Autosomal map : European admixture (from Dodecad)

Doesn't really help your case when they are only referring to Sicilians. Not all Italians. In addition to that, everybody is taking "evidence" from a fictional movie that Tarantino helped write. THAT is why there is a faulty common association between the 2. That is why there are so many search results. You know this, but aren't mentioning it because of how stupid you know it actually is. It's all Jewish/Liberal propaganda. The fact that you believe that this association is in anyway relevant is a testament to your stupidity.

It doesn't help yours the fact that so many people simply say "Italians" and do not single out your much dreaded Sicilians, who are just Italians like all others, despite your absurd claims of them being so different. That pretty much shows the "testament" to yours.

Nothing backfired on me.

Sure it did, since even one of the very authors' study you were trying to use in your ridiculous quest actually shows quite different results than you were gloating about.


I'm sure that you're aware of the Muslim conquest. It affected Spain and Portugal the most, hence why SSA gene flow is the most prevalent there and shows in specific gradients.

I'm sure that you are aware of Near Eastern and African slavery and immigration to Rome. As someone else informed you on another thread, Roman Italy was the "United States" of the day, attracting population movements from all over the then known world. It affected Italy the most, hence why SSA gene flow is the most prevalent there, as seen in these latest autosomal results.

I guess you're Portuguese or Spanish, and it upsets you which is why you're trying to insult Italians. That would explain your behavior. Looks like you flag is Catalan? You never know, somewhere in your maternal line could be a negro since it was clearly a common occurrence in those parts as shown in mtDNA studies.

The one obviously trying to insult is you, plainly seen in your behavior in this and other threads. I am merely putting an obvious t-r-o-l-l in his place and giving him a nice taste of his own medicine.

You are obviously of Italian descent and it seems to bother you a lot that sub-Saharan African influence in Europe could be highest in Italy. You never know, somewhere in your maternal or paternal line could be one of those "Negroes" you dread so much, since it was clearly a common occurrence in those parts as shown in autosomal studies.

I didn't plagiarize when I provided the link right after the quote now did I?

Sure you did, you did not quote the passage but copied & pasted it into the body of your post as if it was your own.

Read next time before talking.

Follow your own "advice".

You haven't "won any argument", or "stuck it to the man" at all. Nobody else thinks that these papers are valid and everybody most certainly knows that 9.2% SSA would in actuality, change the look of Italians dramatically.

You haven't won anything at all, but in fact actually managed to shoot yourself in the foot by bringing up Moorjani et al. Nobody has refuted any of the autosomal studies in question. Keep trying.


Also, from an earlier post:
"Medical studies have concluded that genetic traits found primarily in Africa (>80%) can be found at up to 20% of the Sardinian population and that there is a cline of African genetic input decreasing as one moves away from Iberia in a north easterly direction (note, the Grain I mentioned earlier) [3].

1. Sanchez-Velasco P, Gomez-Casado E, Martinez-Laso J, et al. (May 2003). "HLA alleles in isolated populations from North Spain: origin of the Basques and the ancient Iberians"

2. Choukri F, Chakib A, Himmich H, Raissi H, Caillat-Zucman S (June 2002). "HLA class I polymorphism in a Moroccan population from Casablanca". European Journal of Immunogenetics 29 (3): 205–11.

3. Gómez-Casado E, del Moral P, Martínez-Laso J, et al. (March 2000). "HLA genes in Arabic-speaking Moroccans: close relatedness to Berbers and Iberians". Tissue Antigens 55 (3): 239–49.


Thus, there is medical evidence that suggests Sardinia and Iberia share significantly higher levels of gene flow from Africa, perhaps as high as 20% in some areas. However, the relative isolation and European genetic influx into these areas has decreased the total African admixture to some degree."
 
Now your desperation is even more blatant, trying to bring up even more obsolete stuff like HLA genes. You might as well try to bring back Arnaiz-Villena and his claims about the alleged sub-Saharan kinship of Greeks based on the same obsolete nonsense. Even comparing haplogroups with autosomal research is a bit silly, let alone HLA genes.
 
I can see how this bit of information has made you touchy. If Negro slaves were such a common occurrence in Rome, why aren't most Italians today Negroid?

Your "bit of information" is obsolete stuff that no population geneticists of today uses, just like sickle cell anemia and the like things. Would you like me to start pulling all those old papers/articles on sickle cell anemia and how they keep mentioning it as being endemic among Italians, and use it as "proof" that they are the most African-influenced people in Europe alongside the Greeks and Portuguese, like countless Neo-Nazis, Nordicists and Afrocentrists have been trying to do for a long time? But that's hardly necessary in the light of more recent autosomal studies. Now they have much more modern "ammo" against their Italian targets.

