• Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.

WASPs as a standard for Whiteness

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ailchu said:
so any population who has ancestry outside of this set is not white?
Click to expand...

I would assume so. I am not sure what the magic number of outside deviation would "disqualify" someone. Barrack Obama was only half-black, but he was considered the first black president, and was strongly favored by many black Americans for his Kenyan-ancestry that they found racial representation in.

Ailchu said:
if you compare those components to each other they were as distant to each other as modern europeans and east asians. even WHG and EHG were relatively far away from each other. considering this, does it make sense to create exclusive groups based on the presence or absence of certain ancestry components?
Click to expand...

Those components no longer exist in unmixed form, and the model still only works for Europeans, so I am not sure what that matters. Clearly there is a gradient, as there are with every group. Again, it is not about "purity', but finding the right components, or ingredients to make a cake.

Is an ice cream cake, more ice cream or a cake?
 
When groups are made from components that no longer exist, they cannot be replicated. Which imo makes them something unto themselves; they can only replicate themselves.
 
When I think of mestizos, I think of them as a people unto themselves, because they carry the legacy of Amerindians, many of who no longer exist in unmixed form, along with Iberian input. They are intertwined as a new people. Just like the way steppe people mixing with Neolithic farmers created a new people.
 
I think its strange to identify oneself or being identified by others based on any sort of ancestry which is below 1/2 and to be not included into a category because of any admixture below 1/4. Seems strange to me because of the limited effect any such proportions have and the fact that absolute purity doesn't exist for most populations anyway.
Coming back to the social reality of the United States, its beyond me how people could identify with something which was not their cultural family reality for generations and is genetically below 25 percent, like in the Elizabeth Warren case. This can only be explained by a self-hate, the disrespect for the own majority heritage - and of course the idea of having some sort of better life, identity, social advantages and privileges if identifying otherwise. But since everything below 25 percent is ridiculous, what she did was just absurd.
 
Riverman said:
I can agree with most of your comment, but one thing stick out with which I can't agree:


Fact is, light pigmented phenotypes were present in various West Eurasian populations in the era of the Neolithic to Copper Age. What changed over time in specific groups is the frequency, and this rise of frequency happened within Indoeuropean ethnicities largely. Basically the steppe people's conquest created a setting in which lighter phenotypes spread quicker and wider than ever before, both because of the panmixture, the new selective regimes in general and a specific way of life with secondary domesticated animals products in the Northern latitudes.
Its probably wrong to say either the Neolithic/Copper Age Western/Northern/Central/Southern Europeans or the Eastern European steppe people introduced light complexion single handedly, rather, they contributed both but the changes caused by the steppe expansion were decisive. I'm not sure whether the agro-pastoralist lifestyle of the GAC would have caused the same effect over time anyway.
Click to expand...

A major paper which examined the whole genomes of Europeans just explained that the light haired, blue-eyed, fair skinned phenotype came into the modern European gene pool via the farmers of South East Europe. That isn't to say it didn't exist in the SHG. It just means that the SHG didn't contribute it to modern Europeans. Certainly, the only "steppe" people who had a decent percentage of it were those who picked it up from "Old Europe" before they went back east. The Yamnaya were darker than any modern Europeans, and even those steppe people who went into the formation of Corded Ware decidedly did not have it. The most which could be said is that they had fairish skin.

The papers are all very clear. This particular paper was just discussed here. If you're skeptical, fine, but my summary is a rational reduction of what the papers say..
 
Jovialis said:
Despite John Q. Adams being an abolitionist and putting forth anti-slavery initiatives, his campaign was responsible for accusations of Andrew Jackson's (a slave-holder) father being a mulatto; in an effort to disqualify him from the presidency. Frankly, I don't see how he could be mistaken to have 25% SSA in him. This was one of the first instances of mudslinging in U.S. politics.
Click to expand...

