December 27, 2008

2008 in review: Ethnicity Strikes Back

The major breakthrough of 2008 was the application of microarray technology to the problem of inferring ethnic ancestry.

At the beginning of this year, it may have been tenable to consider ethnic groups as mere cultural constructs, divorced from nature; at its conclusion, this opinion has been conclusively falsified.

It is now clear that ethnic groups are not only cultural-political formations, but also (at least in part) distinct biological entities, emerging naturally as clusters of similarity from the genetic continuum.

  1. 300K SNP paper on European genetic substructure
  2. New paper on genomic differences between Ashkenazi Jews and Europeans
  3. New study on global human variation based on SNPs and CNVs
  4. Huge paper on human genetic relationships based on 650K SNPs
  5. 500K SNP study of Oceanian populations
  6. 500K SNP Europe-wide study of genetic structure
  7. Population structure in Japan with 140k SNPs
  8. Genetic structure in Northern Europe with 250K SNPs
  9. Geography and Genetic structure in Europe (again)
  10. European population structure with 300K SNPs and 6,000 individuals
  11. Genomic substructure in Finns

97 comments:

  1. This is dangerous ground we travel.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dangerous for whom?
    For american Globalization schemes?
    For the masochist, narrowminded, materialist, pathetic internationalists like the commies and the yappees?
    NO MY FRIEND!!
    THESE ARE A HELL OF GOOD NEWS!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Antigonos, why would they good or bad any way? What scheme is there?

    And what is actually news? Was it not always known that there are clusters, that we are neither "clear cut 100% homogenous groups" nor randomness? That most people mate with others who are in the same region and there have been borders throughout history?

    I wonder what is the ultimate goal of some people? Are they actually supporting some weird kind of Apartheid?

    All those articles are very interesting, but I am wondering if there is some political aspect beyond science, if there is some hope not just of finding things out but finding them out to be one way?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Just bear in mind that all these studies only reflect the situation BEFORE immigration that occured massively in Europe starting from the 20th century (as the individuals are chosen only among the "native" people).

    For example in France one third of the citizen have at least one grand parent who is not "native" and admixture is so high (I mean "real admixture" not different ethnic groups that live separately like in Usa, Germany or England. In France 50% of the people who have a north african father have a native french mother) that it is not uncommon for people under 20 to have 4 grand parents of different origins...

    The best example is Sarkozy for example : 1/4 native French, 1/4 Hungarian and 1/2 Jewish

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank goodness and Heaven we are now being forced by measurement and scientific clarity to tread on this 'dangerous ground'; dangerous only to fools who still think sameness and blank slates are desirable and that we should suspend all biological reality, even that apparent to our own senses, in attempt to pound big (human) square pegs into little round (political) holes.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Alas, one thing these studies (interesting as they may be) do NOT do is allow the inference of "ethnic ancestry": unless you fall into the circular trap of defining ethnicity using some criterion of ancestry (by which point you've left the realm of science and entered the realm of pseudoscience).

    ReplyDelete
  7. "It is now clear that ethnic groups are not only cultural-political formations, but also (at least in part) distinct biological entities, emerging naturally as clusters of similarity from the genetic continuum".

    But aren't those 'distinct biological entities' mainly a result of regional genetic isolation?

    I agree 100% with Kepler:

    "Was it not always known that there are clusters, that we are neither 'clear cut 100% homogenous groups' nor randomness? That most people mate with others who are in the same region and there have been borders throughout history?"

    ReplyDelete
  8. do NOT do is allow the inference of "ethnic ancestry"

    Of course they do. They can tell us whether someone is Russian or Spanish, for example, with great ease. Not all ethnic groups can be so differentiated, but a great number of possible pairs are easily separable in genetic space.

    the circular trap of defining ethnicity using some criterion of ancestry

    Ancestry is certainly one of the defining criteria of ethnicity.

    The Herodotean criteria of ethnicity are certainly unsurpassed: community of language, blood, customs, and religion. In some cases one of these factors may be emphasized at the expense of the others, but all four are useful aspects of ethnicity.

    ReplyDelete
  9. But aren't those 'distinct biological entities' mainly a result of regional genetic isolation?

    In some cases, ethno-cultural distinctiveness emerges from genetic isolation. But, in others, ethno-cultural isolation creates genetic distinctiveness.

    Genetic isolation creates barriers to the flow of ideas. Conversely, differences in systems of ideas create barriers to gene flow.

    As an example, Japanese ethnicity is largely the result of isolation and fusion of groups of people in the isles of Japan. This isolation resulted in the creation of a distinctive ethnicity, with its own set of customs, religion, language etc.

    Conversely, the adoption of Islam by Persians has led to a fission of the Persian group into reproductively isolated groups pursuing the older Zoroastrian traditions, and the new dominant group pursuing Islam.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "They can tell us whether someone is Russian or Spanish"
    What do you mean by a "Spaniard"?
    What by Russian? The Россияне
    or the Русские?

    There were no Russians before the Rus. There were Slavs. The current Russians are a mixture of Slavs with a huge amount of others (among them Tatars big time).

    So: is Pushkin less of a Russian?
    Was Pythagoras a Phoenician because of his dad?

    Is there some other interest than trying to find out about the past? Perhaps defining the future?
    What is the current ethnicity of Hurrians and Akkadians?
    How long does an ethnicity last?

    ReplyDelete
  11. They can tell us whether someone is Russian or Spanish, for example, with great ease. Not all ethnic groups can be so differentiated, but a great number of possible pairs are easily separable in genetic space.

    The groups that show up on these plots are defined by the authors, as they must be. Change those definitions, and the "ethnic" assignments change. In short, you can only validate existence of the groups if you presuppose their existence. That is circularity.

    Ande if you think that "Russian" and "Spanish" are valid ethnic groups, none of the studies you mention can accurately predict (nor do they presume to) whether someone actually belongs to those groups.

    For example, a person with an English mother and an Italian father might very well cluster with people born in Spain. Does that make him "ethnic Spanish"? Hardly.

    So now you are back to predicting where people were born IF AND ONLY IF you know that all of their grandparents were born in the same place as them. Which is not predicting ethnic ancestry at all, but rather geographic ancestry.

    And, really, in January of 2008 did anyone think that people with different geographic ancestry had identical genetic makeup? I hope not.

    ReplyDelete
  12. PS. Pushkin's Pushkin's great-grandfather was a black born in Ethiopia.


    It would be funny to have a formal definition of ethnic group and then comment about that definition under that text.

    ReplyDelete
  13. For example, a person with an English mother and an Italian father might very well cluster with people born in Spain.

    In 2D PCA/MDS plots based on a few hundred thousand SNPs, yes. With more sophisticated analysis and full diploid genome sequences to work from, I think there would be little chance of confusing an Italian/English hyrbid for a Spaniard.

    ReplyDelete
  14. For example, a person with an English mother and an Italian father might very well cluster with people born in Spain. Does that make him "ethnic Spanish"? Hardly.

    That makes him an ethnic hybrid. And, no, an English-Italian mix would NOT cluster with Spaniards.

    And, really, in January of 2008 did anyone think that people with different geographic ancestry had identical genetic makeup? I hope not.

