don't know what you Europeans classify as dark but that man in the pic with 2 others looks atleast based on that pic normal Euro to me.

And the only "dark" thing about him is his black hair and non-rosy white skin. He looks much fairer than those pakies you like to collect.

You misunderstand, I'm not claiming my brother is an example of something non-white, I'm using him as an example of someone who is as white as it gets. But it's interesting you consider him pale-skinned and a Pashtun does not.

Wulffie
2010-01-09, 21:35
Average unexposed skin color chart ^^

Although I disagree with some of the countries, particularly Asian ones, based on my own observation.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/adapt/images/map_of_skin_color_distribution.gif

shofet
2010-01-09, 22:11
You misunderstand, I'm not claiming my brother is an example of something non-white, I'm using him as an example of someone who is as white as it gets. But it's interesting you consider him pale-skinned and a Pashtun does not.

Big deal wether i am a pashto or not, i am not a cultural representitive. You're brother doesn't fall in within typical scottish ranges, which is the point.

Wulffie
2010-01-09, 22:12
Big deal wether i am a pashto or not, i am not a cultural representitive. You're brother doesn't fall in within typical scottish ranges.

How do you know what typical Scottish ranges are? :confused:

Stygian Cellarius
2010-01-10, 06:55
Well, first of all, I think you should have used "Caucasian" for some instead of "Caucasoid". By definition, the -oid suffix indicates a similarity or resemblance to, but not the same as (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-oid) something and in this case, a similarity or resemblance to, but not the same as Caucasians. If it is similar or resembles some-thing, then it is not that some-thing. A Planetoid is not, and can never be, a Planet. A Factoid is not, and can never be, a Fact. Therefore making most of your selection choices non-Caucasian by default. With the exception of the last three.

• All Caucasoids: No, because of the above. Example; some Ethiopian's are Caucasoid.

• Caucasoids and Castizos: Castizo's are Caucasoids by definition, but they are not Caucasians [only] and so they are not White. Although, All Castizo's are Caucasoid, but not all Caucasoids are Castizo's. :lol:

• Pale-skinned Caucasoids: Again, this implies there are non-Caucasian features in this group. For example; a tribe of light-skinned Asian/Europid hybrids could qualify.

• Central Nordish Caucasoids: Being Nordish automatically makes them "Caucasian" and not "Caucasoid". But yea, they are White.

• All Nordish Caucasoids: Being Nordish automatically makes them "Caucasian" and not "Caucasoid". But yea, they are White.

• Germanics: They are definitely White

• Freja_se on Skadi term (Tall and dolicocephalic Nordics with blond hair, blue eyes and good teeth): These are White as well.

• Old American term (pale-skinned Anglo-Saxons only): They are certainly White, but the "only" part disqualifies this one.

Anyone with full Europid/Caucasian morphology + depigmentation being in the lower end of the spectrum. I don't really know what numeric designation to give it, but I know it when I see it. Okay, out of 1-10, I'd say 1-3 can qualify. Basically, if they can at least blend in in Southern Europe then they are White.

Any descendant from any ancestral Caucasian living space could potentially be White. This includes North Africa, The Near, Middle and Far East (if you don't know the difference between these terms you should look them up). The Middle/Near/Far East (for now on I will use Mid East for all 3 regions) and Europe share a not to distant relationship as can be seen clearly in mtDNA haplogroup distribution. This suggests what many have suspected for a long time; that the genetic substrate of the Mid East is the same as Europe, but due to hybridization, their has been a phenotypic divergence. I subscribe to the belief that if you were to visit the Mid East or even North Africa 3000 years ago and had not witnessed any particular cultural items or regional geography that could expose your location, you could mistaken yourself for being in Europe.

Nephilim
2010-01-10, 07:02
Any descendant from any ancestral Caucasian living space could potentially be White. This includes North Africa, The Near, Middle and Far East (if you don't know the difference between these terms you should look them up). The Middle/Near/Far East (for now on I will use Mid East for all 3 regions) and Europe share a not to distant relationship as can be seen clearly in mtDNA haplogroup distribution. This suggests what many have suspected for a long time; that the genetic substrate of the Mid East is the same as Europe, but due to hybridization, their has been a phenotypic divergence. I subscribe to the belief that if you were to visit the Mid East or even North Africa 3000 years ago and had not witnessed any particular cultural items or regional geography that could expose your location, you could mistaken yourself for being in Europe.


The Middle Easternerns don't look they way they do became of racial admixture. Its environmental adaptations. The Middle East 3000 years ago had different races such as the Arabid, Armeniod, the European types were not present but were then introduced either through trade, warfare or slavery. Their is though some racial admixture from non-Caucasians but for the most part this is very minor

The Northern Middle East where Turkey is, yes. For Arabia not at all or even North Africa, it would be stretch to say they looked like Europeans.

Arabian mtDNA are very different from European ones. If their found in Europe its probably do to slavery, conquest or migration.

Prophetess
2010-01-10, 07:25
I'm curious as to who voted "pale-skinned Anglo-Saxons only" LOL

And WHY? :o

Are there any people out there who don't actually consider groups like Poles and Lithuanians White?

:whoco:

Nephilim
2010-01-10, 07:31
I'm curious as to who voted "pale-skinned Anglo-Saxons only" LOL

And WHY? :o

Are there any people out there who don't actually consider groups like Poles and Lithuanians White?

:whoco:


Yes, their is. It depends on the ideology. Many belive White is exlusive term for those of Celtic, and Germanic ancestery. The others are mixed with Arabs and North Africans in the case of Southern Europeans, and Eastern Europeans are mixed with Turko-Mongols. In U.S only if your were of Anglo-Saxon descent you were seen as White lol, originaly, then it changed. Even the Irish were not seen as white pretty ridiclous concept.

White is usless term anways. Ironicaly it was used first by the Spanish in order to differ themselves from the Natives and African slaves.

Europeans are all relatives geneticaly. However their not the relatives of Middle Easterners, this why Jews greatly differ geneticaly from their European neighbours and host nations, their closer to Lebanese and Palestinians, even if they looked Nordic.

Stygian Cellarius
2010-01-10, 07:37
The Middle Easternerns don't look they way they do became of racial admixture. Its environmental adaptations. The Middle East 3000 years ago had different races such as the Arabid, Armeniod, the European types were not present but were then introduced either through trade, warfare or slavery. Their is though some racial admixture from non-Caucasians but for the most part this is very minor

The Northern Middle East where Turkey is, yes. For Arabia not at all or even North Africa, it would be stretch to say they looked like Europeans.

Arabian mtDNA are very different from European ones. If their found in Europe its probably do to slavery, conquest or migration.

I don't believe you and you don't know it was environmental adaptation for a fact. We don't even fully understand the mechanisms for it or how fast it can happen. You speak as if you had knowledge that even our leading scientists do not have. I take the possibility of acclimatization into account, but hybridization in itself can fully account for the phenotypic divergence I am referring to.

European types were present. Your definition of European type and mine are probably a bit different. To me, a depigmented Berber is a European type as there are dopplegangers from every ancestral Caucasiod living space that I mentioned.

Semitic people are not European types in the strict sense, but they are very close to it and would not look that out of place in Europe in their unmixed form. The same with Armenoids.

The admixture is very minor in some parts and great in others. You are a fine example of it being great in some parts. As far as admixture being minor, that's why I say some Mid Easterners qualify, because if hybridism was significant everywhere then no one there could qualify as White.

Polako
2010-01-10, 07:46
Eastern Europeans are mixed with Turko-Mongols.

I'd like to see you prove that.

Nephilim
2010-01-10, 07:55
I don't believe you and you don't know it was environmental adaptation for a fact. We don't even fully understand the mechanisms for it or how fast it can happen. You speak as if you had knowledge that even our leading scientists do not have. I take the possibility of acclimatization into account, but hybridization in itself can fully account for the phenotypic divergence I am referring to.

European types were present. Your definition of European type and mine are probably a bit different. To me, a depigmented Berber is a European type as there are dopplegangers from every ancestral Caucasiod living space that I mentioned.

Semitic people are not European types in the strict sense, but they are very close to it and would not look that out of place in Europe in their unmixed form. The same with Armenoids.

The admixture is very minor in some parts and great in others. You are a fine example of it being great in some parts. As far as admixture being minor, that's why I say some Mid Easterners qualify, because if hybridism was significant everywhere then no one there could qualify as White.

Yes but I don't think depigimented people would live in the harsh deserts of Arabia or even North Africa. Their not adopted at all to such climate. Science support this such environments are determental to Europeans climate wise, and especially if they were of Nordic stock. The hybridization theory, seems to be exaggerated as their is very minor levels of racial admixture.

Ofcourse I belive European types like Nordics, Alpines, and Meds. Berberids, Iranids, Arabids are not European types although their Europids. Asian Alpines have been hybridized with Mongol or Veddid elements thus thsi leaves them out of the European racial type, although originaly they did belong to it.

Actually the Semitic race its unmixed form is belived to have resembled the Bedouins. They for sure don't look European, although when they hybrize with Europeans, the childern with one generation can melt away, much faster than Asian or an African.

No the artificats of those people show Armeniod or Orientalid(Arabian) potraits and sculpture.

Have you seen my pics before to come to that conclusion, if so what would you say?

My dad looks very European, he has red hair and hazel eyes, geneticaly he would be closer to Jew than European, because they share the same genetic background being Semitic.

My mom looks like typical Bedouin, I took mostly from my mom

Arabia is not White however and never was. It was brown through out its history.

---------- Post added 2010-01-10 at 00:56 ----------


I'd like to see you prove that.

I did not say that read the post again:whoco:

Pallantides
2010-01-10, 08:18
Average unexposed skin color chart ^^

Although I disagree with some of the countries, particularly Asian ones, based on my own observation.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/adapt/images/map_of_skin_color_distribution.gif

Why are the people on the Kola Peninsula darker than the people around them?
It's the same on those hair and eye colour charts

Stygian Cellarius
2010-01-10, 08:57
Yes but I don't think depigimented people would live in the harsh deserts of Arabia or even North Africa. Their not adopted at all to such climate. Science support this such environments are determental to Europeans climate wise, and especially if they were of Nordic stock.

To suggest that depigmented people cannot survive in harsh climates or would chose to not live there is utter nonsense. Besides, The Middle East is not all harsh desert and thousands of years ago it was much more green and wooded. Also, Arabia is just one part of the Mid East. We could ignore it and it would make no difference to my previous argument.

The North African coast has a climate very similar to the Mediterranean coast of Europe.

How do you explain the Gaunches or autochthonous Azoreans? They are related to Berbers, spoke an Afro-Asiatic language very similar to Berber language and if my memory serves me correctly, genetic analysis of their remains showed they are basically Berbers that migrated to those Islands. They remained isolated for a long time unlike North African Berbers and were described as light complected, with fair hair etc.

This combined with many other examples of ancient Lybians, etc. depicted as being "fair", plus the modern frequency of other light traits beyond what random mutation could generate. How could you possibly believe depigmented people could not, or would not live in North Africa?

This is information that I know you have encountered before. It is legitimate information.


The hybridization theory, seems to be exaggerated as their is very minor levels of racial admixture.

Well "minor" is a relative term, but the Middle East is one of, if not the the oldest racial crossroad on Earth. Naturally, the admixture there will be great relative to elsewhere.


Ofcourse I belive European types like Nordics, Alpines, and Meds. Berberids, Iranids, Arabids are not European types although their Europids. Asian Alpines have been hybridized with Mongol or Veddid elements thus thsi leaves them out of the European racial type, although originaly they did belong to it.


Actually the Semitic race its unmixed form is belived to have resembled the Bedouins. They for sure don't look European, although when they hybrize with Europeans, the childern with one generation can melt away, much faster than Asian or an African.

What Bedouins are you referring to? The ones I have seen photos of were quite Caucasoid. We have known for a very long time what ancient Semitic people looked like and they certainly were not highly pigmented.


No the artificats of those people show Armeniod or Orientalid(Arabian) potraits and sculpture.

I'm not sure what you are responding to here.


Have you seen my pics before to come to that conclusion, if so what would you say?

Are you saying that I may have determined that admixture in the Middle East was great based off looking at your picture? I'm not sure what you are saying.


Arabia is not White however and never was. It was brown through out its history.

I doubt that, but I avoid speaking in absolutes when I wasn't there to witness it. I have even seen you claim that the original inhabitants were Australoid peoples. Which I myself also believe. This in itself is sufficient to explain an increase in the pigmentation of light complected Semitic peoples to the complexion we see today. Making acclimatisation superfluous from a logical point of view, not that it didn't happen to some degree.. Besides, as I said above, Arabia is only one part of the region I mentioned.

PowerPaw
2010-01-10, 11:51
I'd say all Euros (and their decendants) are white and some Middle Eastern people, but they're rather a minority.

Nephilim
2010-01-10, 17:09
To suggest that depigmented people cannot survive in harsh climates or would chose to not live there is utter nonsense. Besides, The Middle East is not all harsh desert and thousands of years ago it was much more green and wooded. Also, Arabia is just one part of the Mid East. We could ignore it and it would make no difference to my previous argument.

The North African coast has a climate very similar to the Mediterranean coast of Europe. Their many Med types their.

How do you explain the Gaunches or autochthonous Azoreans? They are related to Berbers, spoke an Afro-Asiatic language very similar to Berber language and if my memory serves me correctly, genetic analysis of their remains showed they are basically Berbers that migrated to those Islands. They remained isolated for a long time unlike North African Berbers and were described as light complected, with fair hair etc.

This combined with many other examples of ancient Lybians, etc. depicted as being "fair", plus the modern frequency of other light traits beyond what random mutation could generate. How could you possibly believe depigmented people could not, or would not live in North Africa?

This is information that I know you have encountered before. It is legitimate information.



Well "minor" is a relative term, but the Middle East is one of, if not the the oldest racial crossroad on Earth. Naturally, the admixture there will be great relative to elsewhere.





What Bedouins are you referring to? The ones I have seen photos of were quite Caucasoid. We have known for a very long time what ancient Semitic people looked like and they certainly were not highly pigmented.



I'm not sure what you are responding to here.



Are you saying that I may have determined that admixture in the Middle East was great based off looking at your picture? I'm not sure what you are saying.