They slung a lot of mud at Thomas Jefferson for having fathered children with a "mulatto" woman, which happened to be true. John Adams himself was attacked viciously.

Once Washington was gone the gloves were off, unfotunately.
 
Jovialis said:
I would assume so. I am not sure what the magic number of outside deviation would "disqualify" someone. Barrack Obama was only half-black, but he was considered the first black president, and was strongly favored by many black Americans for his Kenyan-ancestry that they found racial representation in.



Those components no longer exist in unmixed form, and the model still only works for Europeans, so I am not sure what that matters. Clearly there is a gradient, as there are with every group. Again, it is not about "purity', but finding the right components, or ingredients to make a cake.

Is an ice cream cake, more ice cream or a cake?
Click to expand...

well looking at Estonians and Sardinians again, their Fst distance according to Lazaridids is 0.020. as comparision, the distance between Estonian and Palestinian is 0.023. the distance between Greeks and Saudis is 0.014. Between Germans and Turkish 0.008


in the first case you group them together as "white". the other examples would not work because the populations can't be modeled like that anymore?

is a piece of bread with butter on it more comparable to a piece of butter with some bread crumbs on it or to a piece of bread with marmelade? with your defnition it would be the piece of butter with the bread crumbs because it contains the same ingredients.
 
Ailchu said:
well looking at Estonians and Sardinians again, their Fst distance according to Lazaridids is 0.020. as comparision, the distance between Estonian and Palestinian is 0.023. the distance between Greeks and Saudis is 0.014. Between Germans and Turkish 0.008


in the first case you group them together. the other examples would not work because the populations can't be modeled like that anymore?

is a piece of bread with butter on it more comparable to a piece of butter with some bread crumbs on it or to a piece of bread with marmelade? with you defnition it would be the piece of butter with the bread crumbs because it contains the same ingredients.
Click to expand...

We have been through this discussion many times. We know already there is some overlap with modern Near Easterners, and Europeans, due to Anatolian and CHG, primarily. I have discussed the differences in past threads, which distinguish them. Once again, modern Near Easterners must be modeled with Sidon_BA as a baseline.

That last model I posted in the OP is comparable to what I have created with Dodecad K12b modeling. The model is actually best fit for Italians, and other southern Europeans, like Greeks, and Spaniards. Because it is meant to somewhat model Aneli et al. 2022's construct of a Mediterranean genetic continuum, with Minoan being a proxy-baseline. This is a reflection of a biological reality, because Western, Central and Eastern Mediterranean, this populations began to form in the Bronze age. Nordic is also a legitimate construct based on biological reality. They follow an exclusive set of components. You like to quote David Reich's book, you should read the part when he says Modern Europe is a melding the the Northern and Southern European Bronze age cultures, which is what makes them who they are today. That's why my model and those model work for Europeans only, and not middle easterners. The middle East is distinguished by their own history, and folk migrations. Why do you conflate them?
 
Jovialis said:
We have been through this discussion many times. We know already there is some overlap with modern Near Easterners, and Europeans, due to Anatolian and CHG, primarily. I have discussed the differences in past threads, which distinguish them. Once again, modern Near Easterners must be modeled with Sidon_BA as a baseline.

That last model I posted in the OP is comparable to what I have created with Dodecad K12b modeling. The model is actually best fit for Italians, and other southern Europeans, like Greeks, and Spaniards. Because it is meant to somewhat model Aneli et al. 2022's construct of a Mediterranean genetic continuum, with Minoan being a proxy-baseline. This is a reflection of a biological reality, because Western, Central and Eastern Mediterranean, this populations began to form in the Bronze age. Nordic is also a legitimate construct based on biological reality. They follow an exclusive set of components. You like to quote David Reich's book, you should read the part when he says Modern Europe is a melding the the Northern and Southern European Bronze age cultures, which is what makes them who they are today. That's why my model and those model work for Europeans only, and not middle easterners. The middle East is distinguished by their own history, and folk migrations. Why do you conflate them?
Click to expand...