You're just angry that Spaniards are always referred to as the Moors that they are. Surley you haven't forgotten Al-Andalus, which was the Arab dynasty that ruined Spain and pillaged all of their women, one of which could have been your grandmother.

Methinks that you are just angry that Italians have always been referred to as the most non-European influenced people in Europe that they are. Surely you DON'T want to start pulling quotations from historians specializing in the history of both Spain and Italy and comparing what they say about each country's contact with non-Europeans during the Middle Ages and the Roman period, respectively, do you? I assure you that you will lose... again. Even many of the emperors of Rome (Septimius Severus, Caracalla, Macrinus, Aemilianus, Philip the Arab, etc.) were Moors, Syrians and Libyans integrated into Roman society, any of which could have been your grandmother/grandfather.

Hint: the so-called "Moorish invasion" of the Middle Ages was only a military/religious affair, it did not bring huge numbers of foreigners into Spain. Most historians on the subject will inform you of that. What happened in Italy during Roman times, on the other hand, was a real large migration of people (both slaves and free citizens.) Most historians on the subject will inform you of that.
 
So what? The only thing Italians have going against them is the Jewish/Arabic claim.

I wonder if you realize how much you contradict yourself when you try to use "Moors" against Iberians? You must for some bizarre reason think that the "Moors" in Medieval Iberia were somehow "different" from the ones in Roman Italy. The only "different" thing about them was that the ones in the Middle Ages were Muslims, while the ones in Roman times were pagans and early Christians. That's about it. A difference of religions.

I've never seen anybody say "Geez, that Italian sure looks 9.2% black" in my entire life. That's hardly as bad as the 20%+ L mtDNA haplogroups found in parts of Southwestern Europe which are from Niggers. Autosomal studies (Ancestral Informal Markers, not haplogroups), say the same thing.

Once again, trying to feign ignorance of a topic that you are already well aware of won't help you. You already have been informed that the claims about Italians having connections to "blacks" by all sorts of people, specially Nordicists and Afrocentrists, are legion. The main reason that the "Racial Myths/Racial Reality" guy (who is of Italian descent himself) started his web site was in fact because of these popular claims about Italians.

Yes, all of whom are Caucasoid. Not Negroid like the Sub-Saharans who were involved in the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade.

The sub-Saharan slave trade was strongest in Portugal, and it actually even brought black Africans to Britain and Germany as well.

You do know that N.African's aren't Black right? Only until recently have they had contact with Saharan populations, and even that's towards the SOUTH of North Africa. Severus was a Caucasoid from Mediterranean N.Africa, Caracalla was of mixed Punic-Roman and Syrian descent (again, all Caucasoid groups), Macrinus was born right on the Coast of N.Africa. He could've been Greek/Ancient Egyptian/Phonecian, etc. Aemilianus was a Berber (white North African). Phillip the Arab was Syrian. Syrians aren't Negroes. NONE of these groups are Negroid like you claim.


I never claimed they were Negroid, but it is you who paradoxically seems to want to use them as such when it comes to Medieval Spain and Portugal, but not Roman Italy!

Let's focus on the Umayyad conquest of Hispania shall we? A few rulers of Spain during the Moorish conquest were; Tariq ibn Ziyad, Abd-ar-Rahman III, Abdullah ibn Muhammad al-Umawi (7th Emir of Cordoba), and the list goes on. You're a ******* idiot if you think Spaniards are "less polluted" than Italians because they're not. Let's not forget that the Conquest's stronghold was in Spain. Where it had the most affect. Not all slave owners in Rome bread with their slaves.

Once again, the idiot is you if you think that a military intervention involving only a few thousand foreign people in a geographic area already inhabited by several million people is equivalent to an actual migration of larger numbers of people. On top of that, in medieval Iberia there was a history of reconquest and expulsion of people from different religions other than that of the Christian conquerors. In Roman Italy no such thing happened since the "invasion" there was of a more peaceful kind, not in the form of a military/religious conflict. In other words, the foreign population of Roman Italy was never expelled. There never was any reason to. The Romans did not see these foreigners as a military/religious threat. In fact, as mentioned, they even allowed them to become emperors! So using your very own kind of "arguments", guess who must be the more "polluted"?

Once again, it's the Portuguese and Spaniards who own this claim. Look up "are spanish people...", in the Google search engine. You will get JUST as many if not more results linking them to Negroes, Moors, Arabs, etc as Italians do. And a favorite of mine, the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade! As a matter of fact, whole towns in Iberia were composed of Negroids. WHOLE TOWNS. This is why the 20% L sequences exist in the first place. So don't give me shit about Italians inter-mingling with slaves when there was nowhere near as much of that going on as there were in some parts of Southwestern Europe. So it's likely that you have a nigger somewhere in there on your maternal line at-least.