    Whites from Utah don't cluster with Native Americans or Mongoloids, but with Europeans, indeed NW Europeans and Britons.

    Similarly Ashkenazi Jews from Central Europe don't cluster with Germans or Russians, but are more similar to Mediterranean and Near Eastern people.

    Similarly, Kalmyks don't cluster with people from the Caucasus but with Mongols and Kazakhs.

    Genetic makeup is defined by race and ethnicity NOT by geography.

    ReplyDelete
  15. N/a, what is a Spaniard, por favor? Descríbemelo.

    A person who is a mix between a typical representative of a Castilian (and, among other things, non-Basque) cluster and a typical representative of an English cluster won't show the profile of a typical representative of either cluster but features from both? Is that something new? I think we knew it before Mendel was born...in fact, we knew it before there was such a language as German.

    And again: was Pythagoras not a Greek?

    ReplyDelete
  16. That makes him an ethnic hybrid.

    Then he has no ethnicity? What is an ethnic "hybrid", exactly? And while you are at it, why don't you offer up your definition of ethnicity?

    And, no, an English-Italian mix would NOT cluster with Spaniards.

    In any of the existing studies he would. Perhaps not Spain, but France or Germany instead. It makes no difference. He would NOT cluster with the English or the Italians, so unless your definition of ethnicity includes only geography the studies predict virtually nothing of value about such a "hybrid".

    Whites from Utah don't cluster with Native Americans or Mongoloids, but with Europeans, indeed NW Europeans and Britons.

    Similarly Ashkenazi Jews from Central Europe don't cluster with Germans or Russians, but are more similar to Mediterranean and Near Eastern people.

    Similarly, Kalmyks don't cluster with people from the Caucasus but with Mongols and Kazakhs.


    Geographic associations, all.

    ReplyDelete
  17. What could be the ethnicity of France's president Nicolas Sarkozy for example ? (1/4 native French, 1/4 Hungarian and 1/2 Jewish)

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ethnic groups are diachronic communities of people whose members assert membership in the group, and are accepted as members of it.

    There is no "circularity" here, since ethnic groups are defined relationally rather than by a formal definition of what their essence is.

    Many human groups are defined relationally, e.g., lawyers. Someone is a lawyer if he passes a bar exam administered by other lawyers; there is no "essence" of a lawyer.

    With that said, it is important to note that the assertion (from the individual) and the acceptance (from the group) of membership makes use of certain facts of reality. These are: ancestry, religion, customs, and language, as asserted by Herodotus; in short: common ancestry/culture.

    In other words, individuals tend to assert an ethnic identity based on their own concordance with the characteristics of the particular ethnic group. And, the degree of their acceptance depends on this concordance.

    Moreover, the weight assigned to different characteristics is not the same in different ethnic groups. For example, religious orthodoxy was paramount to the medieval Jews, hardly a factor at all to the modern French.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Genetic isolation creates barriers to the flow of ideas. Conversely, differences in systems of ideas create barriers to gene flow".

    To me that sums it up. Genetic isolation may be geographic or cultural. The end result is ethnicity.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ethnic groups are diachronic communities of people whose members assert membership in the group, and are accepted as members of it.

    That definition is nothing if not circular. The "group" must exist before it can "vote" on any individual's membership in said group and before any individual can "assert membership" in said group.

    Dragging in the synchronic/diachronic dichotomy from linguistics only reinforces how much you have to torture the concept of "ethnic group" to make it evenly remotely resemble anything scientific.

    And beyond all that, we still have the fact that these tests are primarily detecting geographic ancestry. The correlation with other clines (like language or religion) depend on the association of those clines with geography. Remove that association, and the whole bit construct disintegrates.

    Someone, like my father, whose DNA is 100% Italian but who speaks no Italian and has spent no more than 10 days in Italy his entire life would never pass the test of your "ethnic group" definition - he does not consider himself Italian and no none but his closest Italian relatives would consider him anything but "American" - yet would blend right in on any PCA no matter how many dimensions.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Someone, like my father, whose DNA is 100% Italian but who speaks no Italian and has spent no more than 10 days in Italy his entire life would never pass the test of your "ethnic group" definition

    Yet, he's Italian...apparently of the "100%" variety. Why all the self-imposed trouble, Vincent? Too much indoctrination to overcome which now culminates in a few blown fuses?

    Post-modernism is a real bore, Vincent. Makes one sound stupid too...

    ReplyDelete
  22. That definition is nothing if not circular. The "group" must exist before it can "vote" on any individual's membership in said group and before any individual can "assert membership" in said group.

    Ethnicity isn't "defined". It exists in the web of relations of an actual group.

    And, yes, it may surprise you to discover this, but ethnic groups do in fact exist, and do in fact use ancestry as a criterion for inclusion in them.

    Dragging in the synchronic/diachronic dichotomy from linguistics

    I'm not dragging anything, I'm just using an ordinary Greek word. Nothing to do with linguistics.

    Someone, like my father, whose DNA is 100% Italian but who speaks no Italian and has spent no more than 10 days in Italy his entire life would never pass the test of your "ethnic group" definition - he does not consider himself Italian and no none but his closest Italian relatives would consider him anything but "American" - yet would blend right in on any PCA no matter how many dimensions.

    There are degrees of membership in an ethnic group. The abandonment of a particular culture and self-identity for another is one way in which a member of an ethnic group becomes alienated from it, and joins another. Still, such an individual has some degree of affinity for that group, more so, e.g., than a Japanese American.

    ReplyDelete
  23. So what about France's president Nicolas Sarkozy ethnicity ? Is he French, Hungarian or Jewish ?
    (to complicate a bit more, his french grand-mother comes from the region of Savoy which is french only since 1860)

    ReplyDelete
  24. To Kepler:

    "Antigonos, why would they good or bad any way? What scheme is there?"

    My "scheme" is that through Genetics FINALLY we will have the collapse of the myth that races and nations do not exist as biological entities!

    To frenchy and Vincent:

    Lads you are missing the point here!
    We are able to find differences among nations nowadays and these differences are observed in a genetic level.
    It is irrelevant if the Greek nation in order to identify it you have to know that it exists first.
    The point is that it differs from the populace of Britain, Ireland, Scandinavia, etc. and to a lesser degree it differs from Italy, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, etc.
    We have a population living in the southern Balkan peninsula that differs from the other European populations sometimes a lot, sometimes a little, BUT IT DIFFERS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER!
    Even if you did n't know that this nation was called Greek and you just called it Group A, that Group A would be again different from all the other populations in Europe!!
    Thus nations do exist!
    AND BARE IN MIND THAT IN THE NEAR FUTURE WITH THE STUDY OF MORE SNP AND MUTATIONS, WE WILL BE ABLE NOT ONLY TO FIND THE NATIONAL IDENTITY OF AN INDIVIDUAL BUT ALSO THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM WHICH HE COMES FROM!

    frenchy you deal with persons in a static way while persons are dynamic.
    Sarkozy just because he has a four different national origins doesn't mean that he is all these four nations' representative!
    Each person is a total of mutations, hormons and origins and not a sum. The French, Jewish, Greek, etc. ancestry doesn't go additionally on him!
    Sarkozy has as anybody some features which are more prevelant than others in him. Hence although he might be a person of four different nations' origin that doesn't mean that these four sources are equally represented on him!