I think he wants you to say that there is absolutely no difference between modern Near Easterners and modern Europeans, which is, of course, impossible, but he won't stop trying.
 
Angela said:
I think he wants you to say that there is absolutely no difference between modern Near Easterners and modern Europeans, which is, of course, impossible, but he won't stop trying.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I have said my piece.
 
Jovialis said:
We have been through this discussion many times. We know already there is some overlap with modern Near Easterners, and Europeans, due to Anatolian and CHG, primarily. I have discussed the differences in past threads, which distinguish them. Once again, modern Near Easterners must be modeled with Sidon_BA as a baseline.

That last model I posted in the OP is comparable to what I have created with Dodecad K12b modeling. The model is actually best fit for Italians, and other southern Europeans, like Greeks, and Spaniards. Because it is meant to somewhat model Aneli et al. 2022's construct of a Mediterranean genetic continuum, with Minoan being a proxy-baseline. This is a reflection of a biological reality, because Western, Central and Eastern Mediterranean, this populations began to form in the Bronze age. Nordic is also a legitimate construct based on biological reality. They follow an exclusive set of components. You like to quote David Reich's book, you should read the part when he says Modern Europe is a melding the the Northern and Southern European Bronze age cultures, which is what makes them who they are today. That's why my model and those model work for Europeans only, and not middle easterners. The middle East is distinguished by their own history, and folk migrations. Why do you conflate them?
Click to expand...

i do not conflate near east and europe. but i do not seperate them either the way you do it. i should rather ask you, why do you conflate europeans?

even if i was conflating near east and europe why should it be wrong while you who wants to conflate europeans are right, when, as i have shown now many times, europeans are genetically not the same either and can be further apart from each other than europeans and near east.

why do you want to conflate europeans e.g. sardinians and estonians while at the same time seperate europeans from near easterners who might actually be closer to each other.

i would understand it if you would argue with culture but you don't.
 
Using one tool in a 2D way doesn't negate my observations which are nuanced.
 
Ailchu said:
what are those observations? you can't simply negate overall genetic similarities either.
Click to expand...

I have presented my observations in modeling using aDNA. Again, why is it that my model works bests for southern Europeans, confirming what papers say about a mediterraean genetic continuum, while perfectly modeling with the rest of Europe, and exclusively for them?

DeHJsK7.png


qu2Su3W.png



Just like the academic models I put forward, you can't model middle easterners with them.
 
^^As David Reich said in his book, Modern Europe is a combination of Northern and Southern Europeans Bronze Age populations.

That is exactly what we see in the models I have put forward. That is what we see in the academic models I put forward.
 
you probably don't call those bronze age populations white, so why would you call everyone who is a mixture of them "white", ignoring their relation to each other and to other surrounding populations which you do not consider white anymore?
 
What are you not getting here? Also how am I ignoring the surrounding population? The models can't model them with a goodness of fit.
 
Jovialis said:
What are you not getting here? Also how am I ignoring the surrounding population? The models can't model them with a goodness of fit.
Click to expand...

and? those bronze age cultures were not all the same either and no matter if europeans all are a mixture of them, it doesn't change the fact that the genetic distance between europeans can be bigger than between europeans and people from the near east.

if you want to make a geographical grouping and describe the genetic profile or the boundaries of the genetic compostion of european populations then your approach makes sense, but if you want to base the idea of an exclusive european racial group "white" on it, it just won't make sense.
how did these bronze age cultures become "white" or the same race as modern europeans? if they were not white or the same race, why does any sort of mixture of those population lead to "white" people or the same race? why do the modern genetic relations not matter in this?
 
Okay, see what you want, I really do not care for you. Dead end arguments, and stuff we have been over ad nausem. But if you think you are going to disrupt threads on this forum with your lysenkoism, I will put a stop to it, and an end to you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top