I doubt that, but I avoid speaking in absolutes when I wasn't there to witness it. I have even seen you claim that the original inhabitants were Australoid peoples. Which I myself also believe. This in itself is sufficient to explain an increase in the pigmentation of light complected Semitic peoples to the complexion we see today. Making acclimatisation superfluous from a logical point of view, not that it didn't happen to some degree.. Besides, as I said above, Arabia is only one part of the region I mentioned.




I have heard of the Gunaches, it could be that they have been isolated, and kept their genetic purity. Yes their very close to Berbers in their genetics. However the Berbers in North Africa are dark skined often from olive and to light brown. Ofcourse North Africa has some Arab admxture, and even European admixture. But I have question do you belive than that Sicilians to have darkened, because of the Arab rule and invasion, rather than the climate of Sicily or South Europe in general?

True. Their areas were its the most mixed, but thats not usually the general rule.

All the Bedouins, their are Caucasoid but their heavily pigmented, their brown and even range to dark brown in skin color, but it often have redish color to it, However the mountin tribes in Arabia, are lighter, and taller compared to their Desert kinsmen. The same difference between Northen Italian and a Siclian. However it can be that ancient non-Caucasoid strain have lived in some the Desert population, but got outbred in the Mountin tribes.


Iam stating that their art works show that they did not have European racial type but rather Orientalid or Armeniod, in other words people create materials in their own image.

I see, Yes the original inhabitants of Arabia, were Australoids, and their genetics is only found in the maternal ancestery, and in some Bedouin tribes. The paternal line is mostly Semitic. The Semitic Caucasoid invaders, altered the racial type for Arabia, and changining into the modern Arabian types. The original langauges of Arabia are belived to have been of non-Semitic origins. This Australoid strain was then spread during the Arabian conquests of the 7th century A.D. This belived to be by several European geneticists. The Y-DNA J1e has its origins in the Transcaucasia or the Levant but it migrated southwards.

I did not deny their admixture in the Middle East, as I have and did acknowldged it, but iam doubting that European racial types to have been located their. However I stated their was present in the Northern regions of that part.

pinguin
2010-01-10, 17:14
I'd say all Euros (and their decendants) are white and some Middle Eastern people, but they're rather a minority.

Are you kidding. Large number of Euros are brown.

Anodyne
2010-01-10, 17:25
How do you explain the Gaunches or autochthonous Azoreans? They are related to Berbers, spoke an Afro-Asiatic language very similar to Berber language and if my memory serves me correctly, genetic analysis of their remains showed they are basically Berbers that migrated to those Islands. They remained isolated for a long time unlike North African Berbers and were described as light complected, with fair hair etc.

That the Gaunches were fair is an exaggeration. Darker types were noted as well. We tend to exaggerate the small differences when we meet groups that are similar to ourselves. Notice how the Canary islands don't have high rates of fair hair despite being a population descended substantially from Gaunches and they are particulary dark even for Southern European standards, IMO (I forget what Coon or any other anthropologist says but I don't have the time now to check).

There is probably a similar case with the Libyans. When confronted with a population that looks somewhat similar but you want to differentiate between them and yourselves, you look at what sticks out. They portray Semtics as yellow, for example.

shofet
2010-01-10, 18:44
It's like you make a speculative thesis but at the same time there are massive inconsistencies in what you say.



I don't believe you and you don't know it was environmental adaptation for a fact. We don't even fully understand the mechanisms for it or how fast it can happen. You speak as if you had knowledge that even our leading scientists do not have. I take the possibility of acclimatization into account, but hybridization in itself can fully account for the phenotypic divergence I am referring to.

So a span of 20000-40000 years is not enough to cause any divergence mutations to form branches? :whoco:, an entire range of species have lived , thrived and experienced demise with a span that was much shorter. Evolution is constant for most species. And no usually only very recent heavy admixture is capable and sufficient for a divergence effect from a traditional lineage, and not in all cases. If we take into account what you say, then a good deal of you're white compatriots who have obtained none-european lineages should have African or Asian characteristics, and darker looks, which they don't.




European types were present. Your definition of European type and mine are probably a bit different. To me, a depigmented Berber is a European type as there are dopplegangers from every ancestral Caucasoid living space that I mentioned.
Depigmentation can be caused absolutely anywhere and in some cases due to abnormalities in inheritance selection. You can find albino Africans, light-skinned north-east Asians/central Asians, east-Siberians. Depigmentation and recessive genes are far from exclusive.




Semitic people are not European types in the strict sense, but they are very close to it and would not look that out of place in Europe in their unmixed form. The same with Armenoids.
Which is proof enough to debunk you're entire theory that near-east and rest of the Caucasoid world has enough basis to be differentiated from "light-pigmentation dominant type" theory. Since "Semites" belong to the same inheritance group. It's a myth that alot of euro-centric historians cherish(and pull out of their ass), that "European-minded and looking" groups existed along all historically important sites in north-Africa/Greater-ME, in order to consolidate their position on the pedestal of the globe.




The admixture is very minor in some parts and great in others. You are a fine example of it being great in some parts. As far as admixture being minor, that's why I say some Mid Easterners qualify, because if hybridism was significant everywhere then no one there could qualify as White.
No evidence whatsoever or logical lead to pinpoint you're speculation. You refuse to believe that native mid-easterners are capable of producing "European-like" phenotypes without staking out a theory-premise which is highly unlikely and unrealistic. The possibility that there are some "white" looking individuals present in the mid-east without a form of connection to europe is just an impossible occurrence to you? is it?.

aeon
2010-01-10, 19:01
I'd like to see you prove that.

He said, " Many believe that..."

Stygian Cellarius
2010-01-10, 19:56
That the Gaunches were fair is an exaggeration. Darker types were noted as well. We tend to exaggerate the small differences when we meet groups that are similar to ourselves.

This is what I think happens when one group describes another:
Observer from group A observes group B.
Observer describes group B with his own group (group A) as a reference point for all comparison.
Individual from group C reads the observers descriptions of group A, with his group (group C) as a reference point for all comparison of relative terms, viz. light, dark, tall, short, etc.

That misalignment of reference groups is sufficient enough to cause error even without exaggeration as a variable.

It is all relative. No doubt. But even if we take exaggeration into account. If that difference was darker than the Spaniards, it would have been exaggerated in that direction. If that difference was lighter - in the lighter direction. In my book, if the Gaunches had a higher frequency of light features compared to Spaniards (who themselves are not unacquainted with light features), which they must of if it was exaggerated in that direction, that is sufficient to qualify as a fair population. It doesn't take many dark elements to submerge blondism. Even a 20% rate is high if in your population it is 5-10%. But from every source I have come into contact with in regards to the original appearance of the Gaunches. All have corroberated them being light complected. I have heard nothing to the contrary. That doesn't mean they looked like swedes, but I don't think comparing their complexion to say, the Flemish, who I have more brunettes than blondes (if I'm not mistaken), would be an exaggeration. The word "exaggeration" is a tricky one. If there was an unrealistic mangification of their light features, I have not detected it. All sources I had contact with seemed quite reasonable.


Notice how the Canary islands don't have high rates of fair hair despite being a population descended substantially from Gaunches and the Canary Islanders are particulary dark even for Southern European standards. IMO (I forget what Coon or any other anthropologist says but I don't have the timenow to check).

From what I have seen. They look like what you would expect, if say, you mixed Spaniards with The Flemish. The male population of The Canary Islands is Spanish and the female populations - aboriginal Gaunches.

Coon (http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-XI14.htm) says nothing to the contrary from what I have said.

PowerPaw
2010-01-10, 19:58
Are you kidding. Large number of Euros are brown.

Que? I don't call someone with a summertan a "brown" person. A brown person is like a Mestizo.

bleck
2010-01-10, 20:21
That might be true. However thats because Americans only see hair/ eye color, but still to the trained eye you can tell they have something that directly of Near Eastern origins.

Their eye shape is not European or the nose.

Americans frankly think a depigmented Metis to be White.

Example the Afghans look like this mixed race person

Iraqi Arab/ Danish mixture

http://i47.tinypic.com/6zpv0y.jpg

Afghans who? If we're talking about Pashtuns they are Irano - Afghan, an idiotic German anthropologist term for Iranid-NordIndid mixed groups.

Fully NordIndid Pashtuns are pure Aryans. Simple as that. There are no East Meds in Afghanistan.

---------- Post added 2010-01-11 at 04:39 ----------

I don't consider olive skinned Southern Europeans as Whites although I consider them Aryan. They can easily fit in Pakistan and North West India.

shofet
2010-01-10, 20:51
Afghans who? If we're talking about Pashtuns they are Irano - Afghan, an idiotic German anthropologist term for Iranid-NordIndid mixed groups.

Fully NordIndid Pashtuns are pure Aryans. Simple as that. There are no East Meds in Afghanistan.
[/COLOR]I don't consider olive skinned Southern Europeans as Whites although I consider them Aryan. They can easily fit in Pakistan and North West India.

there are no such thing as Iranid-nordindid mixes or iranids and nordindids. Afghans hereby surpass any taxonomy drivel conceived by physical anthropologists of the 194th decade of modern time line.

So please refrain from making any ridicules statements concerning my people. Who you are clueless about.

bleck
2010-01-10, 21:07
there are no such thing as Iranid-nordindid mixes or iranids and nordindids. Afghans hereby surpass any taxonomy drivel conceived by physical anthropologists of the 194th decade of modern time line.

So please refrain from making any ridicules statements concerning my people. Who you are clueless about.

Correct the Pashtuns belong to the Pashtoonid race and they all carry the Pashtoonid ydna marker.:unsure:

European
2010-01-10, 21:19
The who'S white question seems to be a never ending topic for some. The definition seems to narrow down, the more racist your views are. With the most being the "nordicist" who would even exclude Bavarians, Irish and Russians ;)

The definitions of "Whiteness" differ alot: Since the quantitive decline of the White Population and some peoples fears of total extinction, White supremacists groups also have changed the preconditions of being a member of i.e the KKK.

In the early 20th Century you had to be Protestant and of Germanic or Anglo Saxon stock to be accepted as a KKK member... Nowdays the majority of American Wns seem to be Sicilians, Russians and Greeks :lol::lol::lol:


It won't be long until the KKK will have their first Sub Saharan Grand Dragon in their ranks .... ;)

shofet
2010-01-10, 21:43
How do you know what typical Scottish ranges are? :confused:

Through extensive experience with british isle people. Swarthy types are extremely uncommon(even though dark hair is found here and there), and usually they are not fully scottish.

Stygian Cellarius
2010-01-11, 02:12
I have heard of the Gunaches, it could be that they have been isolated, and kept their genetic purity. Yes their very close to Berbers in their genetics. However the Berbers in North Africa are dark skined often from olive and to light brown. Ofcourse North Africa has some Arab admxture, and even European admixture. But I have question do you belive than that Sicilians to have darkened, because of the Arab rule and invasion, rather than the climate of Sicily or South Europe in general?

As for the Gaunches:
It would be quite reasonable to suspect that North African Berbers and groups closely related, used to look like the Gaunches. Even though the Gaunches situation provides ideal study conditions, it is not the only evidence we have that North African's more closely resemble Europeans the further back in time we go. Coon's fascination with the Riff's being another great example. The idea that they were "Whiter" long ago does make sense.

As for Sicily:
I believe that there was some element introduced, independent of acclimatisation, that contributed to the darker complexion of Sicilians. Classical representations of Sicilians depicted in art does not agree with their appearance now. Unless the mechanisms of climatic adaptation can employ themselves within a much shorter time span than we think. That doesn't seem likely as a reasonable explanation. 2000 years is not a long time. Just think, a person can live to be 100. 2000 years is just 20 of those lifetimes. Hardly seems long enough to account for the change in appearance. But hey, who knows? Perhaps the mechanics of acclimatisation work faster than we thought.


True. Their areas were its the most mixed, but thats not usually the general rule.

The only region that could be more mixed than the Mid East is Central Asia. Excluding the new world. Just one peek at Global Y-Haplogroup pie charts can reveal that. Those Pie charts aren't perfect, but they do not conflict with the historical racial history of the Mid East.

Define what you mean by mixed? Perhaps our understanding of what this means is different.


All the Bedouins, their are Caucasoid but their heavily pigmented, their brown and even range to dark brown in skin color, but it often have redish color to it, However the mountin tribes in Arabia, are lighter, and taller compared to their Desert kinsmen. The same difference between Northen Italian and a Siclian. However it can be that ancient non-Caucasoid strain have lived in some the Desert population, but got outbred in the Mountin tribes.

There are many possibilities. That is all that anything is. No certainties. The possibility that seems the most likely to me, is that an originally Northern Semitic peoples moved into Arabia and mixed with the Australoid Natives. It does successfully explain what is observed. Not that nothing else can explain it.


Iam stating that their art works show that they did not have European racial type but rather Orientalid or Armeniod, in other words people create materials in their own image.

I see, Yes the original inhabitants of Arabia, were Australoids, and their genetics is only found in the maternal ancestery, and in some Bedouin tribes. The paternal line is mostly Semitic. The Semitic Caucasoid invaders, altered the racial type for Arabia, and changining into the modern Arabian types. The original langauges of Arabia are belived to have been of non-Semitic origins. This Australoid strain was then spread during the Arabian conquests of the 7th century A.D. This belived to be by several European geneticists. The Y-DNA J1e has its origins in the Transcaucasia or the Levant but it migrated southwards.

I did not deny their admixture in the Middle East, as I have and did acknowldged it, but iam doubting that European racial types to have been located their. However I stated their was present in the Northern regions of that part.

I think a part of the problem of our disagreement is how we are defining our terms. Let's stop using the term "European-Type", shall we? My definition of this is very broad. They don't even necessarily have to be depigmented, I just think that they were. That doesn't necessarily mean blond hair and light eyes either. But a Caucasian-type that occupied from Europe to Siberia, the Middle East and North Africa. All Caucasian-types can be traced back to a common origin. From that point until about the dawn of civilization, including all divergent variants, excluding hybrids unless they mixed with other unmixed Caucasian-types. I think that pretty much sums it up and is the most accurate description I have said so far.

Anodyne
2010-01-11, 02:43
As for Sicily:
I believe that there was some element introduced, independent of acclimatisation, that contributed to the darker complexion of Sicilians. Classical representations of Sicilians depicted in art does not agree with their appearance now. Unless the mechanisms of climatic adaptation can employ themselves within a much shorter time span than we think. That doesn't seem likely as a reasonable explanation. 2000 years is not a long time. Just think, a person can live to be 100. 2000 years is just 20 of those lifetimes. Hardly seems long enough to account for the change in appearance. But hey, who knows? Perhaps the mechanics of acclimatisation work faster than we thought.

