PDA

View Full Version : Pigmentation of European Hunter Gatherers



Tomenable
05-09-16, 22:00
some people haven't quite absorbed the fact that the WHG were darker than the farmers.

But the WHG lived in Western Europe. Eastern European EHG and Scandinavian SHG were much lighter.

Some people haven't quite absorbed the fact that Eastern Europe - and not Western Europe - was the "cradle of White people".

Also, the WHG contribution to modern European gene pool seems to be very limited, if we look at this:

https://s12.postimg.io/bszjn5fbx/sweeping_migrations.png

Grey component was present in Mesolithic Russia among the EHG, and later in the Pontic Steppe
Blue component was present in Mesolithic Western Europe among the WHG, and in Scandinavia

Bronze Age Europeans had much more of grey component (ultimately derived from the EHG). Also as a matter of fact the EHG and the later Steppe groups (Copper Age and Bronze Age) were generally lighter-pigmented than Anatolian farmers.

https://s12.postimg.io/bszjn5fbx/sweeping_migrations.png

So Northern European pigmentation does not come from Anatolia, but from those "Aryans" in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe.

Look at modern Sardinians or Sicilians - their moderately light pigmentation indeed comes from Anatolian farmers.

Some people apparently still haven't quite absorbed the fact that, originally, "White" = "Indo-European".

OK, OK, you are going to respond: "but the Yamnaya were still in fact quite swarthy!". Maybe they were.

But there were other Bronze Age Steppe groups, such as Srubnaya or Sintashta, who were much lighter.

Tomenable
05-09-16, 22:10
Already Maciamo has linked the spread of light pigmentation with haplogroups R1a and R1b:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1a_Y-DNA.shtml#pigmentation

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#pigmentation

And ancient DNA kind of confirms this (even though Non-R1 Anatolians were also quite light).

Angela
05-09-16, 22:18
But the WHG lived in Western Europe. Eastern European EHG and Scandinavian SHG were much lighter.

Some people haven't quite absorbed the fact that Eastern Europe - and not Western Europe - was the "cradle of White people".

Also, the WHG contribution to modern European gene pool seems to be very limited, if we look at this:

https://s12.postimg.io/bszjn5fbx/sweeping_migrations.png

Grey component was present in Mesolithic Russia among the EHG, and later in the Pontic Steppe
Blue component was present in Mesolithic Western Europe among the WHG, and in Scandinavia

Bronze Age Europeans had much more of grey component (ultimately derived from the EHG):

You're not reading as carefully as you once did, Tomenable. Flustered? I already said that the EHG and the SHG were lighter. Did you miss it?

Well, a good big chunk of that EHG and SHG is actually WHG, isn't it? Up to a half some claim, if not way more according to others. Same people, Tomenable, it's just that they got some skin lightening snps from the Caucasus and perhaps from the early Neolithic people in the Balkans. The climate in that inhospitable part of the world did the rest. They sure didn't get it from the Mal'ta types. Unless you think it was some de novo mutations, a type of parallel evolution, and they practiced some weird, horrific cult where they butchered the non-"white" infants? You know, sort of the reverse of the situation in Africa, where they murder the albino children.

Well, enough off-topic. Go back and read all the threads, Tomenable, many of which you yourself started. Make sure to look for the blonde, blue eyed, fair skinned totally Neolithic farmer people in central Europe, who were NOT R1b or R1a, and the pigmentation results for the Anatolian farmers and even Levant farmers, most of whom were neither R1b or R1a. Oh, check out Villabruna too; typically WHG pigmentation profile.

I think I've made my point, anyway.

I hope everyone has noticed that I was right as to the motivations. You've impeached yourself as an impartial analyst out of your own mouth. This post should be screen saved as proof of it. In fact, I will screen save it, just as I've screen saved lots of stuff over the years and put them into a cloud account.

You should be more careful, just in case you ever want to work anywhere else in the world. These are the kinds of statements that have put paid to other people's aspirations from your part of the world.

Tomenable
05-09-16, 22:21
Same people, Tomenable, it's just that they got some skin lightening snps from the Caucasus and perhaps from the early Neolithic people in the Balkans. The climate in that inhospitable part of the world did the rest.

Source please, Angela. Have you missed this paper, in which they claim that lightening SNPs emerged in Europe?:

Felix M. Key et al., 2016: Human adaptation and population differentiation in the light of ancient genomes (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160318/ncomms10775/full/ncomms10775.html)

Quote:

"(...) Adaptive alleles—especially those associated with pigmentation—are mostly of hunter-gatherer origin, although lactose persistence arose in a haplotype present in farmers. (...)"

Don't ask me how they determined this, but they looked at the "background" genes in which new mutations emerged. And they conclued that the "background" in which lightening mutations emerged was of WHG (or European HG in general) origin.

However, in Western Europe there was probably not enough of selective pressure promoting those new mutations.

Tomenable
05-09-16, 22:25
It is explained here:

"(...) The derived allele upstream of OCA2 (rs12913832 in HERC2) is associated with blue iris colour in Europeans42 and light skin pigmentation43; both this variant and its linked variation show that Loschbour carried the predominant European haplotype (Fig. 6a). The derived allele in SLC45A2 non-synonymous rs16891982 is associated with lighter skin pigmentation and increased melanoma risk in Europeans44, 45. No ancestral genome carries rs16891982’s derived allele, but Loschbour carries the haplotype that, in present-day populations, is linked to the derived allele (Fig. 6b). Therefore hunter-gatherer populations likely contributed both OCA2 and SLC45A2 advantageous alleles to the European gene pool. This agrees well with these populations inhabiting northern European areas before the arrival of southern farmer groups. Lighter skin pigmentation has been proposed to be advantageous in northern latitudes to sustain vitamin D3 production in low-ultraviolet environments46. Blue iris colour may be advantageous to reduce the risk of seasonal affective disorder (also known as winter depression) in high latitudes47, increase sensitivity to glare48 or for sexual selection49. (...)"

Maybe France, Spain, Switzerland and Luxembourg - where the WHG lived - were not "cloudy and cold enough" to create selective pressure promoting lightening mutations? On the other hand, Russia and Sweden are less sunny environments.

And here about LP:

"(...) Another interesting target of positive selection in Europe is lactase persistence (LP)5, 50. It has been proposed that LP was introduced in Europe during the Neolithic transition and the introduction of farming culture51, 52. It is known that the two derived alleles associated with LP in Europe (in rs4988235 and rs182549)53 are absent in the two ancient genomes33 and are not observed in Europe until ~2300 BC in an individual of inferred steppe ancestry17. But the European tail includes a large number of alleles in the lactase enhancer region and the LP haplotype (chr2:135859371-136740900) that are exclusively present in Stuttgart (65% of Stuttgart specific targets; Fig. 6c). Thus the haplotype that is today associated with LP in Europe originated most likely in this genetic background, which we detect only in the Stuttgart farmer, although this individual itself did not carry the LP allele. (...)"

Angela
05-09-16, 23:07
Oh please, give it a rest. This is getting tiring. Stop spamming papers and facts that don't prove what you claim they prove. It's just embarrassing, whether you know it or not. Everybody was a hunter gatherer once, remember? Were the WHG as black as Nigerians? No, they probably weren't, but when the farmers entered Europe, they were lighter than the WHG, and the Caucasus people were lighter too. It's just a fact. I've already explained the SHG and EHG, who are majority WHG.

Poles aren't the original "white" people who dropped out of a ship into eastern Europe, and the EHG weren't speaking PIE at the beginning of the Holocene, and R1a and R1b weren't hermetically sealed in eastern Europe. The people of Europe were sitting around scratching themselves as they huddled in their caves or yurts while civilization was starting its march in the Middle East. Like it or lump it, that's the reality of the situation, and it was the same for the steppe EHG before whoever it was that gave them Caucasus and EEF ancestry civilized them. An imperfect job, I agree.

Plus, even if you were correct, have you ever heard the phrase, "What have you done for me lately"?

Fluffy
05-09-16, 23:34
But the WHG lived in Western Europe. Eastern European EHG and Scandinavian SHG were much lighter.

Some people haven't quite absorbed the fact that Eastern Europe - and not Western Europe - was the "cradle of White people".

Also, the WHG contribution to modern European gene pool seems to be very limited, if we look at this:

https://s12.postimg.io/bszjn5fbx/sweeping_migrations.png

Grey component was present in Mesolithic Russia among the EHG, and later in the Pontic Steppe
Blue component was present in Mesolithic Western Europe among the WHG, and in Scandinavia

Bronze Age Europeans had much more of grey component (ultimately derived from the EHG). Also as a matter of fact the EHG and the later Steppe groups (Copper Age and Bronze Age) were generally lighter-pigmented than Anatolian farmers.

https://s12.postimg.io/bszjn5fbx/sweeping_migrations.png

So Northern European pigmentation does not come from Anatolia, but from those "Aryans" in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe.

Look at modern Sardinians or Sicilians - their moderately light pigmentation indeed comes from Anatolian farmers.

Some people apparently still haven't quite absorbed the fact that, originally, "White" = "Indo-European".

OK, OK, you are going to respond: "but the Yamnaya were still in fact quite swarthy!". Maybe they were.

But there were other Bronze Age Steppe groups, such as Srubnaya or Sintashta, who were much lighter.

Oh please this is ridiculous, white people are only R1b and R1a??? So I'm now non white because I'm G. I'm 100% European based on my autosomal results.

Tomenable
05-09-16, 23:36
Everybody was a hunter gatherer once, remember?

That paper is specifically about European hunter-gatherers. Don't pretend that you don't know it.

It is not about any types of hunter-gatherers living anywhere in the world.

Why are you so stubborn to prove that everything in Europe came from the Middle East?

Don't you identify as a European? Italians also have some WHG and EHG. Embrace your HG part too.

All Europeans are a mix of the same ancestral populations, only in different proportions.

That's why in PCA all Europeans cluster together and are away from North Africans or Middle Easterners.

Italians are also genetically closer to other Europeans than they are to present-day MENA populations.