Once again, look at all the results for Italians, as many if not more. But there is a difference between that (popular ideas, claims and so forth) and what the latest results of autosomal studies say. You already saw it. You did not like it. Lesson: don't try to t-r-o-l-l other people because it can come back at you, more easily than you thought it would.

PS: What parts of Southwestern Europe were supposedly populated only by Negroid slaves? I doubt that even in southern Portugal such a thing ever happened.
 
PS: What parts of Southwestern Europe were supposedly populated only by Negroid slaves? I doubt that even in southern Portugal such a thing ever happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afric...logroup_L_lineages_frequencies_.28.3E_1.25.29

The highest frequencies of Sub-Saharan lineages found so far in Europe were observed by Alvarez et al. 2010 in the comarca of Sayago (18.2%) which is according to the authors "comparable to that described for the South of Portugal"[25][26] and by Pereira et al. 2010 in Alcacer do Sal (22%).[27]

Very recent study. Guess how many were found in Italy?
 
Once again, trying to feign ignorance of a topic that you are already well aware of won't help you. You already have been informed that the claims about Italians having connections to "blacks" by all sorts of people, specially Nordicists and Afrocentrists, are legion. The main reason that the "Racial Myths/Racial Reality" guy (who is of Italian descent himself) started his web site was in fact because of these popular claims about Italians.
And Spanish people haven't been associated with Blacks and N.Africans? The person who owned RR did indeed prove these claims wrong with genetic studies of his own. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's true.

The sub-Saharan slave trade was strongest in Portugal, and it actually even brought black Africans to Britain and Germany as well.
I don't get what your trying to say? The majority of it was centered in SW Europe. So what if a few slaves went to Germany or Britain?
 
Unless you guys are neaderthals then you came from the east, middle-east or africa

sent your data to doug Mcdonald he does an analysis for free. he will tell you what you are with charts and information.

I am 100% european, but originated in the north caucasus ( approx 3500 years ago )......arriving in the eastern alps approx 50BC...that what the data showed and what I was told.

If you are scared to do the test, then keep continuing in this crap conversation,........... its boring and all wrong
 
Unless you guys are neaderthals then you came from the east, middle-east or africa

sent your data to doug Mcdonald he does an analysis for free. he will tell you what you are with charts and information.

I am 100% european, but originated in the north caucasus ( approx 3500 years ago )......arriving in the eastern alps approx 50BC...that what the data showed and what I was told.

If you are scared to do the test, then keep continuing in this crap conversation,........... its boring and all wrong

I'm not afraid. I know that there will probably be some high West/Southwest Asian component on my test. I know right now that I have origins in the Middle East. This doesn't bother me. There's probably even some N.African in there. Hell, I probably even have a few Jewish ancestors in there somewhere. That being said, I highly doubt though that there is little, if any sub-Saharan African component.

I just have issue with this idiot claiming that Italians are 10% SSA, which everybody knows is absurd and un-true. I also have issue with him stating that most SSA gene-flow took place during Roman times when we all know that this claim is false as SW Europe was the most involved with the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.

I also notice how he didn't reply once confronted with the % of L mtDna haplogroups being found at over 20% in some parts of Portugal and 18% in Spain. I have yet to find values this high in the rest of Europe.
 
And Spanish people haven't been associated with Blacks and N.Africans? The person who owned RR did indeed prove these claims wrong with genetic studies of his own. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's true.

Now apply that to the Spanish and Portuguese you so desperately want to throw that nonsense to and you'll realize how silly you have been all this time.

I don't get what your trying to say? The majority of it was centered in SW Europe. So what if a few slaves went to Germany or Britain?

Few? There were even "black" societies in Britain made up of ex-slaves. The levels of black servants/slaves there were comparable to the ones imported to Spain or France. Still, they did not even make up 2-3% of the population. So in an ironic sense, yes, there were relatively few slaves in all these countries, which again shows that you have no point.
 
I just have issue with this idiot claiming that Italians are 10% SSA, which everybody knows is absurd and un-true. I also have issue with him stating that most SSA gene-flow took place during Roman times when we all know that this claim is false as SW Europe was the most involved with the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.

The "idiot" here being the geneticists (many of them Italians themselves!) who have concluded that from sampling Italians and whom you desperately want to overlook or ignore just to concentrate on the studies that seem to say things you want to hear. How convenient, isn't it?

I also notice how he didn't reply once confronted with the % of L mtDna haplogroups being found at over 20% in some parts of Portugal and 18% in Spain. I have yet to find values this high in the rest of Europe.

Apparently you have a knack for not noticing things that people keep reminding you of: haplogroups are open to interpretation (not all L sequences are considered "sub-Saharan" or having to do with "black" Africans) and they are also a small part of your DNA. Autosomal analysis is more thorough, and you already know what it says about the subject.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afric...logroup_L_lineages_frequencies_.28.3E_1.25.29

The highest frequencies of Sub-Saharan lineages found so far in Europe were observed by Alvarez et al. 2010 in the comarca of Sayago (18.2%) which is according to the authors "comparable to that described for the South of Portugal"[25][26] and by Pereira et al. 2010 in Alcacer do Sal (22%).[27]

Very recent study. Guess how many were found in Italy?