What would that element be? I don't understand this assumption that depigmentation was the norm across all of Europe and other regions. It's certainly a new view except for certain typesof a different era.

The Greeks are pretty swarthy but Coon and others came to the conclusion that these were the descendants of the Ancient Greeks. They too looked at busts (among other things). I don't see why the case is different for Sicilians who don't have phenotypes foreign to Europe. Romans also considered Iberians to be swarthy. The Romans had troops in Iberia in the 3rd century B.C. Why would the Iberians be swarthy and the Sicilians not?


*With reagrds to the Gauches: your link to Coon didn't work but I looked it up online and Coon notes there were other types living on the islands. It was a heterogeneous population. Your theory doesn't work if a depigmented population was just one physical type among others that were pigmented. This would show that a pigmented population was also present in N. Africa prior to whatever drew these people to the islands and into isolation.

ethioboy
2010-01-11, 03:19
I don't believe you and you don't know it was environmental adaptation for a fact. We don't even fully understand the mechanisms for it or how fast it can happen. You speak as if you had knowledge that even our leading scientists do not have. I take the possibility of acclimatization into account, but hybridization in itself can fully account for the phenotypic divergence I am referring to.

European types were present. Your definition of European type and mine are probably a bit different. To me, a depigmented Berber is a European type as there are dopplegangers from every ancestral Caucasiod living space that I mentioned.

Semitic people are not European types in the strict sense, but they are very close to it and would not look that out of place in Europe in their unmixed form. The same with Armenoids.

The admixture is very minor in some parts and great in others. You are a fine example of it being great in some parts. As far as admixture being minor, that's why I say some Mid Easterners qualify, because if hybridism was significant everywhere then no one there could qualify as White.
Genetic evidence is present
(ignore the southern drag towards sub saharan africa (where I am guessing there is some influence present within the last 6000 or so years) (probaly between 15-30% admix).

So then they are the same distance from africa (I am talking about the ones that do not drag towards africa..

As you can see they do cluster on the opposite side of the plane. Im guessing due to localized mutations. Even mid east phenotypes differ. If you take a syrian or turk, even depigmented they look distinguishable..

pinguin
2010-01-11, 03:27
Que? I don't call someone with a summertan a "brown" person. A brown person is like a Mestizo.

A person that is not PINK is brown. :whoco:

EliasAlucard
2010-01-11, 04:18
You misunderstand, I'm not claiming my brother is an example of something non-white, I'm using him as an example of someone who is as white as it gets. But it's interesting you consider him pale-skinned and a Pashtun does not.Big deal wether i am a pashto or not, i am not a cultural representitive. You're brother doesn't fall in within typical scottish ranges, which is the point.How do you know that for sure? I'm sharing genome profile with an Irish person. When I look at where he clusters on the PCA plot, he's right next to other northern Europeans and he's definitely in the northern European cluster, but he's swarthier than I am.

Saying her brother doesn't fall within the typical Scottish range based on your stereotypes of what Scottish people should look like is your own bias. Contrary to popular belief, far from all northern Europeans look like Kalles Kaviar:

405

No one questions the whiteness of the Kalle's Kaviar posterboy. But it's a bit absurd when whites and non-whites alike, hold to the belief that you have to look like Kalles Kaviar in order to be white. By doing that, you not only deny the genetic variation of white people, you also minimise white people to an extreme minority of which 95% of most Europeans wouldn't qualify for inclusion as "white people".

Moreover, white people have never been fully "white", so to say. These genes are recessive and they never dominated throughout all of Europe's population. So if you see a swarthy northern European, it doesn't have to mean he has Jewish admixture or anything like that. He could simply be one of those Europeans who didn't get naturally/sexually selected with the most recessive genotypes.

Irish people (and other Celtics) are by the way, very far out from Asia and Africa in terms of genetic distance, regardless of if they're swarthy or not. Genetic distance to non-white races doesn't rely on a few recessive pigmentation markers.
By those criterion definitions very few could pass both.Doesn't matter. Whiteness definition shouldn't rely on quantity, but rather, on quality and if you have the right genes and lack admixture from other, non-white races.
As many caucasoid in most diaspora's to some degree have had none-Caucasoid ancestor's.So? They aren't Caucasian, they are Caucasoid. More specifically, they are Europoid but not Europid. They are not Europid because they have admixture from non-Europid races.
One cannot ensure a continuum of similar ancestors unless they have a form of isolatory factor like living on a isle or some geographical location that makes approximation to foreigners very unlikely.If you have no admixture within the last five generations, you are racially pure. It doesn't matter if you had a Negroid ancestor 20 generations ago; it's not significant enough to count in your pedigree lineage as admixture because it's been more or less fully bred out.
The SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 business is nothing more then mere bull.No it's not. The entire reason why you see people you distinguish as white, is because of these skin colour genes and their specific mutations that code for white skin colour. They reach their fixation in Europe, specifically, northern Europe, but they also exist in southern Europe and to a lesser extent, the Middle East.
Any population can have any mutation provided there is an external factor, which is why the diversity of selection is very high in every population. Northern asians versus oceanians and melanesians. Indians versus middle-easterners and europeans, etc etc. The two criterions are too limited and narrowly scoped to include only a few select inviduals who have no geographical ancestors that are were not mixed.It doesn't work like that. North-east Asians have different skin mutations which is why their skin colour isn't as pale as European skin colour.
Well, first of all, I think you should have used "Caucasian" for some instead of "Caucasoid". By definition, the -oid suffix indicates a similarity or resemblance to, but not the same as (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-oid) something and in this case, a similarity or resemblance to, but not the same as Caucasians. If it is similar or resembles some-thing, then it is not that some-thing. A Planetoid is not, and can never be, a Planet. A Factoid is not, and can never be, a Fact. Therefore making most of your selection choices non-Caucasian by default. With the exception of the last three.

• All Caucasoids: No, because of the above. Example; some Ethiopian's are Caucasoid.

• Caucasoids and Castizos: Castizo's are Caucasoids by definition, but they are not Caucasians [only] and so they are not White. Although, All Castizo's are Caucasoid, but not all Caucasoids are Castizo's. :lol:

• Pale-skinned Caucasoids: Again, this implies there are non-Caucasian features in this group. For example; a tribe of light-skinned Asian/Europid hybrids could qualify.

• Central Nordish Caucasoids: Being Nordish automatically makes them "Caucasian" and not "Caucasoid". But yea, they are White.

• All Nordish Caucasoids: Being Nordish automatically makes them "Caucasian" and not "Caucasoid". But yea, they are White.

• Germanics: They are definitely White

• Freja_se on Skadi term (Tall and dolicocephalic Nordics with blond hair, blue eyes and good teeth): These are White as well.

• Old American term (pale-skinned Anglo-Saxons only): They are certainly White, but the "only" part disqualifies this one.

Anyone with full Europid/Caucasian morphology + depigmentation being in the lower end of the spectrum. I don't really know what numeric designation to give it, but I know it when I see it. Okay, out of 1-10, I'd say 1-3 can qualify. Basically, if they can at least blend in in Southern Europe then they are White.

Any descendant from any ancestral Caucasian living space could potentially be White. This includes North Africa, The Near, Middle and Far East (if you don't know the difference between these terms you should look them up). The Middle/Near/Far East (for now on I will use Mid East for all 3 regions) and Europe share a not to distant relationship as can be seen clearly in mtDNA haplogroup distribution. This suggests what many have suspected for a long time; that the genetic substrate of the Mid East is the same as Europe, but due to hybridization, their has been a phenotypic divergence. I subscribe to the belief that if you were to visit the Mid East or even North Africa 3000 years ago and had not witnessed any particular cultural items or regional geography that could expose your location, you could mistaken yourself for being in Europe.Excellent post, and I agree, one should distinguish between "Caucasian" and "Caucasoid".

100% Caucasian + pale skin = white. Of course, it goes without saying, pale skin does rely on the SNP genotype mutations of SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. If you are fully Caucasian however, you will most likely have those specific genotypes and alleles that code for white skin. So that's why voting on "pale skinned Caucasoids" is a bit redundant, because being fully Caucasian requires you to have pale skin.

There are those who would raise an objection to the use of Caucasian, being of the opinion that it should be limited to the Caucasus. I fully understand their concern about this, it's a question of ethnic identity. On the other hand, if we would substitute Caucasian with European, some would say it's wrong to call southern Europeans, European, because they are mixed with Berbers or whatever, and that only Scandinavians should be called Europeans, and so on and so forth. What people forget though, is that Europa was originally a Phoenician princess.

So there's no neutral term in all this, because racial terms always get politicised sooner or later.

Nephilim
2010-01-11, 04:49
As for the Gaunches:
It would be quite reasonable to suspect that North African Berbers and groups closely related, used to look like the Gaunches. Even though the Gaunches situation provides ideal study conditions, it is not the only evidence we have that North African's more closely resemble Europeans the further back in time we go. Coon's fascination with the Riff's being another great example. The idea that they were "Whiter" long ago does make sense.

As for Sicily:
I believe that there was some element introduced, independent of acclimatisation, that contributed to the darker complexion of Sicilians. Classical representations of Sicilians depicted in art does not agree with their appearance now. Unless the mechanisms of climatic adaptation can employ themselves within a much shorter time span than we think. That doesn't seem likely as a reasonable explanation. 2000 years is not a long time. Just think, a person can live to be 100. 2000 years is just 20 of those lifetimes. Hardly seems long enough to account for the change in appearance. But hey, who knows? Perhaps the mechanics of acclimatisation work faster than we thought.



The only region that could be more mixed than the Mid East is Central Asia. Excluding the new world. Just one peek at Global Y-Haplogroup pie charts can reveal that. Those Pie charts aren't perfect, but they do not conflict with the historical racial history of the Mid East.

Define what you mean by mixed? Perhaps our understanding of what this means is different.



There are many possibilities. That is all that anything is. No certainties. The possibility that seems the most likely to me, is that an originally Northern Semitic peoples moved into Arabia and mixed with the Australoid Natives. It does successfully explain what is observed. Not that nothing else can explain it.



I think a part of the problem of our disagreement is how we are defining our terms. Let's stop using the term "European-Type", shall we? My definition of this is very broad. They don't even necessarily have to be depigmented, I just think that they were. That doesn't necessarily mean blond hair and light eyes either. But a Caucasian-type that occupied from Europe to Siberia, the Middle East and North Africa. All Caucasian-types can be traced back to a common origin. From that point until about the dawn of civilization, including all divergent variants, excluding hybrids unless they mixed with other unmixed Caucasian-types. I think that pretty much sums it up and is the most accurate description I have said so far.


I see, very intersting indeed. Yes the Riffians are known to be the blondest people in North Africa, and have great frequency of light hair and eyes. As they did not mix with the Arab invaders or the Sub-Saharan slaves. The Arab and Sub-Saharan admixture in North Africa is very minor. As most of the paternal line is mostly of native Berber stock, however the maternal line comes from various different sources.

Although two warlike nomadic Arabian tribes the Banu Hilal and Banu Salyam, whom the Zirid Berbers launched upon North Africa, whom according to Ibn Khaldun they ravaged the areas, and destroyed the agricultural civilization, and reverted into nomadism. Those two tribes mostly settled in Tunsia, and Libya, and then they deposed of the Zirid Berbers, and took control, and thus Libya and Tunisa has more Arabd admixture than rest of North Africa, and this seems to be supported by genetics unlike Algeria or Morocco.

I see, its true, that would seem to be reasonable explantion. True most of the original Sicilian stock was similar to the Romans. Sicily has shown to have Arab and North African admixture, and recent genetics seem to support their is higher Arab admixture than North African paternal lines, as compared to Iberia which has more of North African admixture. Although the original elite was of Yemenite stock.

I agree, in Central Asia, their is Veddid, Mongoloid, and Caucasoid elements, at times their is even Negroid elements, especially in the Makaran region, which is Central/South Asia.

By being mixed, I mean showing siginifcant non-Caucasoid admixture.

Arabia was indeed inhabitants by Australoids, who are the second group to have come out of Africa, and then later migrated into India. Then wave of Caucasoid Semites seem to have invaded the area, and introducing their male Y-DNA into as they intermarried with the local women. Australoid admixture is present in Arabia from South to the even the farest Northen areas of the land, and it seems to be present in Some Bedouins, as they do show, vistages of their ancient past.

I see, yes, so you include all Caucasoids into one categeroy as long as they don't have siginifcant admixture, even if they differ slightly from the European types. Yes in the Levant and Turkey, their many of those types, and even in North Africa. But in Arabia their is not at all, and history shows that Arabia, as brown have been its norm. This why even when during their conquests, they were often distingushed by their brown skin color, and relatively short height. The Persians often mentioned the dark savages, as they were not fond of the Arabians, as their is conintinual rivarly between the Arabians and the Persians, which has now been symbolized by the recent Iraq-Iran war.

Aleksei
2010-01-11, 13:57
Pure European caucasoids, castizos and octoroons.

windie
2010-01-11, 14:29
People of European ancestry and self identified people of majority European ancestry with pale skin. Quite a few North Africans are white since they can have brunette and blond hair and pale skin. I hear some people say some Russians Swedes and Finns have mongoloid blood so they are not truly European. I consider them Europeans if they are predominantly European. Since they range from blond blue eyed type to brunette brown eyed. And you can find mongoloid and negroid genes in some other European populations who don't look as Caucasian.

Stygian Cellarius
2010-01-12, 00:53
What would that element be?

Don't know for sure, it's very hard to say and I'm not so sure it was due to Arab rule. The thing about history is that not all of it is documented. Especially gradual events such as a steady trickle of North African immigrants. We want to find a grand historical event or a hint uncovered in the annals of the Great Republic, but that is not always the case. Humans are always on the move and the Mediterranean has been a history of perpetual gene-flow for a very long time.


I don't understand this assumption that depigmentation was the norm across all of Europe and other regions. It's certainly a new view except for certain types of a different era.

Well, I need to know what you mean by "depigmentation". I'm well aware of Black-haired people, like the Minoans who lived long the Southern European Coast and probably the entire length of it, but I wouldn't call them "pigmented". It seems they were light skinned as well. However, I've seen enough evidence to believe that Blonde/Brunette pre-Indo-Europeans also lived in Southern Europe before the arrival of the IE's.

Anyways, I have quite a few theories about depigmentation and none of them I believe. Actually, I believe very little of what I say and I believe less of what anyone else says.