The people of Europe were sitting around scratching themselves as they huddled in their caves or yurts

During some period of time, progress in the Middle East indeed tended to be faster.

However, progress did not start only with farming. It had started already in the Upper Paleolithic period.

And progress had been faster among northern hunters than among southern hunters:

https://unsafeharbour.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/the-origins-of-inequality/

Quote:

"(...) We all know that the early development in agriculture and civilization began in Eurasia - but it goes back much earlier than that. At a somewhat atemporal level, toolkits of hunter-gatherers have been shown to increase in size and complexity with latitude [larger and more complex toolkits in northern latitudes] (Oswalt, 1976) - the driving cause seeming to be the risk of resource failure (Collard et al., 2005). Developments necessary for cold, risk of resource failure… whatever the cause, Foley (1987) writes: 'although there is a general and global technological development during the Pleistocene, it is in high latitudes that it is most marked; in parts of the tropics the artefacts remained simple.' (...)"

Fluffy
05-09-16, 23:44
That paper is specifically about European hunter-gatherers. Don't pretend that you don't know it.

It is not about any types of hunter-gatherers living anywhere in the world.

Why are you so stubborn to prove that everything in Europe came from the Middle East?

Don't you identify as a European? Italians also have some WHG and EHG. Embrace your HG part too.

All Europeans are a mix of the same ancestral populations, only in different proportions.

That's why in PCA all Europeans cluster together and are away from North Africans or Middle Easterners.

Italians are also genetically closer to other Europeans than they are to present-day MENA populations.



During some period of time, progress in the Middle East indeed tended to be faster.

However, progress did not start only with farming. It had started already in the Upper Paleolithic period.

And progress had been faster among northern hunters than among southern hunters:

https://unsafeharbour.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/the-origins-of-inequality/

Quote:

"(...) We all know that the early development in agriculture and civilization began in Eurasia - but it goes back much earlier than that. At a somewhat atemporal level, toolkits of hunter-gatherers have been shown to increase in size and complexity with latitude [larger and more complex toolkits in northern latitudes] (Oswalt, 1976) - the driving cause seeming to be the risk of resource failure (Collard et al., 2005). Developments necessary for cold, risk of resource failure… whatever the cause, Foley (1987) writes: 'although there is a general and global technological development during the Pleistocene, it is in high latitudes that it is most marked; in parts of the tropics the artefacts remained simple.' (...)"

Please answer my question, Am I non white because I'm in Haplogroup G?

Tomenable
05-09-16, 23:45
Check this pattern of genetic clustering around the world, where Cluster "A" are modern Europeans.

All Europeans are more closely related to each other than any of European groups is to Non-Europeans:

1) Europe (cluster A): http://s13.postimg.org/rr8z5vu2f/Cluster_A.png

http://s13.postimg.org/rr8z5vu2f/Cluster_A.png

2) The entire world: http://s23.postimg.org/nyqxhpjcb/global_genetic_distances_map.jpg

http://s23.postimg.org/nyqxhpjcb/global_genetic_distances_map.jpg

Tomenable
05-09-16, 23:49
Please answer my question, Am I non white because I'm in Haplogroup G?

Of course you are White*. Y chromosome is only ~2% of entire genome.

Autosomal DNA is transmitted mostly independently of your haplogroup.

*Actually, I prefer to use the"people of color" for Europeans. Because, you know, "Black" is not a real color - black is lack of color. When pigment in your skin absorbs all of sunlight, it creates an illusion of black shade. Europeans are the "true people of color", because we have the highest diversity of eye, hair and skin pigmentation in the world. Europe is already the most diverse and multicultural continent, even without any further enrichment from outside. We should send this message to the whole Third World: "look, it is you, 99% Muslim countries, who need enrichment, not us; your countries have big troubles, your people live for less than 2 dollars a day".

Maybe Europe is unique because it was such a melting pot of people from Anatolia, from the Steppe, etc. in the past?

Look at former colonies - they liberated themselves from "White oppressors", and now they are immigrating to countries of their former oppressors. Why are people from former French colonies immigrating to France? Do they want to get oppressed by evil Whites again? Or maybe - just maybe - they realized that they cannot govern themselves as efficiently as Europeans were able to?

Fluffy
05-09-16, 23:56
Of course you are White. Y chromosome is only ~2% of entire genome.

Autosomal DNA is transmitted mostly independently of your haplogroup.

Ok thanks for answering my question. There are people out their who insist that haplogroups I, J, E ,N ,G, and T are non white.

Tomenable
06-09-16, 00:27
Angela, when it comes to lightening mutations in Ancient North Eurasians:


They sure didn't get it from the Mal'ta types.

Why are you so sure about this, given that Genetiker found lightening mutations in Afontova Gora 2 sample?:

"Pigmentation SNP genotypes for Mal’ta 1 and Afontova Gora 2":

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/pigmentation-snp-genotypes-for-malta-1-and-afontova-gora-2/

Is Genetiker lying? He may be nuts, a weird guy, but nobody has ever proven that he lies about DNA results:


Below are all of the available genotypes from Mal’ta 1 and Afontova Gora 2 for the pigmentation SNPs included in the 8-plex and HIrisPlex systems.

Mal’ta 1 and Afontova Gora 2 both had two copies of the ancestral allele of rs1545397, which is used in the 8-plex system for the prediction of both skin color and eye color.

Mal’ta 1 and Afontova Gora 2 also both had two copies of the ancestral allele of rs1800407, the derived allele of which is associated with green or hazel eyes.

Mal’ta 1 had two copies of the ancestral allele of rs1426654, but Afontova Gora 2 had two copies of the derived allele. This SNP is located in the gene SLC24A5, and its derived allele is one of the two major Caucasoid depigmentation mutations. The other major Caucasoid depigmentation mutation is the derived allele of rs16891982, in the gene SLC45A2.

So we now know that Stora Förvar 11, who lived 7,500 years ago in Sweden, had the SLC45A2 mutation, and that Motala 12, who lived 8,000 years ago in Sweden, and Afontova Gora 2, who lived 17,000 years ago in Siberia, had the SLC24A5 mutation. This means that the simplistic picture that some people have been advancing of light-skinned farmers and dark-skinned hunter-gatherers is not correct.

This paper from last year dated the coalescence of the SLC24A5 mutation at 28,000–22,000 years ago, and this paper from 2012 estimated that the selective sweep for the SLC24A5 mutation started 19,000–11,000 years ago. These estimates are consistent with the Afontova Gora 2 finding.

Tomenable
06-09-16, 00:37
Angela,


You continue to post things taken from some white racist, eastern European playbook

Sorry but racism was actually "invented" in Western Europe.

Moreover, racism requires power + prejudice, and Eastern Europe has no "power".

So we cannot be racist just like Blacks cannot be racist in the USA.

Or are you saying that Black Lives Matter is a racist movement ???


eastern European playbook

Which one - "unsafeharbour.wordpress.com" ??? It is clearly a Western website.

Tomenable
06-09-16, 00:52
With the Holocene, there were numerous developments in many fields, including microliths, and they took place in the Near East. Farming developed there, and herding, and metallurgy, and cities, and literacy, all of the hallmarks of civilization.

Out of the things that you mentioned, microliths and metallurgy did not develop in the Middle East.

Microliths developed in more northerly areas, and the oldest evidence of metallurgy is from the Balkans.

Herding developed in several distinct areas - for example horses were domesticated in the Steppe.

Tomenable
06-09-16, 01:01
It's a waste of time, because you have no interest in figuring out the truth.

Wow, simply wow!

I hear this from a person who has just claimed that all relevant haplogroups expanded from the Middle East, that all adaptive mutations emerged in the Middle East, that blonde hair and blue eyes came from the Middle East. Quote:

"Make sure to look for the blonde, blue eyed, fair skinned totally Neolithic farmer people in central Europe"

Did you already forget that >90% of the WHG were derived for blue eyes mutation?

Please note that you are not really talking about inventions or civilization, but about "race".

You are obsessed about making the Middle East the center of the universe. There is absolutely no evidence that derived adaptive mutations present in groups such as EHG, Afontova Gora 2 or SHG were of Middle Eastern origin.

But you cannot stand the notion that there was some continuity of settlement in Europe.

BTW - the Middle East has seen just as much of population replacemenst and sweeping migrations as Europe.

Modern Middle Easterners are not 100% identical as people who created civilization thousands of years ago.

Angela, maybe you should be a moderator at MENApedia, not Eupedia...

Tomenable
06-09-16, 01:10
And Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews have European admixture. They spoke Indo-European languages (such as Yiddish, Ladino, etc.) for centuries. Jews are more genetically European than even they want to admit. They are not "pure Neolithic Farmers".

Deal with it. Because your admiration of the Middle East seems to revolve largely around your numerous Jewish friends.

But these Jews are not as much Middle Eastern as you want them to be. Especially not culturally Middle Eastern.

LeBrok
06-09-16, 01:18
And Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews have European admixture. They spoke Indo-European languages (such as Yiddish, Ladino, etc.) for centuries. Jews are more genetically European than even they want to admit. They are not "pure Neolithic Farmers".

Deal with it. Because your admiration of the Middle East seems to revolve largely around your numerous Jewish friends.

But these Jews are not as much Middle Eastern as you want them to be. Especially not culturally Middle Eastern.
You still don't get it. Stop being so afraid of others and insecure of your own worth. Your writing reeks racism from miles away.

Tomenable
06-09-16, 01:38
Your writing ricks racism from miles away.

Really? Because I claimed that some mutation originated in prehistoric Europe (based on non-trivial evidence)? Nowadays people use "racism" for "anything that doesn't fit my agenda", which is why racism has become a buzzword without any real meaning:

"Everything is racist and you have to point it all out" - as Anita Sarkeesian claimed:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA0aKjY8K50

I seriously don't even know what are we actually debating here. Angela and you just accused me of racism because I dared to claim that "something" originated in Europe, rather than everything originating in the Middle East as some people claim. This is just insane. And Angela also claimed that Central European farmers got their blue eyes from Anatolia, when we know that Anatolians had brown eyes and the WHG had blue eyes. So obviously in a group of mixed Anatolian-WHG ancestry, those blue eyes were inherited from the WHG.