    ReplyDelete
  25. The best discussions I've seen of the concept of ethnicity began with Pierre van den Berghe's, The Ethnic Phenomenon, and the more recent and more up to date book of Frank Salter, "Genetic Interests..." The flavor of these perspectives can be gleaned from a recent item on The Occidental Observer
    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/CollectiveEditorial-JewishAllies.html

    An ethny should not be thought of as a rigid category. Circumstance or context determines which concentric circle is salient.

    ReplyDelete

  26. Ethnicity isn't "defined". It exists in the web of relations of an actual group.

    And, yes, it may surprise you to discover this, but ethnic groups do in fact exist, and do in fact use ancestry as a criterion for inclusion in them.


    Ethnic groups exist as social and cultural constructs. Ancestry may well be in input in their construction, but that doesn't change the fact that they are cultural phenomena and are not predictable from DNA alone.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Lads you are missing the point here!
    We are able to find differences among nations nowadays and these differences are observed in a genetic level.


    I'm not missing that point, for sure. People living in different places differ genetically, a thing which we've always known. These new studies refine our understanding of those differences, both in their nature and their magnitude, and I see no one missing that.

    Rather, the problem is the misrepresentation of these studies as demonstrating some alleged ability to predict "ethnic ancestry" (which they cannot do) instead of focusing on their ability to (in limited cases of pre-established low migration) to predict geographic ancestry.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Yet, he's Italian...apparently of the "100%" variety. Why all the self-imposed trouble, Vincent?

    Well, he is 100% "Italian" if one defines "Italian" based solely on where his grandparents were born.

    I agree that is a rational use of the word "Italian", by the way, but certainly no ethnic group would build itself around such a limited definition. Doing so would exclude any reference to language, religion, social behaviors, etc. upon which most definitions of "ethnicity" are based.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Vincent said:

    "People living in different places differ genetically, a thing which we've always known."

    Yes, but you do not explain why people decide to act differently than their group, that is to face a problem differently, to judge and predict things more precisely, etc. etc. in order to take a leave or to change their behavior!
    Don't you agree that differences in behavior and psychology are the prelude of physical changes in the long-term?
    That's how species are mostly formed!
    Races and Nations too!
    Different decisions and attributes generate a separation of a group from its maternal one and that will give way to changes in culture, physical appearance and of course genetics!
    It is not the boundaries of the states or the different languages that create nations my dear friend!
    ON THE CONTRARY, these are the results of the Nations' existence!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Yes, but you do not explain why people decide to act differently than their group, that is to face a problem differently, to judge and predict things more precisely, etc. etc. in order to take a leave or to change their behavior!

    It is not my burden to make these explanations, nor do I have any interest in doing so.

    The study of national and ethnic identity is a legitimate field of study, in my opinion, and genetics might be a useful tool in that study.

    However, the 10 studies mentioned above are silent on these sociological, political, and anthropological questions of nationality and ethnicity. They represent a step forward in our understanding of GEOGRAPHIC ancestry. There is no need to misrepresent their findings as saying something they do not say.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Ethnic groups exist as social and cultural constructs.

    They are biological/cultural constructs; no need to a priori privilege their socio-cultural component above their biological one: in different circumstances one may be more important than the other.

    ReplyDelete
  32. To Antigonos who said :
    "AND BARE IN MIND THAT IN THE NEAR FUTURE WITH THE STUDY OF MORE SNP AND MUTATIONS, WE WILL BE ABLE NOT ONLY TO FIND THE NATIONAL IDENTITY OF AN INDIVIDUAL BUT ALSO THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM WHICH HE COMES FROM!"

    Sorry but as already explained all these studies reflect the situation at the end of the 19th century (before immigration) as they analysed only individuals with 4 native grand-parents. But since 1900, at least in France, massive immgration and admixture occured with people from South Europe, Poland, North Africa and now from Asia.

    So as I said before (sorry to repeat the same) in France one third of the population has at least on recent immigrant grand-parent (probably 50% among the young children)

    In this case how can a study guess where an individual comes from if he has 4 grand-parents of different recent origins (which is quite common now in France)?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Contact between different ethnic groups (as in France) usually leads to a spectrum of attitudes.

    1- Some natives reject the immigrants as members of their group
    2- Others are willing to accept them if they become culturally assimilated
    3- Others are willing to accept them as they are

    Thus, usually in such societies the consensus of "What a Frenchman is" unravels. Different Frenchmen are willing to accept as part of their group persons of categories 1-3 to different degrees, and this may be further influenced by issues of religion, ancestry, etc.

    Eventually what happens is either ethnolysis (an unravelling of the ethnic group, as it cannot exist except as a community of mutual recognition), or a new ethnosynthesis, if after extensive cultural assimilation and intermarriage a new consensus is reached.

    Other possible solutions are separate co-existence (e.g. between Muslims, Orthodox, Armenians, Jews in the Ottoman Empire), or inter-ethnic conflict (e.g., between Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo) leading into either a new period of co-existence, or to secession/ethnic cleansing, or to genocide.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Thus, usually in such societies the consensus of "What a Frenchman is" unravels. Different Frenchmen are willing to accept as part of their group persons of categories 1-3 to different degrees, and this may be further influenced by issues of religion, ancestry, etc.

    Eventually what happens is either ethnolysis (an unravelling of the ethnic group, as it cannot exist except as a community of mutual recognition), or a new ethnosynthesis, if after extensive cultural assimilation and intermarriage a new consensus is reached.


    This is for Frenchy and Vincent as well. There is no amount of native Senegalese, Congolese, Guyanese or any other "eses" from French colonialism of yore, if miraculously transported to replace ALL Frenchmen, would have resulted in the France that we knew and currently know. Same goes for all other nations of Europe. Society, politics, and anthropology all are trickled down from genes. It is the capacity of the genes that bring about the above. Otherwise, if this is not true, kindly point me to the African version of Gallileo, the Asian Newton, the Arabic/Muslim version of the Enlightenment, the Mestizo origins of logic and philosophy. You cannot because they are not of European genetic make up and as much as they ape European accomplishments and behaviour, if left on their own, would quickly revert to what their genes tell them. Capiche?

    As for Sarkozy, he is a crypto-Jew that advocates openly for race replacement of native French people. He is as French as he is Martian.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Well, with Cyd the Kid we have exhibit A for why John started off the comments by saying this is dangerous territory in which we are traveling.

    But then, hopefully most people aren't going to fall headlong into the trap of genetic determinism that Cyd has.

    Cyd wrote:

    "Society, politics, and anthropology all are trickled down from genes. It is the capacity of the genes that bring about the above."

    Nonsense. There is a difference between biological capacity and the kind of genetic determinism that you are pushing. Your understandings completely ignore the complexities of human history.

    Clearly you are impressed with European accomplishments, but don't forget the fact that every invention, idea, and social change has its historical roots. Ideas don't just come from thin air, and they aren't passed down genetically.

    To attribute the European enlightenment to some simplistic notion about "European genes" is to ignore the ~150,000 years of human history that lead up to that moment. Not to mention the fact that "Europe" was hardly some clearly defined social, political, and ethnic place.