For example: I have a pretty good argument that proposes depigmentation would of had to of occured before H. sapiens sapiens appeared due to culture replacing physical adaptation. With culture, we have the ability to circumvent all negative environmental pressures via thought, obviating physical adaptation.

I also kinda like the one that proposed depigmentation occured around 40k yrs ago. But that new theory, of a depigmentation event circa 5000 years ago? I don't think so. I'm trying to figure out how that mutation event wouldn't get swallowed back up into the darker pigmented gene pool after one generation.

All these theories depend on one thing; the speed of climatic adaptation. And that we do not know. Not that I've googled it in awhile. Maybe there's been some breakthrough on that? (I don't Google during my posts either, I feel like that's cheating)


The Greeks are pretty swarthy but Coon and others came to the conclusion that these were the descendants of the Ancient Greeks. They too looked at busts (among other things).

They are the descendants. What is the alternative? That they left? They were all killed? ...I know what you mean.


I don't see why the case is different for Sicilians who don't have phenotypes foreign to Europe. Romans also considered Iberians to be swarthy. The Romans had troops in Iberia in the 3rd century B.C. Why would the Iberians be swarthy and the Sicilians not?

Do a search on "Roman mosaic Sicily". Any art that preserves its coloring well. I had a real hard time finding swarthy people, not to mention even black haired people. That's not what they look like now. Something changed. (I would post the pictures, but I hate when people cherry pick images that support their point of view)

A good deal of Sicilians don't look foreign to Europe, but some do. Those "some" are what I would be talking about. I've been to Sicily. My mother married a full-blooded Sicilian. I am very familiar with what they can look like and there is little doubt in my mind that there is an element foreign to Europe present. I've also been to Greece (6 times) and am familiar with them as well. I can't recall seeing anyone in Greece with phenotypic parallels to those "some" I seen in Sicily. Not that I don't believe there was some geneflow from Turkey and the Levant.

But hey, I would love to be proven wrong. I'd much rather be wrong.

As far as Greece is concerned:
Indo-Europeans (relative high frequency of fair complection in hair/eyes/skin) + Pelasgians (fair in skin, but dark hair) + minor geneflow from Turkey (wild card) + 2500 years of minor random Mediterranean gene-flow is sufficient to explain the Modern Greek complexion.


*With reagrds to the Gauches: your link to Coon didn't work but I looked it up online and Coon notes there were other types living on the islands. It was a heterogeneous population. Your theory doesn't work if a depigmented population was just one physical type among others that were pigmented. This would show that a pigmented population was also present in N. Africa prior to whatever drew these people to the islands and into isolation.

I never said it wasn't, or could not be heterogeneous. I'm not even sure what theory of mine you're talking about. There was a light haired element in the Gaunches. If there was then there also was in North Africa before that element was submerged. I mentioned that as a response to Nephilim's suggestion that fair complected people could not or would not live in a North African climate. The Gaunches were an amalgamation of multiple Caucasian types with a surprisingly high frequency of fair pigmentation. So are the British. What does that disprove about anything I said? Maybe you are seeing something that I am missing or there is some misunderstanding, but if you see a logical error please let me know exactly where it is and I will fix it. I care little about "being right". I just want to have the best approximation of the truth.

PowerPaw
2010-01-12, 01:13
A person that is not PINK is brown. :whoco:

Very few people are actually PINK, maybe some redheads... But anyway, so you consider a Swede who's tanned not being white?

Inquiring Mind
2010-01-12, 02:28
Very few people are actually PINK, maybe some redheads... But anyway, so you consider a Swede who's tanned not being white?

if he has a natural/born tann than he is not white, if he is tanned from the sun than he is white

Anodyne
2010-01-12, 03:27
Don't know for sure, it's very hard to say and I'm not so sure it was due to Arab rule. The thing about history is that not all of it is documented. Especially gradual events such as a steady trickle of North African immigrants.

The effect of North Africa influence on Sicily has beem minimal. Another poster posted a link to the source in the Berber influence into Southern European thread. Arab influence isn't an issue, either.


Well, I need to know what you mean by "depigmentation".

What most people refer to as fair skin.


I'm well aware of Black-haired people, like the Minoans who lived long the Southern European Coast and probably the entire length of it, but I wouldn't call them "pigmented".

I've seen very few people with fair skin and black hair. Often it looks odd. It's probably odd to me because I rarely see it. Dark brown is a different matter. I think you put too much emphasis on artwork. I've seen them painted as brown and seen them painted as light. Either one doesn't negate the other. An elite population doesn't work out in the sun. For example, Arabs who trade, (in whatever they call them. It starts with the letter B., whatever) tend to be lighter than Arabs who spend a great deal of time out doors. My uncle during the winter is light (not as light as a northern European) and during the summer he's dark because he works construction.


It seems they were light skinned as well. However, I've seen enough evidence to believe that Blonde/Brunette pre-Indo-Europeans also lived in Southern Europe before the arrival of the IE's.

Blondism isn't unknown among Mediterranean types.


Anyways, I have quite a few theories about depigmentation and none of them I believe. Actually, I believe very little of what I say and I believe less of what anyone else says.

For example: I have a pretty good argument that proposes depigmentation would of had to of occured before H. sapiens sapiens appeared due to culture replacing physical adaptation. With culture, we have the ability to circumvent all negative environmental pressures via thought, obviating physical adaptation.

I also kinda like the one that proposed depigmentation occured around 40k yrs ago. But that new theory, of a depigmentation event circa 5000 years ago? I don't think so. I'm trying to figure out how that mutation event wouldn't get swallowed back up into the darker pigmented gene pool after one generation.

All these theories depend on one thing; the speed of climatic adaptation. And that we do not know. Not that I've googled it in awhile. Maybe there's been some breakthrough on that? (I don't Google during my posts either, I feel like that's cheating)

I just believe in sexual selection. It seems reasonable to me.


They are the descendants. What is the alternative? That they left? They were all killed? ...I know what you mean.

The alternative is the usual argument you find online. That the real Greeks were submerged by a darker foreign element. There's a host of anthropologists who state otherwise. They argue continuity.


Do a search on "Roman mosaic Sicily". Any art that preserves its coloring well. I had a real hard time finding swarthy people, not to mention even black haired people. That's not what they look like now. Something changed. (I would post the pictures, but I hate when people cherry pick images that support their point of view)

I sort fo dealt with this but I must point out another possibiity. This is another assumption of mine but certainly not irrational. I take note that certain types may be held in greater esteem. Art isn't a complete representation of reality. It often represents the ideal. Light features tend to be held in higher regard (sexual selection again). But then again I don't know enough if this is the case here. No one really does. It's all speculation.

The best way to see if the Sicilian population has changed is to find human remains and run some tests. That's the only nugget I walked away with from the "Scythian wars" at this forum. Much easier than it sounds, I'm sure.


A good deal of Sicilians don't look foreign to Europe, but some do. Those "some" are what I would be talking about. I've been to Sicily. My mother married a full-blooded Sicilian. I am very familiar with what they can look like and there is little doubt in my mind that there is an element foreign to Europe present. I've also been to Greece (6 times) and am familiar with them as well. I can't recall seeing anyone in Greece with phenotypic parallels to those "some" I seen in Sicily. Not that I don't believe there was some geneflow from Turkey and the Levant.

Southern Italians are distinct from other southern Europeans because of a coarse Mediterreanean type. It's more apparent there than anywhere. I suspect this is what gets your attention. There is also an Armenoid influence, supposely. I can't see what other element could possibly modify the population consisering what we know of Arab and N. African influence unless it's a slave population that was used in the island brought in from elsewhere. That's one argument I heard regarding Italy. There's an argument against but I don't recall the specifics. Something about a high death rate among slaves. But that could be a possibility if you are correct. Although this would contradict the physical anthropology. But what would answer this question is to see who Sicilains cluster towards. But then again southern Europeans seem to lean towards the near east because of the Neolithic expansion, if I recall correctly.


But hey, I would love to be proven wrong. I'd much rather be wrong.

This not a subject where anyone is going to be proven wrong because it's all speculative on both sides. What is at question is which is the most reasonable.


As far as Greece is concerned:
Indo-Europeans (relative high frequency of fair complection in hair/eyes/skin) + Pelasgians (fair in skin, but dark hair) + minor geneflow from Turkey (wild card) + 2500 years of minor random Mediterranean gene-flow is sufficient to explain the Modern Greek complexion.

I don't see how that would explain modern Greek complexion. Western Turks are not of a different stock than Greeks, and I don't see why the Levant, outside of the neolithic expansion, would have such a gradual influence. Normally I just refer to Aristotle's comparisons between the Greeks, the people from the north and the people from the south (Egyptians, Ethiopians).


I never said it wasn't, or could not be heterogeneous. I'm not even sure what theory of mine you're talking about. There was a light haired element in the Gaunches. If there was then there also was in North Africa before that element was submerged.

It's not evidence that the element was submerged. It's evidence that such an element existed. It could be just a group that developed in isolation. I just have a hard time believing that fair features was the norm and they were then submerged by a darker group. Where did this other group come from? Riff Berbers don't have Y or mtdna foreign to other Moroccans.

The only substantial change in North West Africa is the Negroid admixture from the slave trade (which is around 12% and depending on the areas. Some having a greater influence and some having little. Even the Riff Berbers have some Negroid admixture) but it could argue the population already had a slight Negroid influence long before the slave trade. And before we say that this may be the element that modified the population we can point to Iberia again, which, as pointed out before, was noted by Romans to have a population that was swarthy and whose minimal Negroid input could hardly change the population. If the Negroid influence was strong among the Berbers by the middle ages then the Negroid input in Iberia would be greater.

There is the Arab influence among Moroccans also, of course. I haven't forgotten about them but how much of an influene where they?


I mentioned that as a response to Nephilim's suggestion that fair complected people could not or would not live in a North African climate. The Gaunches were an amalgamation of multiple Caucasian types with a surprisingly high frequency of fair pigmentation. So are the British. What does that disprove about anything I said?

It's how you stated it. You stated they were a fair population, and that they kept their true racial character by being isolated (not your own words but something like that. Too tired to go back and quote exacty). This was suspect. Your claim about Canary Islanders looking like a cross between Iberians and Flemings seems odd to me as well. Coon seems to be odds with you on that as well. Normally people find something "off" about Canary Islanders (generally speaking). My parents have the Canary regional channel. Occasionally I watch it when I'm around. I can't agree with you on this.


Maybe you are seeing something that I am missing or there is some misunderstanding, but if you see a logical error please let me know exactly where it is and I will fix it. I care little about "being right". I just want to have the best approximation of the truth.

I admire your desire for truth. It's certainly unique at these type of forums where everyone is here to promote their own, which I always found funny.

shofet
2010-01-12, 13:17
How do you know that for sure? I'm sharing genome profile with an Irish person. When I look at where he clusters on the PCA plot, he's right next to other northern Europeans and he's definitely in the northern European cluster, but he's swarthier than I am.
Doesn't matter, he is within an Atypical range within a Atypical minority.


Saying her brother doesn't fall within the typical Scottish range based on your stereotypes of what Scottish people should look like is your own bias.

It doesn't matter, the bias is based on statistical truth. Most Scottish people do not have swarthy skin, even if we do not consider it to be from an external factor the fact still remains. Typical is defined by "pre-dominant", commonality, as opposed to minority. A word that doesn't apply to this case example.




Whiteness definition shouldn't rely on quantity, but rather, on quality and if you have the right genes and lack admixture from other, non-white races.
Then whiteness is ambigious since genetical recombination totally violates your criteria, and this according to you're own definition's.



So? They aren't Caucasian, they are Caucasoid. More specifically, they are Europoid but not Europid. They are not Europid because they have admixture from non-Europid races.
Again you are going over way over your head. Admixture does not guarantee devation from ethnical look's. And besides who is to say caucasoidsness has to be capitalized by european trait's?. European peoples as a whole are a fairly recent sub-branch of the causcasoid eurasian-brand migration from East-africa. Who is to say that due to isolation and genetical distance from older branches that they are better representive examples?.



If you have no admixture within the last five generations, you are racially pure.

It doesn't matter if you had a Negroid ancestor 20 generations ago; it's not significant enough to count in your pedigree lineage as admixture because it's been more or less fully bred out.

By that logic most people in the caucausoid diaspora should look pale and european-like. North africans, Middle-easterners, Indians, Gulfers all alike.



They reach their fixation in Europe, specifically, northern Europe, but they also exist in southern Europe and to a lesser extent, the Middle East.It doesn't work like that. North-east Asians have different skin mutations which is why their skin colour isn't as pale as European skin colour.
That is subjective, however it serves the same purpose, the fact that north-east asians were able to develop the same trait due to the same reasons as west-eurasians at the other side of the continent tells us about how much bullshit the concept of exclusive"physical trait's" are for different sub-group's. And that climatical pressure plays a major role, as opposed to what stygian cellarius stated.



100% Caucasian + pale skin = white. Of course, it goes without saying, pale skin does rely on the SNP genotype mutations of SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. If you are fully Caucasian however, you will most likely have those specific genotypes and alleles that code for white skin. So that's why voting on "pale skinned Caucasoids" is a bit redundant, because being fully Caucasian requires you to have pale skin .
Thats total uber bullshit. What your saying is basically, to be fully caucausian one must most likely have the same "mutations" as light-skinned european's. Which is a claim impossible to sustain, and contradicts the possibility of mutation and deviation without admixture. There are some pretty pure inviduals of the caucausian diaspora out there who do not have the same mutations skin as generalized europeans. But at the sametime you can find mixed inviduals who look purely caucasoid, yet are not as unaltered. Being pure doesn't guarantee a paleness "label".

bleck
2010-01-12, 13:24
shofet you are better being called souffle. You're so puffed up and tough bottomed.

JaM
2010-01-12, 13:39
if he has a natural/born tann than he is not white, if he is tanned from the sun than he is white

Then naturally pale East Asians are white, following that literalist logic. There are really Greenlanders who are white skinned, and they may even be born in Europe. Are they white? Most of them are not white skinned, but some are. They are not Caucasoid at all, though.

In other words, if "white" refer to untanned skin colour only, then many East Asians are definitely white - despite being totally different from European whites, and despite the European whites would be much closer related to some "non-white", than they would be to some "white" East Asian. The word would lose any kind of meaning, because the term is just "WHITE" not "WHITE SKINNED", and nobody is literally white all over.