You are surprised that more and more people in Europe vote right-wing, when they are just scared by Anti-European agendas that attack them from every side. The regressive left are responsible for the rise of the xenophobic right.

AfD just got 1/4 of votes in regional election in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.

holderlin
06-09-16, 02:48
Jesus

-
-
-
--
-
--
-

holderlin
06-09-16, 02:52
I have no part in all of this silliness, but I can't ignore data.

Angela
06-09-16, 17:33
who had the first alleles for white skin does not matter, the alleles were present long before white skin became common

what matters it to understand when, where, how and why white skin was favoured by natural selection
the same goes for LP and so many other traits

we don't have enough data yet to understand the selection

easier to understand should be LP, and even there we don't know the when, the where and the how

Indeed, but our representatives from the White Nationalist groups have difficulty dealing with that.

@Tomenable,
Stop with the straw man arguments. The theory that selection for these traits had something to do with farming was one possibility. As new data comes out, you adjust your theories. Well, you do unless your mission is to support some bizarre view of history even to the point of totally distorting the available evidence.

@Aaron 1981,

Oh please, you identify as Scots or whatever do you? Not as an American? You think you are less "American" than an Ojibway? I beg leave to doubt.

So, let me see how this works...The first group to arrive in totally uninhabited territory gets to claim nationality and everyone else is excluded. I'm afraid that leaves both R1a and R1b out, as various forms of Ydna "I" arrived first. Isn't that how it's supposed to work under your scheme? What gives you the right to decide to close the door after your own yDna haplogroup arrives?

Or are you going to tell me that R was in "Europe" before "I"? How do you know? It looks to me as if R arrived barely ahead of the farmers. Unless, of course, you're going to say that Mal'tas remains (phenotypically very "dark", by the way) were also in "Europe"? What do you do, use your crayon to draw the "Europe" line further and further east until it includes all your ancestors? Who knows, we might discover some G2 in Greece that is older than the Karelian R. What will you do then?

I suddenly had an epiphany. This is why where "R" went after the time of Mal'ta is such an emotional issue for some of you people. If, instead of staying in that area throughout the LGM, which makes no sense to me, it went south and found a refuge around the Caspian before spreading out, then it didn't spend all its time in "Europe", never mind that there was no "Europe" or "Europeans" at that time.

This is a-scientific and a-historical. Do you spout this stuff over at anthrogenica, or would you get banned? You would have gotten banned instantly at the old dna-forums, I can tell you that...

Fluffy
06-09-16, 17:56
I am not sure if we can say R1b and R1a are true "whites" and the others not, but I would say that at minimum R1b, R1a, and I are the true Europeans. It is quite clear that G-P303 for instance originates in the Middle East, where as it is far more difficult to construct an argument that the former three did.

At what point do you get considered European? I don't know...will I ever be considered a Native American? Doubtful

Yeah they originated in the middle east like 5000 thousand years ago, since then they have been in Europe. Nice ******** though. You did that on purpose just to piss me off. You are one ignorant MF aren't you.

Angela
06-09-16, 18:18
I realize it's difficult, but let's keep the profanity out of this, ok guys? (and believe me, I do understand)

Just consider the source. This is all, as I said, a-scientific, a-historic nonsense, and yes, Arvistro, illogical as well, as I trust you can see. (if you're reading this) :)

Angela
06-09-16, 18:29
Indeed, but our representatives from the White Nationalist groups have difficulty dealing with that.

@Tomenable,
Stop with the straw man arguments. The theory that selection for these traits had something to do with farming was one possibility. As new data comes out, you adjust your theories. Well, you do unless your mission is to support some bizarre view of history even to the point of totally distorting the available evidence.

@Aaron 1981,

Oh please, you identify as Scots or whatever do you? Not as an American? You think you are less "American" than an Ojibway? I beg leave to doubt.

So, let me see how this works...The first group to arrive in totally uninhabited territory gets to claim nationality and everyone else is excluded. I'm afraid that leaves both R1a and R1b out, as various forms of Ydna "I" arrived first. Isn't that how it's supposed to work under your scheme? What gives you the right to decide to close the door after your own yDna haplogroup arrives?

Or are you going to tell me that R was in "Europe" before "I"? How do you know? It looks to me as if R arrived barely ahead of the farmers. Unless, of course, you're going to say that Mal'tas remains (phenotypically very "dark", by the way) were also in "Europe"? What do you do, use your crayon to draw the "Europe" line further and further east until it includes all your ancestors? Who knows, we might discover some G2 in Greece that is older than the Karelian R. What will you do then?

I suddenly had an epiphany. This is why where "R" went after the time of Mal'ta is such an emotional issue for some of you people. If, instead of staying in that area throughout the LGM, which makes no sense to me, it went south and found a refuge around the Caspian before spreading out, then it didn't spend all its time in "Europe", never mind that there was no "Europe" or "Europeans" at that time.

This is a-scientific and a-historical. Do you spout this stuff over at anthrogenica, or would you get banned? You would have gotten banned instantly at the old dna-forums, I can tell you that...

OMG, how could I have forgotten?! There was J1 in the EHG progenitors of the white race wasn't there???!!!! Now there's a turn around for you! Does that make all the J1 Semitic people "white" but the G2a Anatolians not??? But wait, what if the G2a person is blonde, blue eyed and fair skinned? What do you do then? What does the chancellery of racial affairs say?

Honestly, it's hard to keep track of all the twists and turns of this "logic". :)

For those of you who are "irony challenged", I neither expect nor WANT a response.

Kristiina
06-09-16, 21:47
To my endless astonishment, there are people who are obsessed with the East Asian percentage of Uralics. Here are photos of two former Finnish football players. If we should describe Jari Litmanen more East Asian than Sami Hyypiä, who really cares! I would readily accept a man like him if also mental things would match.

7984 7985

As for white skin, I am very pale myself, and I never thought that it is something to be particularly proud of. When I was young, I desperately wanted to get sun tan. It is only on these forums that I have realized that it really is an asset.

Kristiina
06-09-16, 22:03
And then, there is the ice hockey player Teemu Selänne. He is doing brilliantly with his Siberian genes.

7986 7987

Angela
06-09-16, 22:32
To my endless astonishment, there are people who are obsessed with the East Asian percentage of Uralics. Here are photos of two former Finnish football players. If we should describe Jari Litmanen more East Asian than Sami Hyypiä, who really cares! I would readily accept a man like him if also mental things would match.

7984 7985

As for white skin, I am very pale myself, and I never thought that it is something to be particularly proud of. When I was young, I desperately wanted to get sun tan. It is only on these forums that I have realized that it really is an asset.

Yes, but with what kind of men???:( I wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole.

All three of those athletes are quite good looking, each in his own particular way. If anything, I would prefer the hockey player, all other things being equal.. :)

I don't know why people can't leave it at that.

It's like a sickness. I can't explain it.

Kristiina
07-09-16, 07:51
The glorification of white skin here and elsewhere is madness. As a pale-skinned person, I can say that on a white face, all red spots, capillaries and the like are clearly visible. On white legs, all veins and hair are catching the attention. A fat white body easily looks like an uncooked weisswurst. A white-skinned person easily becomes a cooked crab at the sun and must hide in the shade.

IMO, the white skin is a status symbol - often unpractical and not more beautiful than a darker skin.

It is well known that sport dancers, fitness freaks and bodybuilders use tanning creams or sunbed to look better.

This comment is off-topic, but I think that many people agree with me on this.

Tomenable
07-09-16, 12:47
IMO, the white skin is a status symbol

But why does white skin correlate with high status? It has been shown that IQ influences status.

So why is it that light-skinned groups tend to have higher average IQ than dark-skinned groups?

Maybe it has something to do with pleiotropy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleiotropy


Pleiotropy occurs when one gene influences two or more seemingly unrelated phenotypic traits. Consequently, a mutation in a pleiotropic gene may have an effect on some or all traits simultaneously. (...) Pleiotropic gene action can limit the rate of multivariate evolution when natural selection, sexual selection or artificial selection on one trait favours one specific version of the gene (allele), while selection on other traits favors a different allele. Genetic correlations and hence correlated responses to selection most often exemplify pleiotropy. (...)

Why did natural selection promote ugly white skin over beautiful dark skin, if not due to pleiotropy?

Apparently the same genes which made skin uglier also had many other - very beneficial - effects.

Tomenable
07-09-16, 13:08
And I am not writing just about "Whites" in a narrow sense of this term.

Ashkenazi Jews and North-East Asians also tend to have very light skin.

Kristiina
07-09-16, 14:07
I am sure that pigmentation varies according to UV exposure, nutrition and vitamin D synthesis (and maybe some sexual selection is at play) and has nothing to do with intelligence; and not even with Indo-Europeans :). According to Wikipedia: people living close to the equator are highly darkly pigmented, and those living near the poles are generally very lightly pigmented. The rest of humanity shows a high degree of skin color variation between these two extremes, generally correlating with UV exposure. The main exception to this rule is in the New World, where people have only lived for about 10,000 to 15,000 years and show a less pronounced degree of skin pigmentation.

7989

berun
07-09-16, 14:09
This discussion about white skin is quite boring (better to open another tread), there are so many traits to take into account...

Even so if someone don't have blue eyes could not be a "true Aryan", and to make more fun about the theme, if someone don't drink as much alcohol as possible he would'nt be a real white but a bastard.

7990

You can see clearly how white race is related to alcohol consumption (and also everybody can check out how easily is possible to provide pseudoscientific proofs).

Oh! USA is full of bastards!

Angela
07-09-16, 15:55
The glorification of white skin here and elsewhere is madness. As a pale-skinned person, I can say that on a white face, all red spots, capillaries and the like are clearly visible. On white legs, all veins and hair are catching the attention. A fat white body easily looks like an uncooked weisswurst. A white-skinned person easily becomes a cooked crab at the sun and must hide in the shade.