    Also, where do you think the Europeans came from? Do you think they just magically appeared in central Europe around 1450 AD?

    "You cannot because they are not of European genetic make up and as much as they ape European accomplishments and behaviour, if left on their own, would quickly revert to what their genes tell them. Capiche?"

    I hope you're joking. If not, this is ethnocentrism at its finest. Cyd, what are you talking about? What has given you the idea that human history can be explained simply as the result of biological capacities?

    The rise of the European renaissance was not the result of genetically determined abilities, but a complex process of history, human interaction, politics, economics, war, environmental change, domination, and individual choice, among other things.

    Pretending that genes are THE ONLY factor, as you are, is ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Ryan states Nonsense.

    Precisely what I think of your retort, Ryan.

    Our history and the way we have responded to our history is due to OUR genetic makeup. For you to imply that replacing our people with a different race of peoples would result in identical or nearly identical results is the epitome of nonsense.

    Hell man, I'll even throw you a lob. By some force, let us assume we were allowed a "do over" with our own people and history, this would not guarantee an identical result due to other external factors. Though some things we can count on and those are our inborn desire to learn, discover, teach, share our results and to progress. Many other tribes have remain stunted, and some in near pre-historic conditions. Why do think that is, Ryan? Why do you think some have never developed a written language? What "magical" condition caused this, in your mind?

    BTW, I did not say ONLY factor though certainly the most important factor.

    this is ethnocentrism at its finest

    You got that right. And why not? The days of being forced to fawn over incompetents while the gears of revisionism work overtime are long past for me, Ryan. Of course I am ethnocentric and rightfully so. The bigger question is why have you succumbed to being a spineless toad to the Multi-cult?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Cyd,

    "Our history and the way we have responded to our history is due to OUR genetic makeup."

    Wow. Whose history? Who are you talking about?

    "For you to imply that replacing our people with a different race of peoples would result in identical or nearly identical results is the epitome of nonsense."

    That was your idea...you wrote that in your previous comment. That was never something that I implied. Please try to avoid making up what you think I said. If you want to argue with me, try to stick to what I am actually saying, and I will do the same with you.

    "Hell man, I'll even throw you a lob. By some force, let us assume we were allowed a "do over" with our own people and history, this would not guarantee an identical result due to other external factors."

    Nothing would guarantee an identical result, in my opinion. I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. History is a complex process--it's not a lab experiment that can be replicated. You're really oversimplifying the entire process.

    "Though some things we can count on and those are our inborn desire to learn, discover, teach, share our results and to progress."

    Again, who are you talking about? Do you really think these capacities are the sole inheritance of one group of people? Seriously?

    "Many other tribes have remain stunted, and some in near pre-historic conditions. Why do think that is, Ryan?"

    What "tribes" are you talking about? What do you mean by "stunted"? What are "pre-historic" conditions? The reason why there are differences in the ways that human groups live is certainly more complicated than what you are proposing. History matters. Context matters.

    "BTW, I did not say ONLY factor though certainly the most important factor."

    Genes are part of the mix, but pretending that they are the primary factor is absolutely wrong. What makes you believe this?

    "You got that right. And why not?"

    Well, because your strong bias might be a bit problematic, to say the least.

    I am not sure why you feel the need to order human groups the way you do. You are making quite a lot of assumptions about the relations between intelligence, culture, nationality, geographic location, and ethnicity. In short, you have reduced a very complex system into a ridiculously simple genetic equation.

    "Of course I am ethnocentric and rightfully so. The bigger question is why have you succumbed to being a spineless toad to the Multi-cult?"

    There is a big difference between being proud of your heritage and taking that pride so far that you automatically think of other human groups as genetically and/or culturally inferior. I think it's great if you are proud of your heritage and all, but I think you are taking things too far.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Ryan,

    I am going to assume you are simply a naive and misdirected young man instead of a mendacious prick. I am speaking of Europeans and NON-Europeans. Even with Europeans, not all are created equal, though they are European none the less. No one on this planet is equal, Ryan, and neither are the clusters that are designated by race. Please save your egalitarianism along with your concerns that my "evil thoughts" may cause hurt feeling, for others, not me. It is quite alright to see and acknowledge these differences, Ryan. To pretend there are no better or worse societies and/or cultures is absurd. It does not mean instant genocide to acknowledge this, it means you have stepped into the world of reality. Personally, my preference is a western society where we have all the comforts and freedoms. If you want to make the case that African culture is superior, then do so, though do not expect many to side with you. Europeans can transform even the hostile lands of Africa into pleasant oases, think of Rhodesia and South Africa here. Can the reverse be said, Ryan? No, it cannot. Then why the difference? Genetics is my answer. What's yours?

    If you cannot follow what is right in front of you, then I cannot help you nor am I inclined to do so, especially being asked ad infinitum to explain every little detail of my comments as if you are a retard.

    Start here with Charles Murray's Human Accomplishments for your education.

    I am assuming as well that you are of European (read white) descent. Fess up if you are not.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Start here with Charles Murray's Human Accomplishments for your education.

    You should follow your own advice. Murray does not ascribe the achievement of Europeans to the "superiority" of European DNA, but to a whole host of political and cultural factors.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Murray does not ascribe the achievement of Europeans to the "superiority" of European DNA, but to a whole host of political and cultural factors.

    Some true and some squid ink. No doubt, environmental factors over many millenia would have varying pressures on human development. The whole cold versus warm climate issue is one. Though how does one spawn "culture" and "politics"? By geographic location?

    And stop with the strawman superiority in quotations bullsh*t. If you care to live in mud huts and claim everyone has contributed to civilization equally, then by all means, go right ahead. Again, acknowledging inequality in a world filled with inequality does not equate to instant genocide. That is not what I am advocating.

    BTW, as an aside, what is this I hear that you agree “a 31/32 Nigerian, 1/32 Greek "descendant" of an "ethnic Greek" is eligible for a jus sanguinis citizenship” of Greece? Are those your beliefs? Is this the reverse one-drop rule of the antebellum South? All it takes to be Greek is one drop of Greek blood? Jesus dude, talk about proving my point in an expedient manner. We would see quite clearly that Greece with her population of “1/32 Greeks” would not be Greek AT ALL any longer.

    ReplyDelete
  41. What “el Cid” hasn’t said.