Of course, I voted the last option, as it's obvious in this thread that the term is useless.

vanillagorilla
2010-01-14, 07:32
Anyways, I have quite a few theories about depigmentation and none of them I believe. Actually, I believe very little of what I say and I believe less of what anyone else says.

Do a search on "Roman mosaic Sicily". Any art that preserves its coloring well. I had a real hard time finding swarthy people, not to mention even black haired people. That's not what they look like now. Something changed. (I would post the pictures, but I hate when people cherry pick images that support their point of view)

A good deal of Sicilians don't look foreign to Europe, but some do. Those "some" are what I would be talking about. I've been to Sicily. My mother married a full-blooded Sicilian. I am very familiar with what they can look like and there is little doubt in my mind that there is an element foreign to Europe present. .

Sicilians are pretty diverse in phenotype. I've seen photos of Sicilians who look more stereotypically Middle Eastern than European, and I've seen others who look stereotypically German or Dutch. The island was always the melting pot (or maybe salad bowl) of the Mediterranean.
Palermitan footballer Massimo Taibi
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/backofthenet/images/thumb/7/7c/Img_archivio5221200816316.jpg/180px-Img_archivio5221200816316.jpg
Catanese politician Ignazio La Russa
http://notizie.tiscali.it/media_agencies//09/12/10/20091210_191540_20FC2CC8.jpg

And yes, Sicilians, like other Mediterranean Europeans, are genetically closer to the Near East and North Africa than is the average European. Neolithic migrations and to a lesser extent historical migrations (Islamic expansion, maybe slave trade) are responsible for that.

Motörhead Remember Me
2010-01-14, 08:28
I couldn't care less about who is white.

I'm pale. Sometimes tanned. Never white.

Stefan
2010-01-21, 22:04
White is a useless term used to denote either A. A pigmentation-based organization of people of light pigmentation. B. A synonym for Europeans when there is a significant non-European presence, C A mix between these two, where people have a hierarchy of whiteness based on how light your pigment is, though it is restricted to Europeans and peripherals. This is the most common as well as idiotic description. White is mostly a term recognized due to colonization and imperialism and the contact with people of significantly darker pigmentation, the main and clearest yet ficklest difference that denoted the two. Before this, White was used purely as a pigmentation description though not to categorize people but to describe their physical appearance without a sense of separatism. Due to this idea "White" is useless not only in European nations, but in new world ones as well.

limeon
2010-01-21, 22:30
I have noticed that there are a lot of people here on the forum who think that "whites" are "better", "pretty" than others they have even been sighted on all the people who are from the Middle East. This notice also how these moderators talking about Caucasoid all the time in their posts.

If you believe that you are aware of racial biology, then you can ask this question to yourself if at all there exists any pure race or ethnic group now that it is 2010...

Stefan
2010-01-21, 22:48
I have noticed that there are a lot of people here on the forum who think that "whites" are "better", "pretty" than others they have even been sighted on all the people who are from the Middle East. This notice also how these moderators talking about Caucasoid all the time in their posts.

If you believe that you are aware of racial biology, then you can ask this question to yourself if at all there exists any pure race or ethnic group now that it is 2010...

I don't really see this at all, although I have only been here a few days and lurking only a few weeks, there doesn't seem to be any "white" envy or praise as you place it. Also there is a high presence of caucasoids, many of which wouldn't fit in the 'general' idea of what "white" is, and I don't think you should limit the concept of a caucasoid - which is a skull shape description placed to the inhabitants of Western Eurasia and many of Eastern Eurasia and North/Eastern Africa to Europids which describes racial types generalized in to the close connected Ethno-Ancestral group that is found in Europe. I may note again many of these people don't fall into the European spectrum and therefore rarely would be considered "white" in the common population, though there are exceptions.

As for the second part of your post, I will just say go look around because it is very easy to find racially and ethnically "pure" people in the world, that doesn't mean that it is better just that it does exist.

EliasAlucard
2010-01-21, 22:59
I have noticed that there are a lot of people here on the forum who think that "whites" are "better", "pretty" than others they have even been sighted on all the people who are from the Middle East. This notice also how these moderators talking about Caucasoid all the time in their posts.This is a racialist forum, not your local Disney club.
If you believe that you are aware of racial biology, then you can ask this question to yourself if at all there exists any pure race or ethnic group now that it is 2010...What does 2010 have to do with anything race related? Any specific mindset we should have in the year 2010? Is it the year of race denial?
White is a useless term used to denote either A. A pigmentation-based organization of people of light pigmentation. B. A synonym for Europeans when there is a significant non-European presence, C A mix between these two, where people have a hierarchy of whiteness based on how light your pigment is, though it is restricted to Europeans and peripherals. This is the most common as well as idiotic description. White is mostly a term recognized due to colonization and imperialism and the contact with people of significantly darker pigmentation, the main and clearest yet ficklest difference that denoted the two. Before this, White was used purely as a pigmentation description though not to categorize people but to describe their physical appearance without a sense of separatism. Due to this idea "White" is useless not only in European nations, but in new world ones as well.I don't think "white" is a useless or idiotic term. I just think some people take it way too seriously and sometimes also inconsistently.

There's no reason to exclude actual white people from the Middle East simply because they're not from Europe, and include swarthy Greeks, Italians, Spaniards as whites simply because they're from Europe.

This is just an example of the inconsistency in the term white. Other examples are excluding Russians, Finns and Celts from being white (even though they are no different than Scandinavians as far as pigmentation goes) and copyrighting "white" as a narrow synonym for Germanics.

While this sort of racialist politics may seem appealing to white nationalist from Germanic speaking countries, just think about it for a moment how absurd it would be if one sub-Saharan African group went around saying they're blacker than Somalis (even though Somalis are considered black).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Bodymodmassai.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Sharif_Sheikh_Ahmed%2C_12th_AU_Summit%2C_090202-N-0506A-337.jpg/1024px-Sharif_Sheikh_Ahmed%2C_12th_AU_Summit%2C_090202-N-0506A-337.jpg

Why the double standard?

I think this is the entire problem with black and white as racial terms. People forget we're discussing a colour, not a race. Race is based on genetic groups, not colours. This is why I prefer non-colour terms for race.

Stefan
2010-01-21, 23:06
I don't think "white" is a useless or idiotic term. I just think some people take it way too seriously and sometimes also inconsistently.

There's no reason to exclude actual white people from the Middle East simply because they're not from Europe, and include swarthy Greeks, Italians, Spaniards as whites simply because they're from Europe.

This is just an example of the inconsistency in the term white. Other examples are excluding Russians, Finns and Celts from being white (even though they are no different than Scandinavians as far as pigmentation goes) and copyrighting "white" as a narrow synonym for Germanics.

While this sort of racialist politics may seem appealing to white nationalist from Germanic speaking countries, just think about it for a moment how absurd it would be if one sub-Saharan African group went around saying they're blacker than Somalis (even though Somalis are considered black).

<snip>

Why the double standard?

I think this is the entire problem with black and white as racial terms. People forget we're discussing a colour, not a race. Race is based on genetic groups, not colours. This is why I prefer non-colour terms for race.

But how is it useful? I mean past a simple pigmentation description. I do think inconsistency and how literal it is taken does factor in though, actually that is my main problem with it. So we are in agreement there. :D

limeon
2010-01-21, 23:09
This is a racialist forum, not your local Disney club.

If I understand it right you think we can advocate racism and attacks on other people's skin color in this forum.

EliasAlucard
2010-01-21, 23:46
Off Topic about Turkic Khazars and Mongoloids, deleted. This topic is about white people.

//mod

---------- Post added 2010-01-22 at 00:49 ----------


But how is it useful? I mean past a simple pigmentation description. I do think inconsistency and how literal it is taken does factor in though, actually that is my main problem with it. So we are in agreement there. :DWell, lots of northern Europeans seem to think white is a useful term as a racial marker, hence their use of it.
If I understand it right you think we can advocate racism and attacks on other people's skin color in this forum.Where did I say anything about that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racialism

Perhaps you don't know what racialism means. This is a neutral free speech forum with emphasis on race and genetics. People are allowed to express racialist opinions here, just as you are allowed to express your opinion denying the existence of race, against better knowledge.

Grynda
2010-04-12, 18:46
If you use the term "white" it - in my opinion- includes all caucasoids meaning all Europeans, North Africans, Arabs and so on.

Zupan
2010-04-12, 18:50
If you use the term "white" it - in my opinion- includes all caucasoids meaning all Europeans, North Africans, Arabs and so on.

Hmm I think most people don't consider the general arab (muslims) as white.. They seem to regard em as a another race or something haha :p

The_Majerten
2010-04-12, 18:52
IMHO,

Most Europeans

But I would never consider North Africans, Middle Easterners, Central Asians and Indians white...It's just so odd

I associate white with pale skinned Europeans not with Caucasoid features

fatale_noir
2010-04-12, 18:55
no one

windie
2010-04-12, 18:58
White pale skin people are not the only type of white people. There are plenty of Southern Europeans who have tanned looking skin. And Europeans are what most people think of when discussing white/Caucasians people. I think some North Africans are white as well.

Zupan
2010-04-12, 19:00
White pale skin people are not the only type of white people. There are plenty of Southern Europeans who have tanned looking skin. And Europeans are what most people think of when describing white/caucasians. I think some North Africans are white as well.

I've got tanned, almost olive skin I adore it : >

Well the 'white' concept ain't ours... Or not the europeans but the stupid americans.

We use the term "european" more often than "white". When you'r euoropean your nose and facial features are caucasoid, simply put ;>

The_Majerten
2010-04-12, 19:01
White pale skin people are not the only type of white people. There are plenty of Southern Europeans who have tanned looking skin. And Europeans are what most people think of when discussing white/Caucasians people. I think some North Africans are white as well.


If you leave out a very small minority of very white looking berbers there are barely any White North Africans at all.

North Africans have a large diaspora in Western Europe and literally nobody considers them white over there.

Zupan
2010-04-12, 19:04
North Africans have a large diaspora in Western Europe and literally nobody considers them white over there.


LoL? You joking? Seen Zidane? http://www.conti-online.com/generator/www/uk/en/contisoccerworld/themes/02_fanzone/04_stars/img/zidane_portraet_en,property=original.jpg

I have always considered him being white, same with this fellow: http://sportige.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/fu_benzema_szq_w480_h_m.jpg

Both are berbers.

The_Majerten
2010-04-12, 19:08
Zidane belongs to that small minority of white looking North Africans..

Most I have seen looked somewhat like this:

http://moroccotravelblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/getattachment-19aspx.jpeg

or

http://www.worldgolf.com/photo-galleries/images/preview/22001.jpg

Definitely not white to me, but this is all very subjective I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree

DragonRouge
2010-04-12, 19:15
I put "Anglo-Saxons" only. Which means by default I don't consider myself "white".

Zupan
2010-04-12, 19:16
Your hardcore, btw isn't your nick some weirdo sekt? haha

DragonRouge
2010-04-12, 19:17
Your hardcore, btw isn't your nick some weirdo sekt? haha

Yeah it is but that's not where I got my name from.

EresMulato
2010-04-12, 19:35
White is an American concept. I have little interest in Americans and I don't care about them. It has been a mixed society fron the start, and what happens to them is none of my concern.

What I do care about is Finland remaining Finnish.

I would also like to see other European countries (or any non-European country for that matter) retain their ethnic makeups and cultures, although it might be too late for some of them.

In my country slaves (muslim or not) were labelled as white (blanc), dark skinned (embrunit) or black (negre). There was a term for mulatto as well: llor (lat. laurus). Dark skinned muslims (sarraïns embrunits) are thought to be berber or of berber origin. White muslims (sarraïns blancs) were probably of old Christian Hispano-Roman descent. At times, that is, during most of the time when slavery was important, Europeans (Slavs, Sardinians, Greek) made up most (like 80%) of the slave population. But that was a long time ago. I mean, only multiracial societies use racial terms on an everyday basis, so to say. European peoples see themselves as belonging to their nationality/ethnicity.

I agree with the rest of your post, though.

By the way, sexual relationships between slaves were punished severely (death).

For me 'white" means caucasoid European, excluding gypsies and the like.

Salsassin
2010-04-12, 21:05
How about none of the above.

Bonaoense
2010-04-12, 21:14
People of European descent and for some reason, I can make an exception for Lebanese people since they tend to nott have the weird "semitic look" that most pale South Asians/Middle Easterns have and look more like the softer-looking European Meds.

Grynda
2010-04-12, 22:34
Hmm I think most people don't consider the general arab (muslims) as white.. They seem to regard em as a another race or something haha :p

I can't really see arabs as black or yellow either? :)

Zupan
2010-04-12, 22:36
I can't really see arabs as black or yellow either? :)

I know just saying what many eurocentrists think :p I see arabs and iranids as white. But yeah there are some stupid focks :D

CAONABO
2010-04-12, 23:37
Albinos, vampires and polar bears. For non-Albino humans, the last 'true whites' lived around the time of the Viking Era, and geographically limited to areas around Norway, Sweden and Denmark as well as the Gaelic tribes that did not mix with the Romans. After that, everyone steadily became 'off white' or non-white. There are reported pockets of pure classic whites in certain isolated forest regions of Sweden & Norway. Please note the qualifications:

birko19
2010-04-12, 23:42
I voted all Pale-skinned Caucasoids, white after all is a skin color, and there are Caucasoids that are brown in color so to me, they are not white, mind you pale is on an extreme side, I think lighter skinned is the better definition for it.

Basically the majority of Europe with the exception of a few brownies in southern parts of Europe and the Gypsy population, also the majority of European immigrants to the other parts of the world, and some people living in the northern parts of the middle east and perhaps some in northern Africa, that's where white people exist.

Zupan
2010-04-13, 08:29
Birko so you'r saying im not european jusst because I lack the paleness? My dad is white but he gets tanned really fast my mother can't get a tan and I was luckily born with a little more brownish skin. So therefore i'm not european? Lol it's not about the colour.. When will the non-europeans understand..

Mike the Jedi
2010-04-13, 08:31
White? I know it when I see it.

Grasshoppa
2010-04-13, 08:42
A social construct, but honestly, I can admit to never calling an Indian white, no matter how "caucasoid" they look. This term is reserved for pale skinned Euros or people who look Euro to me.

EliasAlucard
2010-04-13, 08:44
White? I know it when I see it.Have you ever seen it in yourself? :)

---------- Post added 2010-04-13 at 09:45 ----------


I can't really see arabs as black or yellow either? :)Aren't Arabs considered brown or something?