IMO, the white skin is a status symbol - often unpractical and not more beautiful than a darker skin.

It is well known that sport dancers, fitness freaks and bodybuilders use tanning creams or sunbed to look better.

This comment is off-topic, but I think that many people agree with me on this.

Totally agree, Kristina. That's how most people see it. Really pale skin is totally unforgiving. It can be lovely on a baby's fresh skin, but as you get older every blemish, bruise, unwanted hair, and ounce of fat shows. (I particularly like your visual image there! How true.) Even lack of sleep or ill health shows up more, and I don't even want to get into the subject of sun damage marks. :( In most cases it also wrinkles and loses elasticity more easily and much earlier. Thank God those two don't seem to be true for me but all the others definitely apply. That's why I've spent a fortune on bronzers, body make-up, and spray tans.

You won't convince "white supremacists" of that, however. They inhabit an alternate universe where it means they're "superior" ubermenschen. I'm sure the women they encounter don't agree. That's probably why they drift into these groups in the first place. I would bet that sexual insecurity is the most common factor for all of these guys, that and mental health problems. I mean, look at the original Nazis...

Oh, agree, of course, with your attempt to bring science into it in your thread below, but that won't convince them either. They can't let go of this, you see, because then they'll be judged on actual accomplishments.

I'm temporarily out of the ability to award reputation points, but will rectify that later.

Now I'm going to have to move this and all the pigmentation posts to a separate thread. Some people just can't stay off the topic, and we can't let them post their nonsense unanswered, but it's not fair to those who want to discuss Lake Baikal genetics.

Tomenable
07-09-16, 21:00
That's why I've spent a fortune on bronzers, body make-up, and spray tans.

You won't convince "white supremacists" of that, however.

Ekhm, so "white supremacists" have much thicker wallets thanks to not having to buy bronzers and spray tans... ??? :48:

If you want to convince me to spend a fortune (!) on making my skin artificially darker, then you are right: you won't.

By the way: why do all emoticons on this forum have light skin? Do we call this emoji-racism?

===================

Edit:

OK, I found two with black skin:

:burned::after_boom:

Volat
07-09-16, 22:41
The people of Europe were sitting around scratching themselves as they huddled in their caves or yurts while civilization was starting its march in the Middle East.

Some archaeological cultures of Europe were colourful and their societies were advanced already having farming practises in Neolith. Such as Cucuteni_Tripillian culture (6000 - 3500BC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucuteni-Trypillian_culture

Steppe dwellers had relatively advanced societies. They invented wheel and the chariot able to spread their language from northern India to western Europe. During bronze age to have chariots were probably similar as in having advanced missile technology able to carry nuclear war-heads today.

Angela
07-09-16, 23:05
Some archaeological cultures of Europe were colourful and their societies were advanced already having farming practises in Neolith. Such as Cucuteni_Tripillian culture (6000 - 3500BC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucuteni-Trypillian_culture

Steppe dwellers had relatively advanced societies. They invented wheel and the chariot able to spread their language from northern India to western Europe. During bronze age to have chariots were probably similar as in having advanced missile technology able to carry nuclear war-heads today.

How does that really change what I said? You want me to change it to European hunter-gatherers? OK, fine by me.

Societies like Cucuteni were practicing a culture developed in the Near East. That's where the "Neolithic" was invented, right?Contact continued even after the initial migration and with it the transfer of not only goods, but technology.

As for the steppe dwellers, it is unclear whether the wheel was invented by them or by Neolithic "Old Europe" in the Balkans or in the Near East. Use the search engine to get to the threads where all the papers are discussed.

After sifting through all the books and papers, the two de novo, unequivocal achievements of the steppe dwellers seem to be the domestication of the horse, and the invention of the spoked wheel chariot. The latter was not until 2000 BC.

I don't get what the problem is with giving proper credit to the civilizations which deserve it. As I said above, the Industrial Revolution is Great Britain's contribution, the Age of Enlightenment is a western European philosophical movement, and I could go on and on. At different periods in history the center of innovation and achievement was in different areas. In the future it might not be in Europe or even America any more. That's the way it goes. No group or area is ordained by God to be superior and the source of all knowledge.

Any Europeans who look as if they can't accept that just look stupid and childish, in my opinion. (Of course, that's not directed at you personally.)

Volat
07-09-16, 23:51
Societies like Cucuteni were practicing a culture developed in the Near East. That's where the "Neolithic" was invented, right?Contact continued even after the initial migration and with it the transfer of not only goods, but technology.
)


The transition between hunter gatherer and agricultural lifestyles happened in different times at different part of the world. Neolithic started earlier in the middle east. Their agricultural practises may had an influence on southern European societies. In eastern Europe the transition to agricultural practices was separate from the Middle East. CT culture is a good example. Other earliest traces of agriculture were in Dnieper-Donets (5000 BC) and Narva cultures (Bronze). Corded-ware was the largest archaeological culture with agriculture. Early IE of Corded ware came from the East in north-eastern and central Europe bringing their skills and practises. In theory early IE could have contacts with people of Maykop culture that had agriculture and links to eastern Anatolia. Other than that agriculture in northern and eastern Europe developed later and seperately for the most part.

Angela
08-09-16, 00:36
The transition between hunter gatherer and agricultural lifestyles happened in different times at different part of the world. Neolithic started earlier in the middle east. Their agricultural practises may had an influence on southern European societies. In eastern Europe the transition to agricultural practices was separate from the Middle East. CT culture is a good example. Other earliest traces of agriculture were in Dnieper-Donets (5000 BC) and Narva cultures (Bronze). Corded-ware was the largest archaeological culture with agriculture. Early IE of Corded ware came from the East in north-eastern and central Europe bringing their skills and practises. In theory early IE could have contacts with people of Maykop culture that had agriculture and links to eastern Anatolia. Other than that agriculture in northern and eastern Europe developed later and seperately for the most part.

What does "Neolithic started earlier in the Middle East", mean? Did it start independently somewhere in Europe at some other point in time? No, it didn't. Northern and Eastern and Southern Europe had nothing to do with any of it except as recipients of someone else's technology. It was invented in the Near East. So was animal domestication, and metallurgy, and irrigation, and writing. In the West Eurasian world, that's where it was invented. Why is that so difficult to accept or say?

OK, some northern areas got these advancements from intermediaries who had already been in Europe for a while. It doesn't change the fact that the advancements were made in the Near East instead of Europe. It's a distinction without a difference.

Steppe people, learned agriculture from the Neolithic communities in Old Europe, just as they got the animals for their herding, and metallurgy...well, in the case of metallurgy Bronze might also have come over the Caucasus.Even then it was for quite a while very primitive...a few fields here and there in the river valleys, a few animals, a few badly made copies of Balkan metallurgy.

You should try to get a copy of David Anthony's book.

Corded Ware technology developed from Yamnaya and from the Neolithic cultures with which it came into contact. It originated NONE OF IT.

The fact that your ancestors learned it second hand instead of first hand doesn't change who gets the "credit" for inventing it.

This is as absurd as to claim that the Japanese had something to do with the development of the Industrial Revolution because they adopted it from the west. They adopted the technology, and they've done very well with it, but they had nothing to do with inventing it. That's down to Great Britain.

Yetos
08-09-16, 01:16
Ekhm, so "white supremacists" have much thicker wallets thanks to not having to buy bronzers and spray tans... ??? :48:

If you want to convince me to spend a fortune (!) on making my skin artificially darker, then you are right: you won't.

By the way: why do all emoticons on this forum have light skin? Do we call this emoji-racism?

===================

Edit:

OK, I found two with black skin:

:burned::after_boom:


Ha

I think he had big wallet

http://images2.fanpop.com/image/quiz/450000/450186_1280229807609_302_300.jpg

http://cdns.yournewswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/michael-jackson-illuminati.jpg

sometimes I wonder if he was a racist????

Tomenable
08-09-16, 01:31
Ha

I think he had big wallet

http://images2.fanpop.com/image/quiz/450000/450186_1280229807609_302_300.jpg

http://cdns.yournewswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/michael-jackson-illuminati.jpg

sometimes I wonder if he was a racist????

People should just get comfortable with their appearance whether they are dark-skinned or white-skinned.

Yetos
08-09-16, 01:39
People should just get comfortable with their appearance whether they are dark-skinned or white-skinned.

except if they have thick wallets :angry:


:lmao:

Fire Haired14
08-09-16, 06:28
Tomenable, there's discussing genetics because you're interested and there's discussing genetics because you want to claim some-type of superiority. You're doing the later. The white look is probably from early IEs of LN East Europe, big deal. It doesn't make anyone superior like you think.



Some people haven't quite absorbed the fact that Eastern Europe - and not Western Europe - was the "cradle of White people".

I agree Hyprid LN East Europeans(Germany-Ukraine) are probably the source of the white look. Keyword is hyprids. One ancestor can't be the source of the white look, like you want EHG to be. Eastern Europe in the Late Neolithic was a genetic mis mash like Latin America is today(Mexican=Hungary BA, Agrentia=Corded Ware, Peru=Bell Beaker, you get the idea). Because of mixed people like LN East Europeans I like to stick to genetics not phenotype because phenotype is harder to trace origins for when people are so mixed. Anatolia_Neolithic is as important or more important than EHG in Europeans, excluding outliers like Saami and Udmurts.

What is the white-look? I can't find a way to define it beyond pigmentation yet can always recognize it. Two different white people can have drastically different body build and facial features. Ashkenazi Jews usually pass as white but have like maybe 20% ancestry from LN Eastern Europe. Indians are 30%+ whiteish(more Steppe, less EEF) but not a single one could pass as white. How do we explain that? Ashkenazi's non-white side being more related to LN Eastern Europe is a decent explanation, but still....

What is the white look when it is 50%+ what Middle Easterners are? If an Iraqi or maybe Sardinian(I don't know) is easily distinguishable from a German, yet a German has so much in common with them genetically, what is causing that distinguishableness? It's a mystery.

