Genetic and Cultural Differences between Jews and Greeks

Afrocentrists

I was banned for having a second account, I had no intention on trolling there, I just wanted a new username.
If Sikeliot had a sock account, he would've get caught, or he already did get caught (he is banned for life too). They have really strick rules.
It's okay to argue in terms of genetics there but they have a really strick policy for everyone, it's a little bit over the top.

And if someone is lying about being Italian (I really doubt they lie about it), adminstators cannot investigate it, so you shouldn't blame them.

Who is Sikeliot?
 
Who is Sikeliot?
A quite famous member in Eupedia, TheApricity and Anthrogenica. Apperantly he had an anti-Italian and specifically an anti-Sicilian sentiment in the past, but his older posts are deleted now so I didn't see them. I have never seen him behave badly towards Italians tbh, but I have got to know him years after he did it.
 
The Greeks, South Italians and western Jews are quite similar in many ways. Perhaps they were not in the beginning. But they are quite similar today. The Jews have a large chunk of South European admixture. But they had separate roost, yes.
 
Hey Azzurro, show me the proof of this claim? I thought it was evident from Antonio et al. 2019, that this supposed LEVANTINE population went was extinct for the most part.

What ever Levantine and North African you have is most likely from the Moors.

As you all can see, he subscribes to an idiotic concept first promoted by Nordicists, as well as people like Sikeliot, that there was a large scale population admixture with the Levant during Imperial Rome. So now he thinks he is ethnically Jewish, or whatever his motive is.

If you have to quote my beliefs at least get them right, I identify as Ethnically Southern Italian, and I acknowledge other parts of my distant heritage, such as my Jewish ancestors. I do this in real life as well.

As for your genetic position, having a conversation without discussing Uniparentals is a waste of time, its blatantly obvious that Levantine ancestry made its way through.
 
The Greeks, South Italians and western Jews are quite similar in many ways. Perhaps they were not in the beginning. But they are quite similar today. The Jews have a large chunk of South European admixture. But they had separate roost, yes.

And how exactly are they quite similar today when the study I posted shows they are 40%-65% middle eastern, and 15%-25% Eastern European? Are you going to also tell me that the study is incorrect?
 
. They have really strick rules.
It's okay to argue in terms of genetics there but they have a really strick policy for everyone, it's a little bit over the top.

.

They have people who they favor. Two members get personal in debates and only one gets banned. For instance, new members or people who have controversial ideas get permanently banned for minor things without any formal warnings. Getting banned for talking about phenotype on a forum about anthropology is ridiculous. Once again on anthrogenica there is not much room for originality, freedom of expression, etc. You can't challenge certain members and their ideas without risking getting banned.
 
LD9YVrx.png


This is actually the point of the thread, I believe, which is for people like Azzurro/Principe to appropriate Jewish identity. He believes in a religion run by a Calabrian rabbi.

He left this site because the absurdity of a lot of his claims was pointed out. Of course there was some gene flow from Jews into Italians, and vice versa, at least until Draconian laws against intermarriage were instituted.

When the Spaniards took over control and brought in the "Holy" Inquisition and started expelling Jews from Southern Italy, I'm absolutely sure, and there are documents to show it, that some Jews converted and remained. That kind of event isn't, however, going to fundamentally change the genetic signature of a people, although it may make some changes around the edges. Sicily, likewise, was under Muslim rule for two centuries. Yes, most of them were exiled under Frederick II. Does that mean some didn't escape the net, especially if they had been long resident on Sicily and had assimilated centuries before.

That's why the Iberian attitude toward this is difficult for me to understand. I know of many books by Italians on the Muslim occupation and its impact on Sicily, and while obviously the conquest and death, the discrimination is criticized, the many benefits they brought to the island are also acknowledged. I have yet to find one written in Spanish about Spain. I guess it depends what you're taught in school, or how your national "myth" is framed. Personally, I may believe that the Langobardian influence on Italy genetically is overblown, especially looking at y dna lines, but it exists, and so does the cultural impact, whether I like it or not.

What I don't like in particular is all this "ethnic" appropriation that is going on, and the different rules for different groups, and the mania for finding more "exotic" ancestry in certain groups than exists, ancestry that is found not necessarily in academic papers but in their own modeling.

Well, we know how that worked out with the Etruscans.

Historians and Archaeologists should never be discounted.

I still don't understand Davidski's gripe, however.

What does he care how similar Greeks and Jews might be?

Parenthetically, those Southern Jews from whom some confused Italians or pretend Italians want to claim descent are not Ashkenazim, who formed from an amalgam of different groups. I guess the closest you could come is to say they're sort of Sephardi in some way.
 
They have people who they favor. Two members get personal in debates and only one gets banned. For instance, new members or people who have controversial ideas get permanently banned for minor things without any formal warnings. Getting banned for talking about phenotype on a forum about anthropology is ridiculous. Once again on anthrogenica there is not much room for originality, freedom of expression, etc. You can't challenge certain members and their ideas without risking getting banned.
It really depends on the nature of the discussion. If it triggers a heated argument you get punished not that I like it though.
Afrocentrism is tolerated because people are entitled to their wrong opinion. I mean you could oppose someone's idea that Estrucans were an Anatolian people and still be nice.
 