Grasshoppa
2010-04-13, 08:59
I think this is the entire problem with black and white as racial terms. People forget we're discussing a colour, not a race. Race is based on genetic groups, not colours. This is why I prefer non-colour terms for race.

Uhh...see Negroid

EliasAlucard
2010-04-13, 09:01
Uhh...see NegroidYeah, I agree with Coon that Negroid shouldn't be used, Congoid is much better in a purely objective taxonomic sense. However, Negroid is more classic for purely social reasons.

sgh
2010-04-13, 10:40
A social construct, but honestly, I can admit to never calling an Indian white, no matter how "caucasoid" they look. This term is reserved for pale skinned Euros or people who look Euro to me.

It's a term coined by them to refer to themselves :lol:...what I find silly about the term is the distance traveled to attain an identity/self-designation. Did the German guy who coined the term really have to hand pick an obscure mountainous region on the edge of Europe to give white people a name :lol:...maybe a region closer to home would've been a better choice.

EliasAlucard
2010-04-13, 10:50
A social construct, but honestly, I can admit to never calling an Indian white, no matter how "caucasoid" they look. This term is reserved for pale skinned Euros or people who look Euro to me.I think the problem here is you don't understand these terms. A Hindu isn't Caucasian, but Hindus are Caucasoid. I'm Caucasian, but I'm not Caucasid.

The -id and -oid suffixes are important to distinguish between West Eurasian racial types shouldn't be used used randomly or interchangeably. Stygian Cellarius explained this properly earlier in the thread:
Well, first of all, I think you should have used "Caucasian" for some instead of "Caucasoid". By definition, the -oid suffix indicates a similarity or resemblance to, but not the same as (https://www.forumbiodiversity.com/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wiktionary.org% 2Fwiki%2F-oid) something and in this case, a similarity or resemblance to, but not the same as Caucasians. If it is similar or resembles some-thing, then it is not that some-thing. A Planetoid is not, and can never be, a Planet. A Factoid is not, and can never be, a Fact. Therefore making most of your selection choices non-Caucasian by default. With the exception of the last three.So in other words, a swarthy Berber with probably 20% Negrid admixture, is not Negrid, but he is Negroid, and he's not Caucasian nor is he white, but he is Caucasoid.
It's a term coined by them to refer to themselves :lol:...what I find silly about the term is the distance traveled to attain an identity/self-designation. Did the German guy who coined the term really have to hand pick an obscure mountainous region on the edge of Europe to give white people a name :lol:...maybe a region closer to home would've been a better choice.Blumenbach coined it "Caucasian" with a lot of deep considerations in mind, John Baker explains:

John R. Baker's Europid race (https://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=3155)

slick willy
2010-04-13, 10:55
I'd say the majority of Europeans and almost all unmixed European descendants in the New World are white to me.

Periphery Eropeans are hit or miss...thats where cltre comes to play. Armenians and Georgians to me, are in the same league as Sicilians. Funnily enough, alot consider themselves whiter than say Kosovar Albanians and Bosniaks (apparently Islam makes you swarthy or something), who are WAY lighter skinned and haired than them. Compare strmgehwer with say, the random Georgian, Armenian or Sicilian.

Hispanics more or less better look like Cameron Diaz and not speak Spanish or else they aint white aswell. Spaniards on the other hand, have the continental pass.

Jews are white for the most part, except the Sephardic type with the crly hairy chest and the gold chains and names like Hayyan and Abboudi. I see them as what they are, Middle Easterners and North Africans

Grasshoppa
2010-04-13, 10:57
I think the problem here is you don't understand these terms. A Hindu isn't Caucasian, but Hindus are Caucasoid. I'm Caucasian, but I'm not Caucasid.


You quotin the wrong person bro? I said nothing about "Caucasian", "Caucasid", nor do I really care what is genetically the case when I call someone "white." As I said, the word white is used in my social circle/culture to describe pale Europeans. Honestly it's a term not backed by much, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't use it.

Furthermore, distinction between Caucasoid and Caucasid is hilarious. I almost bought that bull in the past though, I won't lie.

Polako
2010-04-13, 11:13
My butt is white - beaming, shiny white. I'm thinking of hiring it out at the nearby lighthouse over the winter to help navigate ships into port through the rough local coastline.

EliasAlucard
2010-04-13, 11:14
I'd say the majority of Europeans and almost all unmixed European descendants in the New World are white to me.Do you include the European wogs because they're from Europe?
Periphery Eropeans are hit or miss...thats where cltre comes to play. Armenians and Georgians to me, are in the same league as Sicilians. Funnily enough, alot consider themselves whiter than say Kosovar Albanians and Bosniaks (apparently Islam makes you swarthy or something), who are WAY lighter skinned and haired than them. Compare strmgehwer with say, the random Georgian, Armenian or Sicilian.I don't think you can generalise whiteness when it comes to the Balkans. My local Pizzeria is run by Bosniaks. They look totally sandnigger though (as opposed to the previous Bosniak owner of the same pizzeria, he was clearly white). I can easily say I'm whiter than them. And there are white Armenians, Georgians, Assyrians and whatnot. But yes, a lot of ethnic individuals from these regions are swarthy or have a clearly darker skin pigmentation than your average northern Euro.

Also, the exclusion of Muslim Europeans from the white category, simply because they're Muslims, is certainly dumb and inconsistent, but it is no dumber than your dumb rationale to exclude white Hispanics from the white category because they speak Spanish.
Compare strmgehwer with say, the random Georgian, Armenian or Sicilian.Sturmgeweher is not your average Albanian. There are Albanians like sturmgeweher, I've seen a few here in Sweden, but a lot of Albanians don't look like that. And it doesn't mean anything that you can find a few Albos with blond hair and light eye colour; it's not like such traits are totally non-existent in the Middle East.
Hispanics more or less better look like Cameron Diaz and not speak Spanish or else they aint white aswell. Spaniards on the other hand, have the continental pass.So speaking Spanish makes you non-white? And Cameron Diaz isn't Hispanic really. She's basically a WASP with some Spic in her.
Jews are white for the most part, except the Sephardic type with the crly hairy chest and the gold chains and names like Hayyan and Abboudi. I see them as what they are, Middle Easterners and North AfricansWhat the hell does hairiness have to do with it? There are hairy Nordics too.

Actually, you'd be surprised how genetically similar Ashkenazim and Sephardim are on 23andMe. It's not like Ashkenazim aren't Middle Easterners.

But don't let population genetics fool you, social POV is more important than science.
You quotin the wrong person bro?No.
I said nothing about "Caucasian", "Caucasid", nor do I really care what is genetically the case when I call someone "white."I was just explaining to you it doesn't matter if Indians are Caucasoids (they are Caucasoids, but they are not Caucasian/white because they are Caucasoid).
As I said, the word white is used in my social circle/culture to describe pale Europeans. Honestly it's a term not backed by much, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't use it.Fair enough.
Furthermore, distinction between Caucasoid and Caucasid is hilarious. I almost bought that bull in the past though, I won't lie.It's not hilarious. What's hilarious about it? The Caucasid phenotype is very uncommon in Scandinavia but it is used to denote a common Caucasus phenotype, hence, -id which indicates it is a very specific Caucasus phenotype.

All Europeans are Caucasoid, but not all Europeans are Caucasid. Likewise, Usama Bin Laden is Europoid but he's certainly not Europid nor is he white.

sgh
2010-04-13, 11:21
I think the problem here is you don't understand these terms. A Hindu isn't Caucasian, but Hindus are Caucasoid. I'm Caucasian, but I'm not Caucasid.

The -id and -oid suffixes are important to distinguish between West Eurasian racial types shouldn't be used used randomly or interchangeably. Stygian Cellarius explained this properly earlier in the thread:So in other words, a swarthy Berber with probably 20% Negrid admixture, is not Negrid, but he is Negroid, and he's not Caucasian nor is he white, but he is Caucasoid.Blumenbach coined it "Caucasian" with a lot of deep considerations in mind, John Baker explains:

John R. Baker's Europid race (https://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=3155)

Oh I'm not disputing that he did...I'm just saying it was an interesting choice. Apparently he based the classification mainly on craniology. If we're talking about phenotype, then a different designation would probably make more sense.

Grasshoppa
2010-04-13, 11:37
It's not hilarious. What's hilarious about it? The Caucasid phenotype is very uncommon in Scandinavia but it is used to denote a common Caucasus phenotype, hence, -id which indicates it is a very specific Caucasus phenotype.

All Europeans are Caucasoid, but not all Europeans are Caucasid. Likewise, Usama Bin Laden is Europoid but he's certainly not Europid nor is he white.

It's hilarious because it sounds made up, pseudo scientific. Don't get me wrong, I understand how it can be used, but it sounds like you're pulling a rabbit out of a hat, you know? I mean it sounds fun and all, but

What distinguishes the Caucasid phenotype from the general Caucasoid?

More importantly, "Caucasoid", which according to Stygian and yourself can mean "like," becomes useless for describing race, since by definition it need only bare a resemblance. Therefore it says nothing about ancestry. <----If the intention is to only describe a phenotype that is only superficially similar, then you're going to have teach alot of people to use "Caucasid" instead or something similar to denote like ancestry.

Be my guest to differentiate between the two. It just seems cumbersome and unnecessary.

Graeme
2010-04-13, 12:45
I have decided not to vote. European born people like myself don't use the term. We distinguish other Europeans not by their skin tone but their nationality and ethnic group. Similarly North Africans are referred to where they come from or where their origins are from. if born in Europe, so Moroccan, Tunisian etc or just North African. Indians are Asians in Britain. To my parents all East and SE Asians were Chinese, all darker toned Caucasoid types, all Indians. And most Middle Easterners usually referred to as Arabs or where they came from as in Lebanese. No skin tones were mentioned for those people. It wouldn't matter anyway, a pink skinned Lebanese will still be thought of as a Lebanese like an Italian will be thought of as Italian in France. As for sub Saharan Africans, the skin tone rather than their country of origin, so Blacks.

It is only Colonials who think in terms of White for Europeans or other Caucasoids. In Australia, White means European. Middle Easterners, Central/South Asians, East/SE Asians, Americans, South Americans and so on just by their region, country or nation. The skin tones of various North Americans are irrelevant. Sub Saharan Africans are just Africans. North Africans are usually thought of as Arabs. Caucasian in Australia means NW European. Southern Europeans are Mediterraneans. Anatolians are Turks. No one refers to skin tone with those people. There is an implied look when you use the word African or Arab or Mediterranean, no need to expand. Where I live now has a large Australian Aboriginal population. When European Australians refer to them and to themselves, they might use the term White/European, and Aboriginal/Indigenous/Native/Blackfellas. Aborigines don't have a term for themselves in the whole of Australia, just regional terms like Koori or Murri. European Australians are called all sorts of names by Aborigines usually Europeans, sometimes Whitefella. They prefer European to emphasize the foreignness of European Australians.

I guess White is especially important to Americans especially the ones who are not White!

Ubirajara
2010-04-13, 13:00
To me no one is "white". I would prefer geography related descriptions, British, Japanese, Moroccan.

Malcolm Z
2010-04-13, 13:25
Shouldn't the suffix -iform be used to denote "looking like (whatever)"? So shouldn't the word "caucasiform" be used to describe all those who look like Caucasians, but who actually aren't? Like Europeans, North Africans, Middle Easterners, etc. None of these people live in the Caucasus, but they look like people who live there.


-iform (suffix) = 2) word ending indicating similarity, e.g. caniniform, resembling canines.

http://www.briancoad.com/Dictionary/I.htm


-iform,. suffix meaning "in the form of ": amebiform, bulbiform, nucleiform

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/-iform

-Oid seems to indicate less. In Stygian Celarius (sp?) post, all the examples he posted (factoid, planetoid) indicate something less than the non-oid noun. Are Caucasoids "less" than Caucasians?

Grasshoppa
2010-04-13, 13:52
Shouldn't the suffix -iform be used to denote "looking like (whatever)"? So shouldn't the word "caucasiform" be used to describe all those who look like Caucasians, but who actually aren't? Like Europeans, North Africans, Middle Easterners, etc. None of these people live in the Caucasus, but they look like people who live there.



http://www.briancoad.com/Dictionary/I.htm



http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/-iform

-Oid seems to indicate less. In Stygian Celarius (sp?) post, all the examples he posted (factoid, planetoid) indicate something less than the non-oid noun. Are Caucasoids "less" than Caucasians?

Idk imo it looks like -iform and -oid are virtually the same thing.

btw this should be it's own thread. Elias, you should do your magic bro.

birko19
2010-04-13, 15:46
Birko so you'r saying im not european jusst because I lack the paleness? My dad is white but he gets tanned really fast my mother can't get a tan and I was luckily born with a little more brownish skin. So therefore i'm not european? Lol it's not about the colour.. When will the non-europeans understand..

Well this is why I said pale-skinned is a little extreme, light skinned is more proper imo, and that could range from a Greek brunette to a snow colored Finn.

Semitic Duwa
2010-04-13, 18:36
All Caucasoids, definitely.

CAONABO
2010-04-13, 19:20
I have decided not to vote. European born people like myself don't use the term. We distinguish other Europeans not by their skin tone but their nationality and ethnic group. Similarly North Africans are referred to where they come from or where their origins are from. if born in Europe, so Moroccan, Tunisian etc or just North African. Indians are Asians in Britain. To my parents all East and SE Asians were Chinese, all darker toned Caucasoid types, all Indians. And most Middle Easterners usually referred to as Arabs or where they came from as in Lebanese. No skin tones were mentioned for those people. It wouldn't matter anyway, a pink skinned Lebanese will still be thought of as a Lebanese like an Italian will be thought of as Italian in France. As for sub Saharan Africans, the skin tone rather than their country of origin, so Blacks.

It is only Colonials who think in terms of White for Europeans or other Caucasoids. In Australia, White means European. Middle Easterners, Central/South Asians, East/SE Asians, Americans, South Americans and so on just by their region, country or nation. The skin tones of various North Americans are irrelevant. Sub Saharan Africans are just Africans. North Africans are usually thought of as Arabs. Caucasian in Australia means NW European. Southern Europeans are Mediterraneans. Anatolians are Turks. No one refers to skin tone with those people. There is an implied look when you use the word African or Arab or Mediterranean, no need to expand. Where I live now has a large Australian Aboriginal population. When European Australians refer to them and to themselves, they might use the term White/European, and Aboriginal/Indigenous/Native/Blackfellas. Aborigines don't have a term for themselves in the whole of Australia, just regional terms like Koori or Murri. European Australians are called all sorts of names by Aborigines usually Europeans, sometimes Whitefella. They prefer European to emphasize the foreignness of European Australians.