The autosomal one that you dread so much is still more recent (published December 2012), and you already know what it says. Italians came up with higher sub-Saharan than everyone else in Europe, including the Portugese, which, by the way, seem to have made up most of their non-Italian European Mediterranean samples. See figure 2 of the said study; the only Mediterranean areas besides Italy being sampled for the study were Portugal and Northwest Spain. So the study should probably more likely have said "the amount of African ancestry in Italians is however more comparable to (but slightly higher than) the average in Portugal (7.1%)."
 
The great majority of Haplogroup studies (they have practically no significance with respect to full heritage) that Wormhole is quoting are outdated and some are very deficient, methodologically. Case in point, the Alcacer do Sal "research"; treated as "laughable" now-a-days by serious researchers. The latest K-12 autosomal Eurogenes study (Eurogenes site) shows Portugal with ~ 1% Sub-Saharan DNA, nearly all of it very old. Spain records even less. Hmmm ... wonder what the SSA percentages are for places like Liverpool and Bristol, possibly the biggest black slave ports in the Atlantic Slave Trade?
 
Funny how obviously racially insecure, social anxiety driven characters keep showing up here.
 
Exaggerating all the time is what the guy did, the hate is obvious.

When we're dealing with "Middle Eastern", "North African" or even "West Asian" components, it's easy to notice when checking the Fst distances that they're closer to African (aka Sub-Saharan) than the Mediterranean or North European components do for instance. So telling there's no Sub-Saharan in a population just because there's no result labeled "Sub-Saharan", is inaccurate and completely false. The components aren't pure and one should care to revise where they fall along the cline (the African/West-East Eurasian triangle). Oh, and results showing less than 1% in one cluster, are considered noise (admixture is good, but has its limitations). Iberians rarely have more than this, let alone the Catalans whose African ancestry is absolutely insignificant, and I know it by first hand experience.

Time to stop misinterpreting the components and this kind of tests for strange purposes (intentionally, of course). Note that the clusters come without names, and the researcher simply choses. But the Fst distances tell the whole story or, at least, it's the best aproximation.

By the way, the Eurogenes Project uses the Yoruba samples as the Sub-Saharan reference, which IMO increases the percents (they have some Eurasian compared to other groups). Actually, it is better to use San and Pygmies to get a better perspective, and one realises that there's really no significant Sub-Saharan element in Europe, although not absent for the reasons I already stated (but difficult to quantify).
 
wormhole is banned forever for racism.
 
He sounded unstable. Someone who is that hung up on racial identity probably shouldn't take an autosomal test.
 
Don't know what is that guy talking about, these idiots just go to Shittypedia on copy what they see there. The truth is that study on the 20% mtDNA L is from Alcacer Do Sal, a town with a well known history of isolation from descendants of slaves.
The reality is that mtDNA L is found in all of Europe, and Spain barely reaches 1%, when combining all the studies, like here :

http://anthrospain.blogspot.com.es/2012/02/mtdna-l-in-europe-and-spain.html

Not to mention that the largest study done so far in Spain, is Rhouda et al. 2006 with a sample of more than 800 people, and there was 0 % of mtDNA L...
 
Don't know what is that guy talking about, these idiots just go to Shittypedia on copy what they see there. The truth is that study on the 20% mtDNA L is from Alcacer Do Sal, a town with a well known history of isolation from descendants of slaves.
The reality is that mtDNA L is found in all of Europe, and Spain barely reaches 1%, when combining all the studies, like here :

http://anthrospain.blogspot.com.es/2012/02/mtdna-l-in-europe-and-spain.html

Not to mention that the largest study done so far in Spain, is Rhouda et al. 2006 with a sample of more than 800 people, and there was 0 % of mtDNA L...

Just another malicious hater... sociopath.
 
Don't know what is that guy talking about, these idiots just go to Shittypedia on copy what they see there. The truth is that study on the 20% mtDNA L is from Alcacer Do Sal, a town with a well known history of isolation from descendants of slaves.
The reality is that mtDNA L is found in all of Europe, and Spain barely reaches 1%, when combining all the studies, like here :

http://anthrospain.blogspot.com.es/2012/02/mtdna-l-in-europe-and-spain.html

Not to mention that the largest study done so far in Spain, is Rhouda et al. 2006 with a sample of more than 800 people, and there was 0 % of mtDNA L...

oh well, Spain miss out on L ...too bad:rolleyes:
 
Reply

:cool-v: Ha, I thought the same thing!:cool-v:
 

This thread has been viewed 206405 times.

Back
Top