    SIENA E FIRENZE
    La campagna senese, soffusa di nebbia,
    offre un altro miracolo. Questa lunga
    siccità invernale ha disseccato la terra,
    che ora mostra tutti i toni del marrone.
    Il sole s’apre e si diffonde sul mattino,
    ma la brina persiste, a nord,
    la terra sembra nevicata. E poi, qui,
    siamo alti e sotto zero. Altri inverni
    ritornano, altri incanti, sembra
    che non siano passati quarant’anni.
    Anche tu mi dicesti non più a Quercegrossa,
    ma più su, verso Monteriggioni.
    E’ qui, dunque, il tuo approdo,
    fra queste campagne favolose e fecondate
    dal lavoro dell’uomo. Qui coltivi libri,
    ti affanni a un sapere. Ora ci s’è messa
    anche questa nebbia e questa brina,
    questo inverno dorato, la terra che al passo
    scricchiola, i canneti di steli arrugginiti.
    I boschi di stecchi hanno un’anima fiorita.
    Ti aspetti che dalle casipole disperse,
    ma protette nel paesaggio amico,
    s’alzi il fumo dai comignoli
    alla prima ombra della sera
    e una famiglia si rinserri nel suo covo.
    Se per caso appare un marocchino o un
    africano, non è una parola fuori posto
    che deturpa tutta la poesia?
    Firenze è città brutta ormai,
    i fast-food americanizzano il centro,
    l’insegna accende un salsicciotto davanti
    al Campanile e al Battistero.
    Una folla multicolore passa in fretta,
    vede o resta, ma è dispersa,
    non forma un’unità.
    Una fila d’africani ha steso lenzuoli
    per le strade e mostra paccottiglia
    alla folla di prima, sempre la stessa,
    che passa e ripassa per le strade.
    I barbari entrarono nell’Impero
    come federati, coprivano i vuoti,
    come ora. Poi l’invasero, e per secoli
    fu il buio, il crogiuolo da cui
    nascevamo noi, la nostra identità.
    Ma come potrà la ragazza futura,
    che avrà in sé il mondo
    e si penserà più ricca,
    guardare la Madonna del Cardellino
    o una superba Madonna di Piero
    e sapere che dalle sue viscere
    aggrovigliate lei non potrà rinascere più?
    Non dispererà di sé e della salvezza
    e maledirà la dottrina dell’anima?
    (Libro mastro (1985-1989), pp. 139-140)

    ReplyDelete
  42. to Cyd the Kid
    "goes for all other nations of Europe. Society, politics, and anthropology all are trickled down from genes. It is the capacity of the genes that bring about the above. Otherwise, if this is not true, kindly point me to the African version of Gallileo, the Asian Newton, the Arabic/Muslim version of the Enlightenment, the Mestizo origins of logic and philosophy. You cannot because they are not of European genetic make up and as much as they ape European accomplishments and behaviour, if left on their own, would quickly revert to what their genes tell them"

    Well... I think you forgot the most "famous" : for example Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler ...just to mention the 20th century .

    And for and "accomplishments and behaviour" you also missed the Crusades, the Spanish inquisition, the Wars of Religion, Black Slavery, Colonialism, extermination of the Native American people, the two world wars, the Gulag, bombings of Hiroshima, Dresde, Tokyo... extermination of the jews, Auschwitz etc etc. Wow ! Great "accomplishments and behaviour" !

    About European dna, it simply does not exist. Europe is just a cultural and political myth. At best we could speak of Caucasoid Dna which coud be divided maybe into North-European and Near-Eastern/Mediterranean dna. Italians and Greeks, (50% of East-African E-M78 and Near Eastern J haplogroups) for example are much closer to Turkish, Jews or Arabs than to Finnish or Irish.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Frenchy, your brain is so infested with post modernist, Marxist shite that the best you can do is put forth logical fallacies as retort. Unless you are a non-European "frenchy" that is, then it is all much clearer why you do so. So what kind of frenchy are you?

    Black slavery

    Hahahaha!

    You mean the "black slavery" that goes unbated in this day and age in black Africa, frenchy? The black slavery where other blacks are currently enslaving other blacks yet we hear nary a peep from humanitarians such as yourself? You mean the vicious black slavery that brought ~600,000 blacks into the US, that were predominately bought from tribal chiefs or Arab enslavers, and ballooned into over 30 million blacks in the US today due to their "horrific" treatment? What about the 1.5 million whites that were enslaved by Arabs and were never to be seen again, frenchy? Where are your tears for them? Hypocrite.

    Listen frenchy, your beliefs are sooo yesterday, I feel like going out and buying an 8-track tape player and listening to the new tune from Sly and the Family Stone.

    I love ALL Europeans, warts and all. Got that frenchy? ALL Europeans. Doesn't mean I have to like all of them, but I do love them. They are my kin. Some closer and some more distant. You want to point out some bad things in European history, simultaneous making logically fallacious arguments and broad generalizations about Europeans while being sure we treat each non-European "transgression" as individual and isolated, do it. Don't expect me to hold your hand and silently go along. History is replete with bad shite from EVE-RY-BO-DY. So? Does that mean we ignore the good, such as Al Gore and his internet where you are allowed to put forth your infantile tripe? No frenchy, we do not.

    Now, what other neat things have your teachers taught you?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Gioiello,

    No speaka Italiano, capiche?

    el Cid

    ReplyDelete
  45. to Cyd the Kid

    Ok you may be right for Arab Slavery but for the rest (... Spanish inquisition, the Wars of Religion, Colonialism, extermination of the Native American people, the two world wars, the Gulag, bombings of Hiroshima, Dresde, Tokyo... extermination of the jews, Auschwitz and all other camps etc)...

    But as you said this can be explained because "their genes told them" to do it. So for 1 Newton how many Hitlers ?

    ReplyDelete
  46. European DNA:
    http://bp0.blogger.com/_Ish7688voT0/R79MXyHURCI/AAAAAAAAAFg/8MeKImXcV34/s1600-h/structurescience.jpg

    The predominantly green groups, as compared to those; e.g., from North Africa/Near East who are as much brown as green.

    You cannot evaluate race based on single locus markers.

    It's also no 'accident' that a 500K SNP test such as that of 23andme clusters Europeans away from Near Easterners first, before further subdividing the Europeans into sub-clusters.

    I won't even mention the recent Witherspoon abstract comparing intra-European Fst as less than that observed comparing two Japanese populations.

    It's quite clear which side of this thread debate has a hysterical political agenda.

    And it is NOT Cyd, who is making perfect sense.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Just to mention "23andme clusters" in "Global Similarity: Advanced", for your information most south Italians and Greeks "real" individuals fall into the Near Easter cluster...

    ReplyDelete
  48. Cyd,

    Ah yes, name calling. Now you're really showing off your Enlightened ideals, aren't you?

    Funny how a few questions can upset you off so much.

    You certainly have a very one-sided view of European accomplishments, don't you?

    But then, you are reading Charles Murray, whose books always end up supporting certain foregone conclusions. Interesting how that works. The methods that Murray used in that book, to say the least, were pretty questionable.

    But sure, I have no problem reading it.

    I do see where you get your habit of ranking different groups of people though. Interesting tactic there.

    Your ignorance of history is astounding. Again, you are taking complex historical, cultural, and political systems and reducing them to a very simplistic formula, in which YOUR "people" happen to come out on top. Pretty convenient.

    Would you call the colonial Belgians "better" than the people they colonized in central Africa? Did the Belgians evidence their superior culture by murdering and enslaving those people?

    Did the British colonists prove how much "better" they were in their treatment of Indigenous Australian peoples? That was a fine display now, wasn't it?

    Were the Spanish explorers "better" than the Taino people they brutally subdued? Is that your Enlightenment superiority at work?

    Have you read ANYTHING about colonial history? Did you completely miss the fact that the ideals of the Enlightenment about truth, freedom, and beauty were somehow completely abandoned in the race to grab resources from around the world???

    You see, putting these kinds of things in terms of "better" and "worse" is useless. What does that really accomplish, beside oversimplifying relationships and histories? Nothing. All it does is allow you to feel that your point of view is right, despite the wealth of information that exists out there that might complicate your conclusions.