I guess White is especially important to Americans especially the ones who are not White!

I'm not an expert on worldwide concepts of 'whiteness', but I think at least one reason this concept developed in the ex-European colonies like the USA, is because it was a society composed of a dominiant European majority and a minority of African slaves. Good post by the way, good to hear from posters from other parts.

Mike the Jedi
2010-04-13, 20:01
Have you ever seen it in yourself? :)

I'm auditioning for the part of Tarbaby in the school play, if that answers your question.

Lalo
2010-04-13, 20:32
There is an implied look when you use the word African or Arab or Mediterranean, no need to expand.
Not really. What about the Meds with pinkish skin, blond hair, blue eyes or whatever?

Is it like that all around Australia btw, because I have a friend here who's from Australia and I remember him referring to this Uruguayan-American singer of Italian descent as white: http://images.askmen.com/photos/cobra-starship-odette-yustman-and-michael-stahl-david-visit-mtv/39135.jpg
When I asked him if the term white wasn't only reserved to people of British/NW-Euro descent as my cousins who live their had told me, he said no. He's from Victoria.

iateyourheadphons
2010-08-09, 02:38
is it true that the majority of Caucasians are not "white", well their are several definitions of the term "white" one is, "Light skined people of European ancestry" and another is "all light skined people". i personally agree with the first one bc their are sevaral light skined people who still wouldn't be considered "white" for example Japanese, and Pashto's, both of these groups of people are "light skinned" but are not considered "white". the average population of "white" people according to the first deffintion is around 1 Billion people. while the population of non white Caucasians (Indo - Aryans, Arabs/north africans, Ethio/Somali, and Latin people, etc...) are way more, around 1.5 - 2 billion people.

has anybody ever wondered about this?

some images of non white Caucasians

Indo - aryan
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/187/438953449_9438ef7c93.jpg?v=0

Arab
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Qat_man.jpg

Ethiopian
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.slashfood.com/media/2010/03/marcus-sam.jpg

Bittereinder
2010-08-09, 02:45
To me, white = European. Now, of course, you can argue about the definition of Europe...

I don't like the word Caucasian, neither as a term for 'white' (thankfully this seems to be fading as even Americans realized how stupid it was) nor as a term for this supposed meta-race including everyone who doesn't look 'negro' or 'mongoloid', which are pretty arbitrary categories in turn.

sgh
2010-08-09, 03:04
If white means of European descent then this race numbers somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.1 billion people.

Geto-Thracian
2010-08-09, 03:37
Latin people are considered non-white caucasians? What is this the 19th centurt in America? Puuuleeeeeeeze!

Chuck11
2010-08-09, 05:49
is it true that the majority of Caucasians are not "white", well their are several definitions of the term "white" one is, "Light skined people of European ancestry"

White often means European. Historically it was often used as a color term for a race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_terminology_for_race), in this case "Europid." This discussion (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1438.html)might interest you. Regardless, you are correct that the majority of Caucasians are neither European or people of fair complexion, depending on how you want to define that.

White (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=white&searchmode=none): O.E. hwit, from P.Gmc. *khwitaz (cf. O.S., O.Fris. hwit, O.N. hvitr, Du. wit, O.H.G. hwiz, Ger. weiß, Goth. hveits), from PIE *kwintos/*kwindos "bright" (cf. Skt. svetah "white;" O.C.S. sviteti "to shine," svetu "light;" Lith. sviesti "to shine," svaityti "to brighten"). As a surname, originally with reference to fair hair or complexion, it is one of the oldest in English, being well-established before the Conquest. Meaning "morally pure" was in O.E. Association with royalist causes is late 18c. Slang sense of "honorable, fair" is 1877, Amer.Eng. The racial sense (adj.) of "of those races (chiefly European or of European extraction) characterized by light complexion" is first recorded c.1600.

EliasAlucard
2010-08-09, 06:27
is it true that the majority of Caucasians are not "white", well their are several definitions of the term "white" one is, "Light skined people of European ancestry" and another is "all light skined people". i personally agree with the first one bc their are sevaral light skined people who still wouldn't be considered "white" for example Japanese, and Pashto's, both of these groups of people are "light skinned" but are not considered "white". the average population of "white" people according to the first deffintion is around 1 Billion people. while the population of non white Caucasians (Indo - Aryans, Arabs/north africans, Ethio/Somali, and Latin people, etc...) are way more, around 1.5 - 2 billion people.

has anybody ever wondered about this?

some images of non white Caucasians

Indo - aryan
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/187/438953449_9438ef7c93.jpg?v=0

Arab
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Qat_man.jpg

Ethiopian
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.slashfood.com/media/2010/03/marcus-sam.jpgIndians, Arabs and Ethiopians are not Caucasians. You are mistaking Caucasian for Caucasoid, which does not have the same meaning as Caucasian.

Decimator
2010-08-09, 08:38
Indians, Arabs and Ethiopians are not Caucasians. You are mistaking Caucasian for Caucasoid, which does not have the same meaning as Caucasian.

And you shouldn't confuse it with Caucasid either! (Mtebid)

voyager
2010-08-09, 08:56
"White"and "black" are both lazy terms.
People should be classed by ethnicity or mega-ethnicity.

Ekarfi
2010-08-09, 09:50
That's not a scoop. however the term "white" should be definied , as many of the non-"white" caucasoids can have white skin or atleast light skin (which you label as white?).

EliasAlucard
2010-08-09, 10:52
And you shouldn't confuse it with Caucasid either! (Mtebid)Yeah.

Merged with old thread.

//mod

alfieb
2010-08-09, 11:01
"White"and "black" are both lazy terms.
People should be classed by ethnicity or mega-ethnicity.
Be that as it may, black is lazier than white by virtue of blacks being lazier than whites.

I voted all Caucasoids, despite not really caring much about "whiteness".

davidxx
2010-08-09, 11:08
My name is white because i am white. :)

iateyourheadphons
2010-08-10, 02:07
didnt "white" simply mean light skinned people from europe? it doesnt mean all Caucasians, Indians are Caucasians but are nor "white".

EliasAlucard
2010-08-10, 02:09
didnt "white" simply mean light skinned people from europe? it doesnt mean all Caucasians, Indians are Caucasians but are nor "white".No, Indians are not Caucasians; they've never been. However, they do have significant ancestry from Europids.

iateyourheadphons
2010-08-10, 02:12
No, Indians are not Caucasians; they've never been. However, they do have significant ancestry from Europids.

how are they not Caucasian? what justifies being Caucasian or not Caucasian? head shape facial features bone structure etc.... right? dont indo - aryan indian groups have pure Caucasian features?

IstenmeyenTuy
2010-08-10, 02:12
I voted Pale-skinned Caucasoids. And I think people mostly judge this way also

Surena
2010-08-10, 02:19
I think people usually consider Germanics and Slavs as whites. Romance-speaking people who originate from Europe are mostly white too.

jonboyclem
2010-08-10, 03:13
I think people usually consider Germanics and Slavs as whites. Romance-speaking people who originate from Europe are mostly white too.

What about the Celts like the Irish and Welsh, the are the whitest of the "White" Europeans.

The whole "White" race thing is just fair skinned Europeans wanting to distinct themselves from other populations in the New World.

alfieb
2010-08-10, 03:14
What about the Celts like the Irish and Welsh, the are the whitest of the "White" Europeans.

Not to mention that the Celts were the original IE inhabitants of Continental Europe.

Surena
2010-08-10, 03:20
What about the Celts like the Irish and Welsh, the are the whitest of the "White" Europeans.



I don't agree. Scandinavians are the whitest. Least pigmentation and most nordid features.

This is how Irish people often look like:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3552/3401391038_e941bd4b23.jpg
http://www.moviemobsters.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/colin-farrell.jpg

Many of them are relatively dark, like Colin Farrell.

alfieb
2010-08-10, 03:21
I don't agree. Scandinavians are the whitest. Least pigmentation and most nordid features.

This is how Irish people often look like:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3552/3401391038_e941bd4b23.jpg
http://www.moviemobsters.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/colin-farrell.jpg

Many of them are relatively dark, like Colin Farrell.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Sheamus_WWE_Champion.jpg

The whitest non-albino I've ever seen is Irish. His skin is best described as cottage cheese.

The people you describe are called "Black Irish" and are not the majority.

IstenmeyenTuy
2010-08-10, 03:28
I don't agree. Scandinavians are the whitest. Least pigmentation and most nordid features.

This is how Irish people often look like:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3552/3401391038_e941bd4b23.jpg
http://www.moviemobsters.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/colin-farrell.jpg

Many of them are relatively dark, like Colin Farrell.

Im living in britain. I think british isles people same level or lighter than scandinavians. irishs btw are so light ppl. you can rarely find dark haired british. btw you think germans lighter than britishs in general (cause you said germanic), its not true. (englishs are germanic either but they have celt mix.)

Decimator
2010-08-10, 03:32
Im living in britain. I think british isles people same level or lighter than scandinavians. irishs btw are so light ppl. you can rarely find dark haired british. btw you think germans lighter than britishs in general (cause you said germanic), its not true. (englishs are germanic either but they have celt mix.)

British Islanders tend to be more freckled. Some Scandinavians have it too, but I think it's more frequent in British islanders.

alfieb
2010-08-10, 03:32
Well, yeah, "gingers" are mainly of Celtic/British Isles origin.

IstenmeyenTuy
2010-08-10, 03:34
British Islanders tend to be more freckled. Some Scandinavians have it too, but I think it's more frequent in British islanders.

yes thats true

Surena
2010-08-10, 03:39
Im living in britain. I think british isles people same level or lighter than scandinavians. irishs btw are so light ppl. you can rarely find dark haired british. btw you think germans lighter than britishs in general (cause you said germanic), its not true. (englishs are germanic either but they have celt mix.)

I consider the English-speaking people of Europe Germanic too. I think Scandinavians are whiter than other Germanics, even if they often overlap ...

I Know a lot of people from the british isles are extremely pale.But just being pale doesn't necessarily make you whiter. I've seen very pale azeris and kurds but they can never be mixed up with Scandinavians.

As I said, Scandinavians look more nordid than others. Not only their pigmentation but also their traits distinguishes them from many other Europeans.

EliasAlucard
2010-08-10, 08:07
how are they not Caucasian?In the same way Berbers aren't Caucasians: Indians don't cluster with other Caucasians, they're relatively far away. And that's because they have non-Caucasoid admixture (Veddid, Australoid, Mongoloid or whatever).

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/2713/eliasalucarddecodemepca.png

^^ See the drag "South West Asians" have toward Mongoloids and Negroids? That's why Indians aren't Caucasians. They are, however, Caucasoid, which again, is not the same thing as European/white/Caucasian.


what justifies being Caucasian or not Caucasian? head shape facial features bone structure etc.... right? dont indo - aryan indian groups have pure Caucasian features?No, Indo-Aryan speakers don't have pure Caucasian features. They do have physical traits derived from Europeans though. But they also have "something else", which is why they're often brown.

Wojewoda
2010-08-10, 08:24
I am "white":

https://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showpost.php?p=163633&postcount=9


The rest of the people are "white" to the extent they are similar to me.


In more general terms only East-Baltic remnant of the native European aboriginal Mesolithic hunter-geatheres is "white":

https://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showpost.php?p=164961&postcount=7


See the pigmentation map attached.


The rest are just white wannabe mischlings mixed with darker Neolithic farmers from the Middle-East.

See the genetic map of Europe attached starting from South-Italians (aka Assyrians) and ending where? Can you spell the names of these contries?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX5tfRdkoY0


Elias, you can lock this thread now. The question that bothered so many of you for so long, has been answered.

Thank you for your attention. ;)

Micke G
2010-08-10, 09:02
I couldn't care less about who is white.

A papersheet is white, not people.

alfieb
2010-08-10, 09:17
I am "white"
Perhaps, but many people still think you're subhuman.

In such cases, whiteness doesn't cure perceived cultural inferiority. Then again, I don't think "who's the whitest" really matters. Russians are pale, but we don't even consider them European. They're backwards. They're Eastern. Blah blah blah.

voyager
2010-08-10, 09:24
I consider the English-speaking people of Europe Germanic too. I think Scandinavians are whiter than other Germanics, even if they often overlap ...

I Know a lot of people from the british isles are extremely pale.But just being pale doesn't necessarily make you whiter. I've seen very pale azeris and kurds but they can never be mixed up with Scandinavians.

As I said, Scandinavians look more nordid than others. Not only their pigmentation but also their traits distinguishes them from many other Europeans.

The fairest, least tannable skin is in Ireland and Britain.

Many blond Scandinavians tan deeply.

Wojewoda
2010-08-10, 09:54
Perhaps, but many people still think you're subhuman.

When we will be participating in a thread titled "Who is sub-human?" the opinion of these "many peopl" will become relevant.


In such cases, whiteness doesn't cure perceived cultural inferiority.

Again this is not a thread devoted to "perceived cultural inferiority".


Then again, I don't think "who's the whitest" really matters.

Who said it really matters? And who cares, if you think it really matters or not?


Russians are pale, but we don't even consider them European. They're backwards. They're Eastern.
We are not discussing here who is European or who is Eastern. The question is "Who is white?". I answered this question.


Blah blah blah.
This is more or less how your contribution sounds like.

alfieb
2010-08-10, 09:58
Are you braindead?

In that post, you're not discussing "who is white", you're pulling out your miniscule Slavic dick and boasting "I'M WHITER THAN ALL OF YOU!"

Which didn't really help in your grandparents generation, nor does it help today where Poland is seen as a backwards country compared to Western Europe. Your people are quite pale. Congrats. Now, if whiteness has anything to do with European culture and civilization, you're "less white".

Wojewoda
2010-08-10, 10:06
Your people are quite pale. Congrats. Now, if whiteness has anything to do with European culture and civilization, you're "less white".

I guess that this must be something connected to the fact that you are American, and for you the question of "who is white?" is not really about pigmentation, but about the position within the caste system.

Once again try to understand that you are mixing terms: "European", "civilized", "Western", "cultural" these are terms which mean something different than "white".

alfieb
2010-08-10, 10:09
I'm a first generation American. I've lived in Europe, whereas 4/5 of Americans don't even have a passport. Don't lump me in with them.