I speak in trends for phenotype not absolutes, because phenotype has variety in the same populations, phenotype has sharing between different populations, and phenotype is harder to trace origins of than ancestry. Native Americans have East Asianish features, this is obviously because they're 60% East Asian-like. So the white look could be from LN Eastern Europe, but relatives of LN East Europeans like Sardinians and Georgians(I've meet Georgians who I thought were normal white Americans at first) can still have this white look without LN East European ancestry.


So Northern European pigmentation does not come from Anatolia, but from those "Aryans" in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe.

Dude seriously, a Pole going along with Nazi names for their ideal race, whatever it might be. Aryans are Indians or Iranians, whatever they are they have nothing to do with Europe. We have no writtings from the Steppe before like 500 BC or so, how would we ever know what they called themselves anyways?



Some people apparently still haven't quite absorbed the fact that, originally, "White" = "Indo-European".

If by Indo European you mean Corded Ware, Unetice, you're mostly right. But then there's Finno Urgics. Once again I don't like absolutes. Don't put a badge of superiority on this like it seems you are. Everyone comes from somewhere, one origin isn't better than another.

Kristiina
11-09-16, 08:43
It appears that Motala hunter-gatherers who surely were not IE speakers were white and had blue eyes:
“Seven people from the 7700-year-old Motala archaeological site in southern Sweden had both light skin gene variants, SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. They also had a third gene, HERC2/OCA2, which causes blue eyes and may also contribute to light skin and blond hair. Thus ancient hunter-gatherers of the far north were already pale and blue-eyed, but those of central and southern Europe had darker skin.”

More importantly, we do also have a pigmentation analysis from the Pontic Caspian Steppe, including Yamnaya and Catacomb cultures who should be the source of white skin in Europeans:
8001

The graph clearly shows that Yamnaya and Catacomb people are remarkably much darker than modern Slavic-speaking Ukrainians.

The palest people in Europe are found the Baltic area, Western Russia and Finland. Even today, Yamnaya area with its Slavic migration does not reach the Western Russian blondism level.
8002

The Samara hunter-gatherer is pre R1b-M73. This line is absent in Yamnaya and Europe. It is almost exclusively found in Turkic speakers and Samoyeds. His whiteness is irrelevant for Europeans.

You surely make yourself believe that when Yamnaya and Catacomb people were moving towards Europe, they was positive selection among them. And when Yamnaya people were invading the Baltic area and Volosovo area they was an extreme positive selection resulting in the eradication of the earlier darker skin. LOL

Rethel
11-09-16, 13:09
It appears that Motala hunter-gatherers who surely were not IE speakers were white and had blue eyes:

Motala had IE admixture:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=8003&d=1473592114

8003

Volat
11-09-16, 13:41
Rethel strikes me as a Khakassian of Altai mountains loaded with R1a1 (~70%).

bicicleur
11-09-16, 14:29
Rethel strikes me as a Khakassian of Altai mountains loaded with R1a1 (~70%).

no, all Poles look like Rethel

and the Motala population was quite diverse, they were a mixture of several competing tribes, be it all I2

Alan
11-09-16, 14:39
Check this pattern of genetic clustering around the world, where Cluster "A" are modern Europeans.

All Europeans are more closely related to each other than any of European groups is to Non-Europeans:

1) Europe (cluster A): http://s13.postimg.org/rr8z5vu2f/Cluster_A.png

http://s13.postimg.org/rr8z5vu2f/Cluster_A.png

2) The entire world: http://s23.postimg.org/nyqxhpjcb/global_genetic_distances_map.jpg


This statement is not entirely correct, even if we said we could picture the genetic relationship of humans based on a single two dimensional map and this map being the ultimate one, even on this map your statement is not supported.

Depending on if you preceive the Adygei as European or not, they are as close to the EUropean core as they are to Pashtuns. That is also the case with the Komi and Mari (Uralic people). Even more so extreme are the Lapps. Now Lapps are European aren't they? Than we have Sardinians who are as distant from the "European core" as the Adygei. Does that mean Sardinians are non European or does it mean Adygei and Sardinians are? And if so how about the Lapps and Komi/Mari, are they? I am confused.

Genetics doesn't work that way. What the graph actually shows best is that the European core is located between Sardinians, Adygei and Komi/Mari&Lapps. Now these are obviously not good proxys of ancient components since they are mixed (for example Komi&Mari and Lapps have some East Eurasian admixture) but they kinda remind of CHG(Adygei), Anatolian_Neo(Sardinian) and EHG(Lapps, Komi/Mari). Only a "proxy" for WHG is missing that would explain the slight drag towards "Northwest" of the plot.

Alan
11-09-16, 14:45
Motala had IE admixture:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=8003&d=1473592114

8003

that moment when people don't know the difference between ANE and "Indo European".

Angela
11-09-16, 15:11
that moment when people don't know the difference between ANE and "Indo European".

Incredible, isn't it?

Rethel
11-09-16, 15:34
that moment when people don't know the difference between ANE and "Indo European".

So, Yamna, Chwałyńsk aso were 100% ANE? :thinking:
Amerindian component (visible here) is not ANE? :thinking:

Bell Beakers were partially ANE? :thinking:

http://www.abandonia.com/vbullet/images/smilies/picardpalm.gif

Tomenable
30-09-16, 23:26
Nice thread title... :laughing:

https://media.giphy.com/media/oByHwY9R7rwKA/giphy.gif

Ukko
01-10-16, 20:24
How does that really change what I said? You want me to change it to European hunter-gatherers? OK, fine by me.

Societies like Cucuteni were practicing a culture developed in the Near East. That's where the "Neolithic" was invented, right?Contact continued even after the initial migration and with it the transfer of not only goods, but technology.

As for the steppe dwellers, it is unclear whether the wheel was invented by them or by Neolithic "Old Europe" in the Balkans or in the Near East. Use the search engine to get to the threads where all the papers are discussed.

After sifting through all the books and papers, the two de novo, unequivocal achievements of the steppe dwellers seem to be the domestication of the horse, and the invention of the spoked wheel chariot. The latter was not until 2000 BC.

I don't get what the problem is with giving proper credit to the civilizations which deserve it. As I said above, the Industrial Revolution is Great Britain's contribution, the Age of Enlightenment is a western European philosophical movement, and I could go on and on. At different periods in history the center of innovation and achievement was in different areas. In the future it might not be in Europe or even America any more. That's the way it goes. No group or area is ordained by God to be superior and the source of all knowledge.

Any Europeans who look as if they can't accept that just look stupid and childish, in my opinion. (Of course, that's not directed at you personally.)


For many of us the point is not about being superior but preserving our genes to the future, that is the ultimate goal of every life form.
Groups that dont succeed in preserving their genes will go extinct and are the loosers in evolution.
If Asian and African genes replace most of the genes of the present European populations we deserve it, some of us dont want that to happen and are against mass movements of people in Europe.

Angela
01-10-16, 21:15
You speak as if you are from some "pure" ethnic group. Like everyone else in Europe your genes and those of your ethnic group are the result of the admixture of three vastly different ancestral populations. In your particular case, your people also have ancestry from Siberians.

I'm sure the WHG might have said similar things when the Neolithic farmers from Anatolia showed up, and MN Central Europeans might have felt much the same when the barbarians from the steppes showed up, and continue it with "eastern" admixture. That's the way it goes. Everybody wants to shut the door once their own group has arrived.

Does that mean that I'm in favor of unregulated immigration into Europe from parts of the world that don't share its values and culture, and which immigration will overwhelm the economic structure and the system of social benefits? No, it doesn't. I just object to the false and delusional genetic and historical narratives, and to the dishonesty and lack of scientific objectivity which is endemic to much of the discussion.

Nik
01-10-16, 22:30
For many of us the point is not about being superior but preserving our genes to the future, that is the ultimate goal of every life form.
Groups that dont succeed in preserving their genes will go extinct and are the loosers in evolution.
If Asian and African genes replace most of the genes of the present European populations we deserve it, some of us dont want that to happen and are against mass movements of people in Europe.
Spoken like the guy who doesnt want his wife to cheat on him, so he locks her up at home.

If ur people want to "preserve" their genes they can easily do that by marrying each other. U speak as if u know that if these African and Middle Eastern men will come to Finland, they will take ur women and marry them.

A. Papadimitriou
01-10-16, 23:41
The Yamnayans weren't particularly light. Also Kura-Araxes R1b1-M415(xM269) was.. (if we trust Genetiker) black. While on the other hand, an L1a sample from Armenia 6161 ± 89 YBP was light-eyed and light-haired.

Fire Haired14
02-10-16, 00:45
@Angela,

I see a want to preserve genes and culture as a legitimate argument against immigration. It is a legitimate argument because genes and culture are valuable to people. Distantly old origins of people is irrelevant in this debate. If WHG complained about EEFs moving into their land, their complaints were legitamte, the fact it happened 1,000s of years ago doesn't make it ok and a good argument against nativity in modern Europe. European genetic isn't as turbulent as it seems when discussion is focused only on the very few times it changed, there was always a period of many 1,000s of years with no change before change. Only twice in 14,000 years did people who were noticeable different from the natives migrate in large numbers.

Ukko
02-10-16, 04:24
You speak as if you are from some "pure" ethnic group. Like everyone else in Europe your genes and those of your ethnic group are the result of the admixture of three vastly different ancestral populations. In your particular case, your people also have ancestry from Siberians.

I'm sure the WHG might have said similar things when the Neolithic farmers from Anatolia showed up, and MN Central Europeans might have felt much the same when the barbarians from the steppes showed up, and continue it with "eastern" admixture. That's the way it goes. Everybody wants to shut the door once their own group has arrived.

Does that mean that I'm in favor of unregulated immigration into Europe from parts of the world that don't share its values and culture, and which immigration will overwhelm the economic structure and the system of social benefits? No, it doesn't. I just object to the false and delusional genetic and historical narratives, and to the dishonesty and lack of scientific objectivity which is endemic to much of the discussion.