    Sure, Europe produced Bach and Beethoven...but it also produced King Leopold and Hitler. So going around pretending that Europe is the paragon of human virtue, while ignoring the pesky details of the dark side of its history, is just a little irresponsible.

    Overall, I think you are guilty of what Eric Wolf called "turning names into things." Read this:

    "By turning names into things we create false models of reality. By endowing nations, societies, or cultures with the qualities of internally homogeneous and externally distinctive and bounded objects, we create a model of the world as a global pool hall in which entities spin off each other like so many hard and round billiard balls. Thus it becomes easy to sort the world into differently colored balls, to declare that East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet'" (Eric Wolf, Europe and the People without History, 1982:6-7).

    Europe is a political and geographic term that is applied to a vast human landscape--one that has changed considerably over time, is incredibly internally differentiated, and also completely connected with the world around it. People and ideas have moved in and out of Europe for a long, long time.

    It's not about Britain, or France, or Germany being better or worse than Ghana, Zimbabwe, or South Africa. Can any group of people be defined by a singular moment? I don't think so. Is Europe superior because of the great things that came from the Enlightenment? No, it's not. Should Germany be given a negative attribution because of what certain Germans did in World War II? Again, no.

    While people like to pretend that nation state, cultures, and societies are static and definable, they really aren't. They exist along a continuum that includes a mix of positive and negative occurrences. Nations are collections of individual histories, decisions, and actions. Ranking entire nations of people, let along continents (as you and Murray enjoy doing) is absolute folly, if you ask me.

    But then, you've already made up your mind, and you certainly aren't here looking to hear anyone else. I suppose you are just here to be a cheerleader for Charles Murray and your European ancestors. Again, I think that your pride in your heritage is great, since many amazing things did come from the European world. Your assessments of the rest of the world, however, are pretty ignorant.

    "I am assuming as well that you are of European (read white) descent. Fess up if you are not."

    I was born in southern California. Now, why don't you use your vast knowledge of the relationships between genetics, culture, and geography to figure out what my heritage is.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Typo:

    "Funny how a few questions can upset you off so much."

    Should read:

    "Funny how a few questions can upset you so much."

    ReplyDelete
  50. "Should Germany be given a negative attribution because of what certain Germans did in World War II? "

    Good comments but for the Germans I would just add that they were of course not alone and they had many many countries (Austria, Italy, Hungaria, Bulgaria, etc etc and even many French, many Poles, many Ukrainians etc etc) that helped them doing what they did...

    And is Auschwitz worst than for example Hiroshima + the extermination of Native American people ?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Cyd the Kid wrote: "kindly point me to the African version of Gallileo, the Asian Newton, the Arabic/Muslim version of the Enlightenment, the Mestizo origins of logic and philosophy".

    So you're confining European superiority to just the last four or five hundred years? I don't know an African version of Galileo but the ancient Egyptians were fairly accomplished astronomers for their day. Asians were responsible for inventing many things still useful today, although we don't know the names of these inventors. Arabic/Muslims were responsible for many improvements in chemistry, astronomy, optics, surgery, medicine and mathematics (the word algebra is Persian). And many European philosophers studied Eastern philosophies.

    Before about 1400AD Europe was actually far more primitive and barbarian than much of the rest of the world. Was there something wrong with their genes until then?

    ReplyDelete
  52. I am no longer going to address frenchy, as it is becoming apparent he is non-white, maybe living in Europe and maybe not. His lack of understanding of history makes it nearly impossible to explain to him his views of these "events" are significantly revisionist, such as "extermination of NAs and Jews, colonialism etc".

    Ryan, you do not seem to be much better in your one-sided indoctrination. I doubt you are European white as well, though it would not surprise me if you were as you hail from CA. We know how messed up the thinking is in CA, don't we?

    This should give a good glimpse into the rigid ideology you have been force fed to believe...

    But then, you are reading Charles Murray, whose books always end up supporting certain foregone conclusions. Interesting how that works. The methods that Murray used in that book, to say the least, were pretty questionable.

    But sure, I have no problem reading it.


    By your own words, you have not read the book though "know" the conclusions are foregone and the methods were questionable. Uh huh. No sign of preconceived notions emanating from you, eh Ryan? Or is that what your professors told you about the book and you have no reason to doubt them?

    Terryt, not to be outdone, chimes in at the end with his "long list" of non-European accomplishments with a dearth of names to accompany them. Why is that? Here let me help; Zero, as far as can be determined was first used in ancient India, around the 9th century. So what does this prove, aside from your poor ability to understand what I have written and attempt to relay. Let me repeat it...

    It is our genes that dictated how things evolved. Not the ONLY reason, but the most important because without that, we would be nowhere. One cannot replace Europeans with non-Europeans and expect similar results because they have different genes and have evolved differently.

    We have produced the most and given the most to the world. Have other tribes given as well, yes though not nearly to the same extent and might I add, haphazardly. Asians had inventions, as you say, though they were and continue to be a relatively closed society. They did not share with the world as Europeans have done.

    Now, the biggest "argument" being made is the negatives that Europeans have inflicted upon the planet. Boo-hoo and TFB. A disingenuous argument and one only European whites are supposed to make amends for. Let the humanitarians call to center the Asians, Arabs, Africans, Central Americans Mestizos for their atrocities and then we can consider a group hug. Until then, save it and shove it.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Oh and Terryt, ancient Greece and Rome were more than 500 years ago. You know, things like logic, philosophy, medicine yada, yada.

    Speaking of logic, it seems to be dying discipline around here.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Frenchy writes: “Just to mention "23andme clusters" in "Global Similarity: Advanced", for your information most south Italians and Greeks "real" individuals fall into the Near Easter cluster...”
    If you have followed my posts on “dna-forums”, my “23andME” results gave a percentage of 35 NW Europe, 41 SE Europe and 23% Ashkenazim and I am Tuscan, documented, from 13th century with at least one million Tuscan male ancestors.
    This throws some shadow on the real origin of Jews, and I was banned from the forum.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Cyd,

    "By your own words, you have not read the book though "know" the conclusions are foregone and the methods were questionable. Uh huh. No sign of preconceived notions emanating from you, eh Ryan? Or is that what your professors told you about the book and you have no reason to doubt them?"

    You're right. I haven't read the book per se, just the 2003 article "Measuring achievement: The west and the rest" that was adapted from the book. He explains his methods there fairly well, and also makes his basic bias REALLY clear right from the start. Along with that, I took the time to read several reviews--both positive and negative--that I found online an in some academic databases. Let me repeat: many of the reviews were positive. And the book does sound interesting. The methods he used to interpret his numbers, though, are HIGHLY dubious. And that's being nice.

    Historiometry is one of the primary methods used by Murray, and, according to the sample that he included, it seems pretty obvious to me that his data is heavily biased.

    The arbitrary 1950 cutoff--which just happens to coincide with the rapid decolonization abroad and the rise of civil rights in the USA for starters--is just one problem.