When Southern Italians came to this country in the early 1900s, they were classified as different from Northern Italians because they weren't seen as white. Such is life.

My point stands. Rather than discussing the merits of whether or not, for example, Georgians are white, you're busy fellating yourself... which contributes nothing to the conversation.

EliasAlucard
2010-08-10, 10:10
I am "white":

...

Elias, you can lock this thread now. The question that bothered so many of you for so long, has been answered.

Thank you for your attention. ;)App, app, app! Don't you have brown eyes? According to whiteness dogma, that's enough to make you non-white, especially if you're Europeans (white Europeans are expected to have blue eyes; whereas a non-European wog can have brown eyes and be given white status, Europeans with brown eyes are considered non-white by default :p).

Well that's the approach to whiteness anyway these days. And I'm just busting your balls a little :lol:

Wojewoda
2010-08-10, 10:17
App, app, app! Don't you have brown eyes? According to whiteness dogma, that's enough to make you non-white, especially if you're Europeans (white Europeans are expected to have blue eyes; whereas a non-European wog can have brown eyes and be given white status, Europeans with brown eyes are considered non-white by default :p).

Well that's the approach to whiteness anyway these days. And I'm just busting your balls a little :lol:

Let's forget about me for a while, I am using my humble person only to provoke discussion: we all know that Polako is whiter than me and he will shoot up left of me on Humanist's PCA plot if included. ;)

But I have a question to you. If we take a look at the map of European genetics I attached above we will see a continuum from "White" (read "depigmented") post-Mesolithic Latvians and Lithuanians to South Italians (which score very high Mideast in McD interpretation). We know from the Humanist's work that South Italians are just Armenians and Armenians are just Assyrians. So the question to you: if Balts are one (Mesolithic) end of this continuum, then what population is on the other (Neolithic) end. In other words if races are "poles in the multidimentional space", then what population represents the Middle-Eastern/Neolithic pole/race the best?

Mike the Jedi
2010-08-10, 10:33
It's a wholly subjective term, dependent on the context and the experience of the person using it.

EliasAlucard
2010-08-10, 10:36
Let's forget about me for a while, I am using my humble porson only to provoke discussion: We all know that Polako is whiter than me and he will shoot up left of me on Humanist's PCA plot if included. ;)

But I have a question to you. If we take a look at the map of European genetics we will see a continuum from "White" (read "depigmented") post-Mesolithic Latvians and Lithuanians to South Italians. We know from the Humanist's work that South Italians are just Armenians and Armenians are just Assyrians. So the question to you: if Balts are one (Mesolithic) end of this continuum, then what population is on the other (Neolithic) end. In other words if races are "poles in the multidimentional spaces", then what population represents the Middle-Eastern/Neolitjic pole/race the best?Not to sound ethnocentric (which I most definitely am, but I try to be objective), Assyrians are the best representative ethnic group of the Middle East and Neolithic. Sure, we have some relatively recent European admixture, probably from the Caucasus and south-eastern Europe, but it's not too much and other than that I do believe we have maintained more than any other Middle Eastern group, our ancient Middle Eastern ancestry (which by the way, does not mean Arabic ancestry, as we Assyrians have none of that; it's the other way around; the ancestors of Arabs are derived from ancient Anatolia, hence their affinity with Assyrians).

As for whiteness, would it make south Europeans less white to have MENA ancestry? It's possible, but I don't think south Europeans have all that much Assyrian ancestry. Perhaps archaic Assyrian ancestry from the Neolithic (as in Anatolian farmers or whatever) but not from the past 3,000 years. And Assyrians come in various phenotypes and colours, the reason for this is because we are a mix of Europe and Middle East (which is reflected in both our geography and our genotypes which we can see on BGA tests).

Also, Sicilians, Maltese and such groups, don't have Arab ancestry, they have Berber and possibly some Phoenician ancestry. And that perhaps did contribute to their swarthiness and MENA-like traits. When I watch Sopranos btw, I'm surprised how stereotypically Assyrian some of them wogs look like.

As for Scandinavians and tan, this is individual. Nordids typically have the ability to produce a golden-brown tan effective immediately after staying out in the sun a few hours, but they also often get burnt and red and don't tan all that well. Why would this make you less white though? I mean, why would that matter, how you look when you're tanned? Obviously, if I or anyone else with light skin sit all day in the sun we'll get darker. But the question of who's whitest is about how light your skin colour is when you haven't tanned.

alfieb
2010-08-10, 10:44
Also, Sicilians, Maltese and such groups, don't have Arab ancestry, they have Berber and possibly some Phoenician ancestry. And that perhaps did contribute to their swarthiness and MENA-like traits. When I watch Sopranos btw, I'm surprised how stereotypically Assyrian some of them wogs look like.

This is correct... although I'd say it's more than possible that there is Phoenician ancestry. Carthage was in Sicily for nearly 1,000 years.

Kshatriya
2010-08-10, 11:58
Indo - aryan
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/187/438953449_9438ef7c93.jpg?v=0

He is rather Europid/Caucasoid looking for the most part, but not classically "Indo-Aryan" looking. He is fully IndoBrachid (~reduced/Alpinized type) however. Common for the Western Ghats and Gujurat as a whole. Also stereotypically Vaisya/trader caste looking, and found as a population element in Bengal and Andhra Pradesh.

Surena
2010-08-10, 12:26
The fairest, least tannable skin is in Ireland and Britain.

Many blond Scandinavians tan deeply.


Yes, they do, that doesn't make them less whiter at all though.


I was in London a few months ago and noted that the English very pale (which mostly isn't a positive thing). But at the same time I think the Brits have a Mediterranean influx that the Scandinavians do not have. Dark hair is relatively common in Britain, and traits could be different too ... When I saw blond and Nordic-looking people in London I thought "they look somewhat Scandinavian".

---------- Post added 2010-08-10 at 13:31 ----------


Well, yeah, "gingers" are mainly of Celtic/British Isles origin.


This is probably true. These people are the palest people, no doubt about that. There are some gingers among kurds and azeris too, and they are very pale, especially considering they are middle-eastern (more or less).

However I consider the blond Nordic type to be closer to the stereotype of the "white man" than gingers ...

voyager
2010-08-10, 12:51
Yes, they do, that doesn't make them less whiter at all though.


I was in London a few months ago and noted that the English very pale (which mostly isn't a positive thing). But at the same time I think the Brits have a Mediterranean influx that the Scandinavians do not have. Dark hair is relatively common in Britain, and traits could be different too ... When I saw blond and Nordic-looking people in London I thought "they look somewhat Scandinavian".

---------- Post added 2010-08-10 at 13:31 ----------




This is probably true. These people are the palest people, no doubt about that. There are some gingers among kurds and azeris too, and they are very pale, especially considering they are middle-eastern (more or less).

However I consider the blond Nordic type to be closer to the stereotype of the "white man" than gingers ...


Benjamin Franklin declared that only English stock (and Saxon Germans) were truly "pink and white".
He even called Swedes and Russians "swarthy".:D

Wojewoda
2010-08-10, 12:54
Benjamin Franklin declared that only English stock (and Saxon Germans) were truly "pink and white".
He even called Swedes and Russians "swarthy".:D

Someone should start a thread titled "Who is pink?". ;)

---------- Post added 2010-08-10 at 13:59 ----------


(...) Assyrians are the best representative ethnic group of the Middle East and Neolithic.

No one is contesting your claim, so I assume that it is true.

See maps attached for comparison.


So we have European populations placed on the continuum from Balts to Assyrians (with Finns being abducted by Aliens). Interesting.

Do you already know the answer to the question about the original haplogroup mix of such true blue Neolithic Middle-Easterners which later became Assyrians and who brought agriculture and city-civilisation everywhere?

Wojewoda
2010-08-10, 15:12
By the way Non-White, Not-Quite-White and Almost-White people seem to have a fetish for White - read Baltid - Women:

https://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?p=81879#post81879

Semitic Duwa
2010-08-10, 15:16
I tend to support Elias' claim that Ashkenazim are similar to Assyrians, such things can be seen in autosomal mode.

Yautja_BR
2010-08-10, 15:37
I voted "All Caucasoids".. of course. :)

But there will always be some idiotic folks that insist in saying Meds are not white.

Wojewoda
2010-08-10, 15:56
I voted "All Caucasoids".. of course. :)

But there will always be some idiotic folks that insist in saying Meds are not white.

No Country for White Man: ;)

Slawko
2010-08-10, 18:53
By the way Non-White, Not-Quite-White and Almost-White people seem to have a fetish for White - read Baltid - Women:

https://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?p=81879#post81879
Same Brzyduly. :sick:

People in the West have fascination with malnourished looking women. It's not something to be proud of.

iateyourheadphons
2010-08-10, 20:47
In the same way Berbers aren't Caucasians: Indians don't cluster with other Caucasians, they're relatively far away. And that's because they have non-Caucasoid admixture (Veddid, Australoid, Mongoloid or whatever).

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/2713/eliasalucarddecodemepca.png

^^ See the drag "South West Asians" have toward Mongoloids and Negroids? That's why Indians aren't Caucasians. They are, however, Caucasoid, which again, is not the same thing as European/white/Caucasian.

No, Indo-Aryan speakers don't have pure Caucasian features. They do have physical traits derived from Europeans though. But they also have "something else", which is why they're often brown.

how do explain this? they are classified as caucasion yes? indo aryan indians are decendants of people from the region of afganistan and iran.

deffinition :The term Caucasian race (also Caucasoid, Europid, or Europoid[1]) has been used to denote the general physical type of some or all of the indigenous populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, Central Asia, and South Asia.[2]

i thought being Caucasian is measured by certian head shape, facial features, bone structure etc. didnt know mixture or "european orgins" contribute to racial classification

T-Dominator
2010-08-10, 20:49
Freja_se is the real white!

Pallantides
2010-08-10, 21:04
Freja_se is the real white!

Her mother said 'you better stay away from Finns!' :D

Yautja_BR
2010-08-10, 21:07
I'm green, so I'm way above this discussion, you mortals..

Masahiroguren
2010-08-11, 13:28
White people and middle easterns are the same race, I understand the white pride stuff, but when it comes to racial policies, I think white people is not distinguished from middle eastern and indian caucasoids. Maybe it is a religious thing that differentiate different ethnic of caucasoid people, but racially speaking white people and other cucasoids are the same race, exactly like japanese and chinese are the same race. White racialists can consider themself as racially different from other caucasoids, but as an east asian I do not recognize this.

Dodz
2010-08-11, 14:22
White people and middle easterns are the same race, I understand the white pride stuff, but when it comes to racial policies, I think white people is not distinguished from middle eastern and indian caucasoids. Maybe it is a religious thing that differentiate different ethnic of caucasoid people, but racially speaking white people and other cucasoids are the same race, exactly like japanese and chinese are the same race. White racialists can consider themself as racially different from other caucasoids, but as an east asian I do not recognize this.

White race is a term which has instead been used by Anglo-Saxons for their own definitions.
There are found caucasoids populations from iceland to india through north africa and western
china (in the past).
A white man is plainly a depigmented caucasoid.

Viking
2010-08-11, 14:25
White people and middle easterns are the same race, I understand the white pride stuff, but when it comes to racial policies, I think white people is not distinguished from middle eastern and indian caucasoids. Maybe it is a religious thing that differentiate different ethnic of caucasoid people, but racially speaking white people and other cucasoids are the same race, exactly like japanese and chinese are the same race. White racialists can consider themself as racially different from other caucasoids, but as an east asian I do not recognize this.

In my opinion, this belongs in the "Who is white?"-thread. Threads merged.

/ Moderator

Ekarfi
2010-08-11, 14:41
I live in Southern Europe , and here I'm considered as "white" , however the "race" concept is way less important here than in USA for example , nobody cares.

alfieb
2010-08-11, 14:43
Who is white ? I'm considered white here where I live. But I don't give a shit to that white concept!

Corsican?

You guys are like us, that's why. We don't care either.

Libérer La Corse!

Ekarfi
2010-08-11, 14:52
Corsica?You guys are like us, that's why. We don't care either.
Libérer La Corse!
I live the mainland (close to Italy) not in Corsica but you're right Islanders such as Corsicans and Sicilians are the same :p

Masahiroguren
2010-08-11, 14:59
White race is a term which has instead been used by Anglo-Saxons for their own definitions.
There are found caucasoids populations from iceland to india through north africa and western
china (in the past).
A white man is plainly a depigmented caucasoid.

It was religion that separated the greater caucasoid race into various different ethnics, muslims, hindus, christians. Christianity as the latest of all religion it does not surprise me christian caucasians are the most powerful of all the rest of their race. Phenomenon of depigmentation is everywhere, from finnish tribes to pakistanis and berbers.

Falkata
2010-08-11, 22:52
In Europe we dont use this term but when I was in the U.S i guess I was "white", since they didn´t include me in the hispanic group (by looks, speaking was different..)

Karl der Große
2010-08-11, 22:56
In Europe we dont use this term but when I was in the U.S i guess I was "white", since they didn´t include me in the hispanic group (by looks, speaking was different..)

Yes, it is used. In the UK, or in some parts of northern, yes.

Bittereinder
2010-08-11, 23:00
Yes, it is used. In the UK, or in some parts of northern, yes.

I thought it was used everywhere. Blank in Dutch, blanco in Spanish, etc. However, the actual nationality usually takes precedence and I guess it's not an official census term like in the US.

jpz79
2011-01-08, 02:17
I consider whiteness to be a beguiling term, because of it's psuedo-correlation with ethno-history.
In America, 'white' is a laymen's term, reserved to describe European appearing Caucasoids. And while there is a reasonable relationship between phototype and genetic histories, it is less perfect than is often suggested.

Bohecoa
2011-01-08, 03:10
I'm quadroon.

7eleven
2011-01-08, 03:13
I'm quadroon.

Than your black

Kaiku
2011-01-09, 10:29
It was religion that separated the greater caucasoid race into various different ethnics, muslims, hindus, christians. Christianity as the latest of all religion it does not surprise me christian caucasians are the most powerful of all the rest of their race. Phenomenon of depigmentation is everywhere, from finnish tribes to pakistanis and berbers.

Islam is more recent than Christianity...

Wickedgirl
2011-01-09, 10:43
All native Europeans, Middle Eastern people and North Africans=Whites.

According to me, some smart forum members on here, science and the U.S. census.