And how exactly are they quite similar today when the study I posted shows they are 40%-65% middle eastern, and 15%-25% Eastern European? Are you going to also tell me that the study is incorrect?

Because the same study shows that they may be as much as 60% South European. And 15% Eastern European. That looks pretty similar to the Greeks to me.
 
A thread was closed and people got infraction or were banned due to saying that pure Africans have never and mixed ones only rarely Caucasian straight hair. According to the Mods, this is subjective inflammatory talk against the Terms of Service. Facts are now subjective and inflammatory.

Afrocentric revisionism and pseudo-science is becoming an increasingly troublesome matter all over the internet lately, I'm afraid. Quora, where I write very often, is full of their biased and long debunken answers always repeating the same old and lame arguments for the umtpeenth time in the hope that most people won't have seen the many times they were proven completely wrong by commenters and answerers in the same platform (sometimes literally old arguments, using sources that are so outdated that they date from the 19th century or early 1900s, come on!).

But what you wrote amazes me particularly. I mean, sometimes I feel like they are deep down fighting racism coming from racist premises themselves. Why should anyone who is really past racist ideas find it offensive that someone claims (whether correctly or not) that virtually all black African women don't have straight hair? Is straight hair some kind of trophy, a gold standard of genetic superiority? For them to get so triggered by people mentioning the absolute dominance of woolly or extremely curly hair in black Africans, that's what it sounds like they subconsciously think. I also think the same happens when they ignore African cultures and civilizations to keep writing endlessly about the "black origins" of Hebrews, Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Punics, Berbers, Romans, Greeks, Olmecs and any other civilization BUT those located south of Egypt. It's as if they think that blacks will have a lot to gain and will be finally be proven just as good as anyone else if it's proven that some Eurasian or North African civilizations was actually created by them or under their heavy influence. Why does it matter so much? Are they perhaps subconsciously implying that people who developed those well known civilizations were/are inherently superior to others who didn't?

I think it's all very sad, because they don't even notice it, but they're trying to fight racism not destroying the premises and assumptions of a racist system, but simply turning the table and claiming that it is actually they who were historically better, wiser, smarter etc. That won't end racism and will ultimately destroy the credibility of a fair cause.
 
Because the same study shows that they may be as much as 60% South European. And 15% Eastern European. That looks pretty similar to the Greeks to me.

35%-60%, so 1/3 to a little over half, is considered very similar/one in the same, to you? As for the 15%-25%, Keep in mind, not all Greeks have Slavic admixture. Certainly not the ones similar to Southern Italians.
 
Hey Azzurro, show me the proof of this claim? I thought it was evident from Antonio et al. 2019, that this supposed LEVANTINE population went was extinct for the most part.

What ever Levantine and North African you have is most likely from the Moors.

As you all can see, he subscribes to an idiotic concept first promoted by Nordicists, as well as people like Sikeliot, that there was a large scale population admixture with the Levant during Imperial Rome. So now he thinks he is ethnically Jewish, or whatever his motive is.

I think it's clear from many evidences that Central and South Italy (Sicily included) became shifted towards the East Mediterranean as a whole (from Greece to the Levant) after the LBA and especially after the mid 1st millennium B.C., but to claim that because of that there was "population replacement" or even that Jews and Italians are "very similar" is so exaggerated that it becomes even ludicrous. Also, I think we have seriously to consider that "Greek colonies" in South Italy and Sicily may actually have involved people of Greek ethnicity but IA Western Anatolian, Cypriot and perhaps (who knows?) even Philistine background, with heavy Levantine and Iranian admixture, so that you can't simply assume that if Levant_N and Iran_N increased in Italians from the BA to the modern era it necessarily came with Jews, Arabs or any other "Semitic" people.
 
Because the same study shows that they may be as much as 60% South European. And 15% Eastern European. That looks pretty similar to the Greeks to me.

Perhaps similar. Very similar - no, certainly not. Anyway, what matters is that the combination of ancestral components plus drift may have ended up putting them in close positions on a PCA chart, but the events and processes that determine that (genetic history) of the populations were totally different and independent.
 
He left this site because the absurdity of a lot of his claims was pointed out. Of course there was some gene flow from Jews into Italians, and vice versa, at least until Draconian laws against intermarriage were instituted.

When the Spaniards took over control and brought in the "Holy" Inquisition and started expelling Jews from Southern Italy, I'm absolutely sure, and there are documents to show it, that some Jews converted and remained. That kind of event isn't, however, going to fundamentally change the genetic signature of a people, although it may make some changes around the edges. Sicily, likewise, was under Muslim rule for two centuries. Yes, most of them were exiled under Frederick II. Does that mean some didn't escape the net, especially if they had been long resident on Sicily and had assimilated centuries before.