You are projecting, something.

I want to preserve Finnish genes, the Siberian ones also, is that a crime?

Ukko
02-10-16, 06:00
Spoken like the guy who doesnt want his wife to cheat on him, so he locks her up at home.

If ur people want to "preserve" their genes they can easily do that by marrying each other. U speak as if u know that if these African and Middle Eastern men will come to Finland, they will take ur women and marry them.

Nation states where founded to preserve nations, that is their principal function.

Most also include historical minorities in to this concept, they would in Finland be the Finland-Swedes and Sami.
Today Somalis (20.000) Arabs (15.000), Kurds (10.000) Turks (10.000), Albanians (10.000) and many other groups in Finland outnumber the Sami (6000).
Together these groups soon will outnumber the Finland-Swedes, in many countries they outnumber the locals in major cities.

Finland is a nation of 5 million, replacement immigration can and will change the demographics and culture of the whole country in one generation without anyone marrying outside their ethnicity.

Moi-même
02-10-16, 07:06
The glorification of white skin here and elsewhere is madness. As a pale-skinned person, I can say that on a white face, all red spots, capillaries and the like are clearly visible. On white legs, all veins and hair are catching the attention. A fat white body easily looks like an uncooked weisswurst. A white-skinned person easily becomes a cooked crab at the sun and must hide in the shade.

On the bright side, fungus are less easily visible on light skin. :good_job:


I want to preserve Finnish genes, the Siberian ones also, is that a crime?

Then marry a like minded women and get about 20 kids. Tell your friend to do the same.

Ukko
02-10-16, 07:31
Then marry a like minded women and get about 20 kids. Tell your friend to do the same.


Is that suppose to be some solution to mass immigration and population replacement?
We plan on having 2-3 children that we can afford to raise as we want.

Moi-même
02-10-16, 08:32
It is not "suppose to be" a solution to population replacement, it IS a solution to population replacement.

I'm a French Canadian, you see, the only reason there are still French Canadians to this day is my ancestor got as many children as they could. They called it "la revanche des berceaux", the revenge of the cradles, and for 200 years, there was social pressure to marry young and have as many descendants as possible. Hence, French Canadians's number grow by 80 folds between 1750 and 1950. Although 20 kids was a bit of an overkill, but there was a women who had this much in the village, among my grand-parents generation (she had many twins).

Anyway, with just 2-3 children you can't even be serious about preserving Finnish genes. Get at least 4 so you double your number for the next generation. 6 to 10 would be better to make sure your line doesn't disappear after a few generations.

Ukko
02-10-16, 14:13
It is not "suppose to be" a solution to population replacement, it IS a solution to population replacement.

I'm a French Canadian, you see, the only reason there are still French Canadians to this day is my ancestor got as many children as they could. They called it "la revanche des berceaux", the revenge of the cradles, and for 200 years, there was social pressure to marry young and have as many descendants as possible. Hence, French Canadians's number grow by 80 folds between 1750 and 1950. Although 20 kids was a bit of an overkill, but there was a women who had this much in the village, among my grand-parents generation (she had many twins).

Anyway, with just 2-3 children you can't even be serious about preserving Finnish genes. Get at least 4 so you double your number for the next generation. 6 to 10 would be better to make sure your line doesn't disappear after a few generations.


2-3 is enough as most Finns are related, assuming there is no mass migration in to the country.
We have no point in competing with third world countries in births, there are too many people in those countries anyways, the reason they are emigrating.
You cant raise 20 children properly in the modern world and provide well for them.

In principal I dont have anything against having more children, I would be open to ideas just as dropping the women out of the work force if we get production up with automation and robotics, giving more support and incentives for large families etc.
Polygamy is a another option but that would start a direct breeding competition with the muslims.

USA, Canada, Australia etc are former colonies and all immigrant countries, flooding Europe with immigrants is the same as you started filling the Indian reservations also with new immigrants.

Angela
02-10-16, 15:49
You are projecting, something.

I want to preserve Finnish genes, the Siberian ones also, is that a crime?

We're not in total disagreement. I certainly don't want Italians to disappear or see our culture irremediably changed. If that makes me a conservative or atavistic, so be it.

I also think that every nation state has the right to maintain its borders and make decisions about immigration.

However, neither do I think that there is something holy and sacred about white skin per se which makes its bearers superior to everybody else. Although they are fellow Europeans, and certainly white, I don't want tens of millions of Germans and Slavs and Finns suddenly descending on us either. We've had enough invasions from over the Alps.

I'm also trying to interject some historical perspective.

To Moi-Meme's excellent point, Italians are barely reproducing themselves, and thus we're the "oldest" population in Europe. Our people are also now so educated that they don't want to pick the crops or clean the streets or act as nannies and housekeepers. Who is going to pay the taxes to support this aging population? What is the solution?

It's more complicated in some places than you credit.

davef
02-10-16, 16:39
I seriously don't understand the appeal of having white skin to begin with

Nik
02-10-16, 21:16
MI don't think it will ever come at that point where the immigrants outnumber the locals, even for smaller countries like Finland. Not until many generations later at least, when we wont be even alive to experience such a "tragedy".

And again don't get me wrong as I share the same views and fears of many of u here, just saying that keeping people away isn't the solution. If ur country's women want to marry immigrants then they will no matter what. So men, find the problems within urselves and become pioneers of sexual selection lol

Fire Haired14
03-10-16, 00:56
I seriously don't understand the appeal of having white skin to begin with

Is there any record of Europeans feeling superior for having white skin before the age of exploration/colonism(1500s)? Obviously that's why. People will call you racist for saying this; Europe has dominated the world since the 1500s and yes they still do. The idea of whites countries being more powerful and whites being racist is an assumed idea in so much of the world today for good reason. So much so that's hard for Americans to imagine a past white society that wasn't racist or imperialistic or powerful, even though before the 1500s there was no white racism and nothing especially noticeable about most Europeans(exclu. Romans and others).

DuPidh
03-10-16, 03:26
I seriously don't understand the appeal of having white skin to begin with

Being white is not about the skin! You have a lot of asians with whiter skin than some whites and they still are considered yellow. Or Hispanics of mestizo extraction. Caucasian or white is the anthropology of human body with all shades of skin, hair and eye color. A lot of whites do not have white skin. It very from light dark,to olive, to pale. Let say a bleach is invented that turns the skin of the blacks to white and their hair blond. No way that dude is white. The anthropology of the body and the aesthetic is obvious. We may be born with the notion of the aesthetics and that is a source where racism starts.

Dinarid
03-10-16, 19:16
Who gives less of a f*** where the "cradle of White People" (LOL) was? What is your motivation for trying to prove this was Eastern Europe?

Tomenable
04-10-16, 09:31
Not until many generations later at least, when we wont be even alive to experience such a "tragedy".

This kind of "après nous, le déluge" attitude makes me sick.


Italians are barely reproducing themselves, and thus we're the "oldest" population in Europe. Our people are also now so educated that they don't want to pick the crops or clean the streets or act as nannies and housekeepers. Who is going to pay the taxes to support this aging population? What is the solution?

If you think that Muslims or Black Africans are going to clean your streets and toilets, pick your crops, work physically for low salaries and pay the taxes to ensure that you can get your pensions, that they will clean elderly Italian butts and change your diapers - then you must be delusional. But it shows what the plan is - first invite millions of Third World immigrants from your former colonies, then expect them to be obedient servants and working classes at the bottom of your society, who will take care of their former colonial masters once they get too old or too lazy to do it on their own.

Most of them hate you, they hate Europe, they resent "Whiteys", and they come here only to collect welfare, to establish Sharia Law, to take control of the government, to blame racism for their own failures and shortages. They will establish "European Black Lives Matter", and so on. They are not coming to be obedient servants of filthy rich Italian grannies and grandpas. They will chop off your heads rather than changing your diapers.

They will spend their time rioting, organizing street protests against "White privilege", etc. - surely not working for Italian retirements.


What is the solution?

The solution is that people will live only as long as they can support themselves. Just like in the past, before retirements got invented.

The problem is not declining population (Europe is overpopulated after all), but the problem is aging population. So if the generation of our grandparents and parents was reluctant to have children, then my generation will not pay for their retirements and healthcare. Who cares if they live 90 or 70 years - they had it coming, by not reproducing they made the system unsustainable, and they will bear the consequences of their negligence.

New generations are growing up, and they increasingly despise "Flower Children Generations", what they did to our civilization.

Back in the old days if you were too old and did not have enough children and grandchildren to take care of you, you just died.

So people wanted to have families, wanted to have children, because they were afraid of being left on their own when old. Now "the state" is taking care of old people, so they no longer have this fear. And maybe it is bad, because this is one of reasons why Europe has so low fertility.

Destroy socialism, destroy retirements - and the majority of people will want to have at least 2 children per couple again.

We do not even need to destroy anything - just wait until it all collapses on its own, because it is unsustainable anyway. And Third World immigrants are not working, are not paying taxes - they are collecting welfare, so they are only facilitating the collapse of this system.


I don't want tens of millions of Germans and Slavs and Finns suddenly descending on us either. We've had enough invasions from over the Alps.

Those were not even invasions. You just opened your borders to Germanic refugees and allowed them to settle, because you wanted them to serve you and to die for the glory of Rome as soldiers in your army. Romans became too morally degenerated and too lazy to do those things on their own. You expected Germanic immigrants to remain your obedient subjects, but they rebelled against "oppression", sacked Rome, and took power.

This is what happened, they destroyed your decaying empire from within, as its citizens (descendants of immigrants):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcuVJUKZvx4

Aaron1981
04-10-16, 17:09
I can pretty much guarantee I am the whitest person in this thread, possibly one of the whitest amongst all DNA forums. "Whiteness" originated in Britannia of course. ;)
It should be measured by skin pigment, not hair colour. Proportionately, Britain has the most de-pigmented (pinkest) people in the world today, all skin diseases aside, and assuming you strictly look at the indigenous, not immigrants in London.