    His data set, which is supposedly based upon encyclopedic references, is already going to be heavily skewed, since those types of publications were predominantly produced in European countries. It's really no surprise that there is such a high percentage of white males, since they were the ones who wrote the encyclopedias. He even admits that he makes a major assumption: "My working assumption was that historians of science are able to identify important scientific achievements independently of the culture in which they occur" (Murray 2003:67).

    Now that's a pretty faulty assumption, if you ask me.

    Overall, it sounds like Murray's book is a serious misuse of statistical methods--at least in regards to how he has interpreted his data. Why? Because the texts that he used as his survey data are hardly representative of the entire world--they were produced in certain places, by certain people, and therefore have an inherent bias. Once Murray starts ranking all of humanity based upon this highly dubious data set, his whole thesis falls to pieces, IMO.

    I'm sure the book has its good points, but it already sounds to me like there are some fundamental methodological and interpretive problems. FUNDAMENTAL.

    The other major problem is that Murray takes his data and then transforms it into subjective ranked categories. His statistical analysis runs into problems when he tries to pull "importance" from numerical citations--as if quantity can be magically transformed into qualitative categories. It just doesn't translate that easily, and there are a lot of inherent assumptions in the kind of work that he is doing. Murray's heavy political/social bias is just icing on the cake.

    Now, maybe if you take the time to read what I wrote, you will consider the idea that Murray's analysis isn't as bulletproof as you seem to believe. There are some serious problems with it, IMO. While it may conform to your particular predilections, I hope that you at least try to have a more open mind and listen to what I am saying here.

    Or you can just automatically respond with insults and such, as you have been doing so far. Your choice.

    One final note. Murray starts off his 2003 essay by basically saying that people sometimes over romanticize non-European peoples and pretend that THEY are the paragon of humanity, peace, freedom, and such. And Murray is right--there are people who go overboard with that kind of crap, and it's pure B.S. Ironically, Murray then launches into his own over-reactive, oversimplified, and highly biased view of the world. Funny how that works...

    ReplyDelete
  56. Ryan,

    You need to give me some credit and stop arguing with me in a manner that is representative of a high school debate. I find many people on the net lacking in basic common understanding and argumentative skills. People argue in a dichotomous fashion where either you are for something or diametrically opposed to it. If one is not for multiculturalism, they must be for genocide and Hitler. If one loves Europeans, then they must hate non-Europeans. If I give an example of European accomplishments by referencing Murray's book, then I view his book as the final word, bible if you will, and all others as inferior, ready for genocide.

    No, that is not how my mind works or how most people I interact with on a daily basis think.

    I've read his book and found more than a few faults with it as well. Though I never put it out as "the final word". More of a starting point for you and to show that Europeans have accomplished a tremendous amount. With that said and with the acknowledgment of said and unsaid faults with the book, where are the Asian, South Asian, African, Arab, and Mestizo versions of "Human Accomplishments"? Certainly there are learned people in the above racial/ethnic groups that want to put their best forward as well, no? I know many in the above groups are extremely proud and competitive as I interact with them on a daily basis. I find it difficult to believe there is not one person interested in putting together such a work to boost their racial group's standing. This lack of respective books does NOT imply European accomplishments 100% and non-European 0%. It means E>non-E by a lot.

    Regardless of the faults of the book, it does not alter my basic premise as stated a few comments above. I think it was you who took us on this inferior/superior tangent.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Incredible. Thousands of hours spent, millions of dollars and essentially were back to square one. A Frenchmen is a Frenchmen and a Russian is a Russian. Whodathunkit!!

    ReplyDelete
  58. I wonder where this mystery information is that all of these imaginary S. Italian/Greek individuals are falling into the "Near Eastern" cluster in 23andme testing? Can 23andme be so kind as to actually post these data on their website? Or are you referring to anecdotal comments from unknown people on DNA forums claiming such? Or, are you just making it up?

    Sorry, I do not believe the validity of this. I do not believe that most S. Italians/Greeks are going to fall into the "Near Eastern" rather than "Southern European" clusters. In recent studies, Italians and Greeks can be distinguished from even the part-European Ashkenazi (Price/Seldin, etc.). It is hard to imagine that Greeks are suddenly going to cluster with Palestinians rather than with Tuscans, which leads to:

    If you have followed my posts on “dna-forums”, my “23andME” results gave a percentage of 35 NW Europe, 41 SE Europe and 23% Ashkenazim and I am Tuscan, documented, from 13th century with at least one million Tuscan male ancestors.

    I see. You documented "one million" Tuscan ancestors?

    And why "male" ancestors (never mind "one million" of them)? I assume you have no idea what "autosomal DNA" means nor the 23andme tests to which I refer. Thus:

    By the way there is NO commercially available DNA test that I am aware of that gives percentage breakdowns of Ashkenazi ancestry. Certainly not 23andme, whose % ancestry breakdowns, in ancestry painting, is European-African-Asian. Global similarity/clustering does not give % breakdowns. DNAPrint tests do give % breakdowns, including "Middle Eastern" - but not specifically "Ashkenazi."

    Stop lying.

    It's obvious that the anti-Cyd crowd here are just inventing - and doing so with obviously stupid lies - "data."

    When such "data" appears at the 23andme site, or in peer-reviewed publications, I'll believe it exists.

    Until then, excuse me for being skeptical of people with documented "one million male ancestors" as well as people with DNA test results for tests that do not actually exist.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Cyd the Kid said...
    "where are the Asian, South Asian, African, Arab, and Mestizo versions of "Human Accomplishments"? "

    Where are the Asian, South Asian, African, Arab, and Mestizo versions of "Crusades, Spanish inquisition, Wars of Religion, Extermination of the Native American people, the two world wars, the Gulag, bombings of Hiroshima, Dresde, Tokyo, extermination of the jews, Auschwitz, Hitler and Stalin" ?


    just say negro said...
    "I wonder where this mystery information is that all of these imaginary S. Italian/Greek individuals are falling into the "Near Eastern" cluster in 23andme testing? Can 23andme be so kind as to actually post these data on their website? "

    Of course 23andme do not post any private data. But if you tested 23andme you can see that is is possible for you to send invitation to other people. Then you can see their ancestry (and they can see yours) and in which cluster they fall and clearly most of the South Italians and Greeks fall into the Near-Eastern cluster as most of the American-Jews. Moreover European and Near-Eastern clusters overlap and some individuals inside the European cluster are closer to the Near-eastern "border" than the North european for example.

    ReplyDelete
  60. According to this people from the Balkans and some Italians are closer to the Turks than to Southwestern Europeans or Northern Europeans.

    There really is no reason to arbitrarily divide Caucasoids into Europeans and non-Europeans. One can draw a line that splits Turks from Europeans in the above figure, but one can equally well draw a line that splits southern and north-central Europeans or Ibererians from everyone else, and so on.

    ReplyDelete
  61. ...and one can equally well draw a line that splits north-Africans from southern Europeans and so on.

    ReplyDelete
  62. JUST SAY NEGRO said: “I see. You documented "one million" Tuscan ancestors?

    And why "male" ancestors (never mind "one million" of them)? I assume you have no idea what "autosomal DNA" means nor the 23andme tests to which I refer. Thus:

    By the way there is NO commercially available DNA test that I am aware of that gives percentage breakdowns of Ashkenazi ancestry. Certainly not 23andme, whose % ancestry breakdowns, in ancestry painting, is European-African-Asian. Global similarity/clustering does not give % breakdowns. DNAPrint tests do give % breakdowns, including "Middle Eastern" - but not specifically "Ashkenazi."