That's why the Iberian attitude toward this is difficult for me to understand. I know of many books by Italians on the Muslim occupation and its impact on Sicily, and while obviously the conquest and death, the discrimination is criticized, the many benefits they brought to the island are also acknowledged. I have yet to find one written in Spanish about Spain. I guess it depends what you're taught in school, or how your national "myth" is framed. Personally, I may believe that the Langobardian influence on Italy genetically is overblown, especially looking at y dna lines, but it exists, and so does the cultural impact, whether I like it or not.

What I don't like in particular is all this "ethnic" appropriation that is going on, and the different rules for different groups, and the mania for finding more "exotic" ancestry in certain groups than exists, ancestry that is found not necessarily in academic papers but in their own modeling.

Well, we know how that worked out with the Etruscans.

Historians and Archaeologists should never be discounted.

I still don't understand Davidski's gripe, however.

What does he care how similar Greeks and Jews might be?

Parenthetically, those Southern Jews from whom some confused Italians or pretend Italians want to claim descent are not Ashkenazim, who formed from an amalgam of different groups. I guess the closest you could come is to say they're sort of Sephardi in some way.
A lot of the Jews expelled by the Inquisition ended up in the Ottoman Empire. A large number of them settled in Thessaloniki. In the beginning of the 20th century as many as 60,000 Jews lived there and were the majority. We know what happened to them when the Germans occupied Greece.
 
It really depends on the nature of the discussion. If it triggers a heated argument you get punished not that I like it though.
Afrocentrism is tolerated because people are entitled to their wrong opinion. I mean you could oppose someone's idea that Estrucans were an Anatolian people and still be nice.

The Afro-centrists get a pass because the moderators are too cowardly to ban Africans or African Americans.

Italians and Greeks are fair game.

And excuse me, just insisting that they were all wrong about the Etruscans, and politely posting the data to prove it got some really intelligent people banned.
 
That's why the Iberian attitude toward this is difficult for me to understand. I know of many books by Italians on the Muslim occupation and its impact on Sicily, and while obviously the conquest and death, the discrimination is criticized, the many benefits they brought to the island are also acknowledged. I have yet to find one written in Spanish about Spain. I guess it depends what you're taught in school, or how your national "myth" is framed. Personally, I may believe that the Langobardian influence on Italy genetically is overblown, especially looking at y dna lines, but it exists, and so does the cultural impact, whether I like it or not.

What I find intriguing is that I have seldom seen any Portuguese deny or even attempt to diminish into negligibility the Arabo-Berber and Jewish contributions to their genetics, history and culture. Most of them seem to acknowledge it just fine and in my experience appear to be much more comfortable with the idea of having mixed (cultural and genetic) origins than Spaniards. I wonder if the Reconquista and the expulsions of Muslims and Jews were much more decisive in the creation of the national sentiment and unified state authority in Spain partly because Portugal was fully consolidated as a nation-state centuries before Spain was still fighting against Muslim-ruled polities.
 
A lot of the Jews expelled by the Inquisition ended up in the Ottoman Empire. A large number of them settled in Thessaloniki. In the beginning of the 20th century as many as 60,000 Jews lived there and were the majority. We know what happened to them when the Germans occupied Greece.

Exactly so, and as the Inquisition traveled up the peninsula the Jews in more northern regions had to join the exodus. A very famous rabbinical family which took its name from a town in the Lunigiana, the Pontremolis, all went to Salonika and all died. Had they stayed in Italy most of them would have survived.
 
I think it's clear from many evidences that Central and South Italy (Sicily included) became shifted towards the East Mediterranean as a whole (from Greece to the Levant) after the LBA and especially after the mid 1st millennium B.C., but to claim that because of that there was "population replacement" or even that Jews and Italians are "very similar" is so exaggerated that it becomes even ludicrous. Also, I think we have seriously to consider that "Greek colonies" in South Italy and Sicily may actually have involved people of Greek ethnicity but IA Western Anatolian, Cypriot and perhaps (who knows?) even Philistine background, with heavy Levantine and Iranian admixture, so that you can't simply assume that if Levant_N and Iran_N increased in Italians from the BA to the modern era it necessarily came with Jews, Arabs or any other "Semitic" people.
40% of Roman samples were Southern Italian-like not Myceanean-like. I still hold the belief that some Italic tribes (those in Southern Mainland) were already similar before the colonization of Magna Greacia started.
 
40% of Roman samples were Southern Italian-like not Myceanean-like. I still hold the belief that some Italic tribes (those in Southern Mainland) were already similar before the colonization of Magna Greacia started.

What samples? I think we have to be really careful about the Imperial and some Late Antiquity Roman samples. Many of them seem to be immigtants in cosmopolitan port cities. Most of the samples didn't come from the more "indigenous" rural villages and small towns where the majority lived.
 
The Afro-centrists get a pass because the moderators are too cowardly to ban Africans or African Americans.

Italians and Greeks are fair game.

And excuse me, just insisting that they were all wrong about the Etruscans, and politely posting the data to prove it got some really intelligent people banned.
I have only seen some few Afro-centrists there, and most of the members were opposing them.
The site is a little bit Jewish-centric so the idea of Black Israelites and Middle-Easterns is definitely not very pleasing to them.
 

This thread has been viewed 188500 times.

Back
Top