Vallicanus
04-10-16, 18:01
No, Ireland, not Britain, has the whitest people in the world.

Angela
04-10-16, 18:52
For your information, Tomenable, there are indeed "new" immigrants who do those jobs in Italy, as still do people from eastern Europe, although the latter was much more common previously. Do you know how many Polish and Russian badantes and carers of the elderly I've met or at least known? Lots. My relatives hired a woman from the Ukraine to care for my great-uncle while they were at work and school. Even here in America, the live in housekeeper and babysitter for the Jewish family who lived next door for a time was a lovely woman from Poland trying to make money for her nephew's education. We still exchange Christmas cards. Do you honestly not know these things or you just erase them from your mind?

Fifty years ago, Italian immigrants did the same in Switzerland. People do what they must to survive. So long as the work is honest there's no disgrace in it. That's another lesson courtesy of my father. Prostitution, of which we've seen a lot in Italy, and coming from the eastern block previously, is another matter, although even there I don't want to cast any stones. Who knows what I would have done if my family were being threatened if I didn't cooperate? Often, the women in these situations are victims.

Prostitution rings from eastern Europe:
https://www.academia.edu/210605/Human_Trafficking_Russia_As_The_Country_Of_Origin

A wonderful and much appreciated Italian film about the subject, called "La Sconosciuta"-The Unknown Woman:

The trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju7gDAGSCbA

You really should try to get a copy of the film. It would open your eyes.

That is now less common, and the prostitutes lining the roads in certain areas are often from Africa.

It's all about the economy, Tomenable, not "racial" inferiority.

@Aaron,
If anyone was in doubt as to what kind of person you are, you have now removed all doubt. Next.

bicicleur
04-10-16, 19:20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcuVJUKZvx4

Indeed, Rome was merely punished for its own arrogance, despise and broken promises towards the barbarians.

The barbarians had the choice to be crushed and killed by the Huns or by the Romans.
They overcame by beating the weakest of both parties.
For them there was no other option.

epoch
04-10-16, 21:54
Angela, when it comes to lightening mutations in Ancient North Eurasians:



Why are you so sure about this, given that Genetiker found lightening mutations in Afontova Gora 2 sample?:

"Pigmentation SNP genotypes for Mal’ta 1 and Afontova Gora 2":

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/pigmentation-snp-genotypes-for-malta-1-and-afontova-gora-2/

Is Genetiker lying? He may be nuts, a weird guy, but nobody has ever proven that he lies about DNA results:

Afontova Gora 2 is thought to be roughly 30% contaminated. If it weren't for the fact it is one third of our entire ANE sample base we'd thrown the sample out.

Ukko
07-10-16, 18:01
Those were not even invasions. You just opened your borders to Germanic refugees and allowed them to settle, because you wanted them to serve you and to die for the glory of Rome as soldiers in your army. Romans became too morally degenerated and too lazy to do those things on their own. You expected Germanic immigrants to remain your obedient subjects, but they rebelled against "oppression", sacked Rome, and took power.

This is what happened, they destroyed your decaying empire from within, as its citizens (descendants of immigrants):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcuVJUKZvx4

This is what happened and funny that most dont understand it is happening again.

Btw, any plans on returning to a concript army in Poland? It works fine in Finland and Estonia, the troops get good grades on NATO tests, naturally there is a professional cadre of officers and personnel like pilots or special forces that are needed as full time.

Angela
08-10-16, 00:22
I find if amusing that descendents of people who destroyed advanced civilizations are now complaining about different people destroying the new incarnations of the same civilization.

Have you people no sense of historical perspective? No sense of irony?

Tomenable
08-10-16, 00:30
And I find ironic that descendants of people who got their civilizations destroyed once again want to get their civilizations destroyed.

It's like not learning from your own mistakes at all. By contrast "northern barbarians" prefer to learn even from mistakes of others.

Angela
08-10-16, 00:55
And I find ironic that descendants of people who got their civilizations destroyed once again want to get their civilizations destroyed.

It's like not learning from your own mistakes at all. By contrast "northern barbarians" prefer to learn even from mistakes of others.

Just to keep the record straight, for the umpteenth time, I'm not in favor of unrestricted immigration, particularly of unskilled people from areas of the world that don't share our values.

It is indeed extremely ironic, however, and not very attractive, that a member of a group which itself migrated to western Europe, and Italy for that matter, to do housework, and child and elder care, and construction and street cleaning, and less reputable things, because times were bad, suddenly finds it all so demeaning, one, and two, something that has to be totally opposed.

Oh, I forgot, your "incredible whiteness of being" makes it ok.

Tomenable
08-10-16, 01:20
a member of a group which itself migrated to western Europe

I'm not alone: :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italians_in_Germany

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_immigration_to_Switzerland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italians_in_the_United_Kingdom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Scots

Angela
08-10-16, 01:59
I'm not alone: :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italians_in_Germany

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_immigration_to_Switzerland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italians_in_the_United_Kingdom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Scots

Do you have a memory problem? That's not going to be very helpful.

Please look upthread where I said the following:

" Italian immigrants did the same in Switzerland. People do what they must to survive. So long as the work is honest there's no disgrace in it. That's another lesson courtesy of my father."

The difference between us is that I don't see anything demeaning in it. Nor do I try to forget it or hide it. It also informs my world view and means that I have compassion for other people who are forced to migrate and do this kind of work. You don't.

Tomenable
08-10-16, 12:36
I also don't see anything demeaning in any kind of work.

The problem is that some immigrant groups don't come to work, but only to collect welfare / benefits:

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2015/07/polish-nationals-less-likely-than-dutch-to-claim-welfare/


Polish nationals [in the Netherlands] are less likely to claim welfare benefits than the native Dutch, according to new figures from the national statistics office CBS which were released on Thursday.

However, other groups of immigrants and refugees are much more likely to be on benefits, the figures show.

For example, the CBS says seven out of 10 Somali nationals and six out of 10 Syrians live on welfare (bijstand), compared with just 3% of the Dutch. Afghans, Eritreans and Iranians are also much more likely to be living on welfare.

Read more at DutchNews.nl: Polish nationals less likely than Dutch to claim welfare

https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2015/31/zeven-van-de-tien-somaliers-in-de-bijstand

https://s17.postimg.org/d4g688wlr/Welfare_NL.png

So are you still going to claim that there is no correlation between Whiteness of immigrants and their work ethic?

Can facts be racist, can statistical data be racist ???

What about crime rates of different groups of immigrants? I also read "The Color of Crime" about crime in the U.S.


means that I have compassion for other people who are forced to migrate and do this kind of work

I do not have compassion for welfare-collecting Somalis, Iraqis, Syrians, Romani, etc.

Collecting welfare / benefits is not any kind of work - and these Romani look healthy enough to be able to work:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4z238OM8Bs

Ukko
08-10-16, 21:47
I also don't see anything demeaning in any kind of work.

The problem is that some immigrant groups don't come to work, but only to collect welfare / benefits:

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2015/07/polish-nationals-less-likely-than-dutch-to-claim-welfare/



https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2015/31/zeven-van-de-tien-somaliers-in-de-bijstand

https://s17.postimg.org/d4g688wlr/Welfare_NL.png

So are you still going to claim that there is no correlation between Whiteness of immigrants and their work ethic?

Can facts be racist, can statistical data be racist ???

What about crime rates of different groups of immigrants? I also read "The Color of Crime" about crime in the U.S.



I do not have compassion for welfare-collecting Somalis, Iraqis, Syrians, Romani, etc.

Collecting welfare / benefits is not any kind of work - and these Romani look healthy enough to be able to work:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4z238OM8Bs


All the Poles in Finland also work, some have been taking part in the demonstrations against the present "refugees".
They have marched with Polish flags in the events, most are clearly going to return and those that dont will integrate fast.

LeBrok
08-10-16, 23:24
All the Poles in Finland also work, some have been taking part in the demonstrations against the present "refugees".
They have marched with Polish flags in the events, most are clearly going to return and those that dont will integrate fast.
Is it like in GB. Somalis are not liked because they don't work and Poles are not liked because they work and take jobs away from locals?
Are they any studies showing that Somalis are lazy or they can't find jobs due to racism?

Ukko
09-10-16, 00:20
Is it like in GB. Somalis are not liked because they don't work and Poles are not liked because they work and take jobs away from locals?
Are they any studies showing that Somalis are lazy or they can't find jobs due to racism?

Somali regard themselves a master race, they are hated even in Africa, they only consider some professions worthy of them.
They often have small shops in African countries, in Europe it seems other immigrant groups are much better at it, most likely as you have to actually run them according to the law, at least to a degree.

Many Somalis in school declare they want to proceed to medical school but their grades are not good enough.
They yell racism as a reason and refuse the offers to go in to nursing as that is below them.
Then they go to study in private schools in Bulgaria or Romania, pay for the degree there and move inside EU to somewhere where welfare based system pays their salary.

I would never go to an Somali doctor or hire a Somali lawyer, the professions only function to prove their value to others and make money, they generally have no real interest in the careers they pursue.

Example.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-6tftOTJXs

Meet - Mohamed Karur Somali Lawyer at Syeds Law Care Solicitors
Specializing in Immigration and Family Law - Birmingham UK

Alan
09-10-16, 20:05
The Yamnayans weren't particularly light. Also Kura-Araxes R1b1-M415(xM269) was.. (if we trust Genetiker) black. While on the other hand, an L1a sample from Armenia 6161 ± 89 YBP was light-eyed and light-haired.

The Yamnayans from the results we have would have most likely resembled modern Anatolians, Iranians, Mesopotamians and Levantines based on pigmentation, they were little "darker" on average than the average of modern South Europeans and more on level as the region I mentioned above.

The Kura Araxes R1b1 dude was not "Black" he was dark relative to European standards while the L1a sample indeed was blond and light eyed, the irony that moment when the more northern guys were darker as their southern counterparts in form of Kura Araxes. This is why I am telling you at least half (if not more) of the Yamnayan ancestry came from further south. Either from the Iranian Plateau OR South_Central Asia.

Alan
09-10-16, 20:16
You speak as if you are from some "pure" ethnic group. Like everyone else in Europe your genes and those of your ethnic group are the result of the admixture of three vastly different ancestral populations. In your particular case, your people also have ancestry from Siberians.

I'm sure the WHG might have said similar things when the Neolithic farmers from Anatolia showed up, and MN Central Europeans might have felt much the same when the barbarians from the steppes showed up, and continue it with "eastern" admixture. That's the way it goes. Everybody wants to shut the door once their own group has arrived.

Does that mean that I'm in favor of unregulated immigration into Europe from parts of the world that don't share its values and culture, and which immigration will overwhelm the economic structure and the system of social benefits? No, it doesn't. I just object to the false and delusional genetic and historical narratives, and to the dishonesty and lack of scientific objectivity which is endemic to much of the discussion.
The ironic part on all of this is how some people still have this image of wild warlord like Indo Europeans taking over all of Europe While in fact and reality the way how they spred was pretty much in the same fashion as how third world immigrants do today. Overpopulating and "exploiting" the civilization of the local groups.

I as an Indo European speaker just HAVE to admit that when the Iranics arrived in Western Asia, came pretty much as nomadic herders/farmers in search of new land with absolutely no knowledge of civilization or anything akine. The Persian pretty much adopted to Elamite culture while the Medes learned from the Mannaeans.

Greek sources describe how the Mycenaens basically came like wild "dirty" nomads and took over through overpopulation.

At least those Indo Europeans who spred via the Steppes were not really advanced in any way but more like third world immigrants. There are even archeological sides in Germany which harbor mass graves of people from the Corded Ware culture after encountering local farmers. Looks like some Farming groups were not really "friendly" at first and hunted on them.

When there is one thing I have learned from genetics and history, it is that the humans back than didn't behave much different to the "foreign" as they do nowadays.

Ukko
09-10-16, 21:51
The ironic part on all of this is how some people still have this image of wild warlord like Indo Europeans taking over all of Europe While in fact and reality the way how they spred was pretty much in the same fashion as how third world immigrants do today. Overpopulating and "exploiting" the civilization of the local groups.

I as an Indo European speaker just HAVE to admit that when the Iranics arrived in Western Asia, came pretty much as nomadic herders/farmers in search of new land with absolutely no knowledge of civilization or anything akine. The Persian pretty much adopted to Elamite culture while the Medes learned from the Mannaeans.

Greek sources describe how the Mycenaens basically came like wild "dirty" nomads and took over through overpopulation.

At least those Indo Europeans who spred via the Steppes were not really advanced in any way but more like third world immigrants. There are even archeological sides in Germany which harbor mass graves of people from the Corded Ware culture after encountering local farmers. Looks like some Farming groups were not really "friendly" at first and hunted on them.

When there is one thing I have learned from genetics and history, it is that the humans back than didn't bvehave much different to the "foreign" as they do nowadays.


Steppe invasions are a historical fact, almost a pattern, there is not one recorded case the groups acted as you claim.
They rode in and took the land and the people with it as their possessions, that is the way of the steppe and is common to Huns, Hungarians, Mongols and anyone that came before them.

Alan
09-10-16, 22:42
Steppe invasions are a historical fact, almost a pattern, there is not one recorded case the groups acted as you claim.
They rode in and took the land and the people with it as their possessions, that is the way of the steppe and is common to Huns, Hungarians, Mongols and anyone that came before them.

You sure? I advise you to open some history books and read trough them and at best take some recent studies by too.

Indo Europeans pretty much came like thrid world immigrants bringing with them diseases that didn't existed before and killed of a large part of the local population, confirmed facts by recent studies. When the Iranics came to the Iranian plateau they were local nomadic tribes that had to build a confederation with the Mannaeans to build the Median empire to fight off the REAL barbaric Assyrians. Mycenaeans are described as dirty nomads who had not much knowledge of civilization and took over with use of their population size. What kind of new invention did Indo Europeans brought to Europe or West Asia that didn't existed already? Farming/Herding? Pottery? Warfare? War wagons/Charriots?(one of the most used arguments but in fact newer archeological findings, post Anthony's book, have revealed Wagons and Horses most likely already existed by Late Neolithic throughout the world).

What made the Indo Europeans take the upper hand is exactly how todays immigration works. A continuous immigration of people from poor lands overpopulating the local farming groups. And as usual as it is with patrichal "third world immigrants" the immigration of the patriachal Indo Europeans was male heavier. In Patrichal societies the males are more mobile while the females often stay at home. Pretty typical of how many modern Afghan immigrants are, at least here in Germany.

In like 200 years when the European society stops making enough children, and the Afghan and Morrocan etc refugee from your neighborhood have taken the upper hand by reproducing more with even local females, because as written above most of third world immigration is male based, how do you think it will appear to the future humans, if we left no informations behind? Will they think "well the European locals just stopped making enough children and the immigrants simply overpopulated by having more". Or will they say, "well the immigrants were so advanced and a male driven conquest that they overrun the local European cultures and took their females as prey".

Would you agree with the second scenario? Are the thrid world immigrants in anyway more advanced to you, beside maybe still having the will to reproduce.

Think about it a second. It isn't always the way as it appears at first look. Many things actually point to the fact that the Indo Europeans were no different to male third world immigrants.

1. They had absolutely no or not enough technical advantage, they were simply nomads with no knowledge of large warfare nor knowledge of civilization.
2. There is confirmation that they brought diseases with them(pretty much how Balkan Roma immigrants brought Variola back to Germany the last years).
3. They were mostly male driven but yet there is no sign of Indo Europeans "conquering" the locals in any part of this world. Everywhere it looks much more like they integrated and merged into the local cultures. Look at Bellbeaker who look simply like Neolithic farmers + Bronze Age Indo Europeans. The same with Corded Ware, the same with Iranic tribes. Absolutely nowhere, where they go did they stay pure but mixed into the local cultures instantly and adopted to them. While we see from the advanced Neolithic farmers when they went to Europe, they stayed isolated and created their own cultures for pretty much thousands of years, rarely mixing with the local Hunters and Gatherers.

About the Huns, Mongols and Hungarians. What did the Hungarians "conquer" beside this little portion of Europe I may ask? The Huns used the momentum well, created by the wars between the Romans- Parthians and Romans-Sassanids. Yet even though the Sassanids had to pretty much fight on three fronts, they freakn beat the Huns in a destroying battle, which actually forced them to move deeper into the European Steppes. If it wasn't for the wars with the Romans the Parthians and Sassanids had pretty much Central Asia and the Huns under control. Later when the Sassanid empire crumbled it was easy for Mongols to conquer, yet they never stayed for too long at any place. But those Iron Age stories have nothing to do with the Indo European expansion during the Bronze Age.

Alan
10-10-16, 01:38
Now before some individuals take me wrong. I am not trying to justify mass immigration to Europe. I am also against mass migration of not integratable people whoms world view is completely the opposite of democratic values. Every country and it's people have the right to survive. I also know it is in the humans nature to try to preserve their clture and "genes". I was merely pointing out the obvious facts that this has been always the case the "natives" being not so friendly towards mass migration and mass migration being often a factor in human history. Also that the main reason for the decline of European heritage is not mass migration at first place BUT the fact that most European countries have lost the "lust" for reproducing. Children are often not viewed as a gift but more stress and this is a problem.

At the end even if mass migration didn't happen, if it keeps going this way and the population size of native Europeans shrinks we will have empty regions here and at the end of the day people from other parts of the world will repopulated it anyways.

Goga
10-10-16, 01:59
Now before some individuals take me wrong. I am not trying to justify mass immigration to Europe. I am also against mass migration of not integratable people whoms world view is completely the opposite of democratic values. Every country and it's people have the right to survive. I also know it is in the humans nature to try to preserve their clture and "genes". I was merely pointing out the obvious facts that this has been always the case the "natives" being not so friendly towards mass migration and mass migration being often a factor in human history. Also that the main reason for the decline of European heritage is not mass migration at first place BUT the fact that most European countries have lost the "lust" for reproducing. Children are often not viewed as a gift but more stress and this is a problem.

At the end even if mass migration didn't happen, if it keeps going this way and the population size of native Europeans shrinks we will have empty regions here and at the end of the day people from other parts of the world will repopulated it anyways.
You are wrong.


PIE folks were actually high advanced people. The most advanced and evolved race of their time. PIE from the Iranian Plateau (Leyla Tepe??) brought into and found highly advanced ancient civilizations in Greece, Egypt, Mesopotamia and Indus Valley. They migrated into the Maykop/Yamnaya Horizon and later on they invaded Europe.

Tomenable
21-09-17, 23:17
Finally everything is clear, only Western Europeans were brown during the Mesolithic:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2017/09/19/135616.DC4/135616-1.pdf

"Western hunter-gatherers (WHG) had a distinctive blue-eyed, dark skin pigmentation
phenotype1,2 that emerged in the Mesolithic.6 In contrast, we show that Mesolithic and
Neolithic individuals from Ukraine, Latvia and the Iron Gates had, like Scandinavian and
Eastern hunter-gatherers, intermediate to high frequencies of the derived skin pigmentation
allele at SLC24A5. Unlike Scandinavian and Eastern hunter-gatherers, however, they have
low frequency of the derived SLC45A2 allele. The derived OCA2/HERC2 allele associated
with light (particularly blue) eye color is common in WHG, SHG, and hunter-gatherers from
Latvia, but at low frequency in hunter-gatherers from Ukraine and the Iron Gates. This allele
appears to be differentiated in a North-South gradient, as it is today – suggesting the
possibility of long-term balancing selection due to geographic variation in selective pressure.
The WHG phenotype of light eye and dark skin pigmentation1 thus appears to be restricted to
western Europe and is far from universal in European hunter-gatherers, with light skin
pigmentation common in Northern and Eastern Europe before the appearance of agriculture."