    Stop lying.”
    Your proud is like your ignorance.
    Not being able to run, and being too busy, the Dienekes’ program, he was Warwick (Justin Loe) (a quarter Jewish but also a quarter Italian) who ran my “23and Me” and “deCODEme” data and published the results on “dna-forums”: you can easily see that the Ashkenazi percentage is calculated. There is a topic you can read. And then began all my troubles: Mayka, a man at service of FTDNA (whose boss is named Greenspan), wrote a post, used as a pretext, in replying a my innocent historical observation to Dienekes Pontikos, who must have been the injured, and from this was generated my banishment. From many years I have always supported on Rootsweb and on “dna-forums” some ideas:
    1) That the Refugium of R1b1b2 wasn’t in Spain but in Italy (during the Younger Dryas), then the most part of European men of to-day are from Italy;
    2) That Ashkenazim, coming from Italy to South Germany during Middle Ages, are mostly of genetic Italian extraction and have nothing to do with Abraham and so on;
    3) South-Italians E-V13 aren’t of recent Greek extraction (Magna Graecia) but more ancient as Capelli and others wrote in their papers (and on this a disagree with Dienekes Pontikos).
    4) There is an underestimate of the Italian contribution to the peopling of Europe after the Younger Dryas: an old hate against Romans, but they created an Empire, they annihilated Jews in two wars (done above all for Greek merchants of Alexandria) and they gave to Greeks an Empire: if they lost it, it isn’t a guilty of Romans, but we cannot hate Turks, who are at a percentage of 90% the old Indo-Europeans, Greeks, Galatians, Etruscans, etc.

    If I spoke of one million of Tuscan ancestors it isn’t due to my ignorance of autosomal genetics (I think I have nothing to learn from you in any matter), but only because I have reconstructed my male ancestors and not so deeply my maternal one: but I am K1a1b1, also in this case the ancestor of the Jewish K1a1b1a, that lying and paid scholars continue to retain “Jewish” and from Middle East. See as in “Origins, age, spread and ethnic association of European haplogroups and subclades” of EUPEDIA all this is supported and that the most ancient R1b in Europe is the Sardinian R1b1a of 11,000YBP doesn’t mean anything for them. But I am waiting trustful for the aDNA exam and we shall see.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Is the last post supposed to be serious, or a put-on?

    ReplyDelete
  64. *Sigh*..."Frenchy" and his ignorant, non-white persistence says...

    Where are the Asian, South Asian, African, Arab, and Mestizo versions of "Crusades, Spanish inquisition, Wars of Religion, Extermination of the Native American people, the two world wars, the Gulag, bombings of Hiroshima, Dresde, Tokyo, extermination of the jews, Auschwitz, Hitler and Stalin" ?

    My second to last response to "frenchy" is

    @Crusades - They were a response by noblemen and commoners to Muslim aggressions. Here: On November 27, 1095, Pope Urban II gave an important speech at the end of a church council in Clermont, France. In it he called upon the nobility of Western Europe, the Franks, to go to the East and assist their Christian brothers, the Byzantines, against the attacks of the Muslim Turks. He also apparently encouraged them to liberate Jerusalem, the most sacred and beloved city in Christendom, from the domination of Muslims who had ruled it since taking it from the Christian Byzantines in A.D. 638. Several versions of this speech have survived, and although we cannot be sure of the exact words the Pope used, the general outlines of his speech are fairly clear.

    @Spanish Inquisition- A response to the Moor invasions and the result of a multi-"religious" Spanish society. Actually, multi-religious is another buzz word for "multi-cult" since there were large portions of Catholics, Muslims (Moors), and Jews. History repeatedly tells us multi-cult never has and never will work.

    The Spanish Inquisition was motivated in part by the multi-religious nature of Spanish society following the reconquest of the Iberian Peninsula from the Moors (Muslims). Much of the Iberian Peninsula was dominated by Moors following their invasion of the peninsula in 711 until they were expelled by means of a long campaign of reconquest. However, the reconquest did not result in the full expulsion of Muslims from Spain, but instead yielded a multi-religious society made up of Catholics, Jews and Muslims. Granada to the south, in particular remained under Moorish control until 1492, and large cities, especially Seville, Valladolid, and Barcelona, had large Jewish populations centered in Juderías.

    @French Wars of Religion - You must be kidding. Hutu vs Tutsi despite living together, some under Belgium rule, for 600 years, they slaughtered each other by the hundreds of thousands in the 90s. You want a religious example and another continent, how about Kashmir?

    @"Extermination of Native Americans - As opposed to their warring and savage ways prior to any contact from Europeans? As opposed to their savage attacks on settlers? Natives are not exterminated. Many are quite wealthy, non-tax paying owners of casinos.

    @Two world wars - Many wars in mankind's history. Many and continuous. China v Japan, Russia v Japan, Middle East, Ottoman Empire, Mongol Empire, African Tribal wars, Central American wars and on and on.

    @The Gulag - Yeah, no other region or country had totalitarian rule and their secret police...ever...only those pesky Russian did.

    @Bombings - Well, if the savages were able to come up with the technology for these "magical boom machines", they would have used them as well is my guess. Why wouldn't they considering the savages' history is just as bloody as any European country's history.

    @Extermination of the Jews - Ha! If only. Mind you, Jews have been expelled from EVERY country they have lived in. Quite a record.

    @Hitler, Stalin - Mao, Pol Pot, Genghis Khan, Suharto, Idi Amin, Saddam Husein and on and on...

    Was all this REALLY necessary, "frenchy"? Did you really need me to put this on print due to your laziness and stupidity?


    "French" also states, which will receive my LAST response to him...

    ...and one can equally well draw a line that splits north-Africans from southern Europeans and so on.

    Right. It is called the Mediterranean and make sure you stay on YOUR side of it.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Just Say Negro,

    It's obvious that the anti-Cyd crowd here are just inventing - and doing so with obviously stupid lies - "data."

    I'm shocked that supposed science orientated people so vehemently oppose basic common sense and truth. Some are non-European, which explains their bias, but what about the Europeans in the crowd? Appalling, really.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Just say negro said: “Is the last post supposed to be serious, or a put-on?”
    If you can, disprove only one point of my argumentation. And remember what I said to Dyer, that I have a name, a surname, a nationality, a YDNA and a mtDNA. Have you my courage. Dyer has disappeared after I demonstrated he isn’t what he thought: he thought to be a Cornish and a demonstrated he is a Saxon (probably). In Italian: “Pensava di essere un cornico e invece è un corno”.

    ReplyDelete
  67. For some reason, only about 1 in 10 of my posting attempts are going through here, and I have no interest in wasting my time.

    However, assuming this goes through, a question for "Gioillo":

    Since it is impossible, using current methdologies, to "demonstrate" that any person is (probably) "Saxon" rather than "Cornish," we'd all be curious how you accomplished that?

    Did you use an algorithm written by Charles Darwin or what? Was this all done on private 23andme chatrooms, hidden from the prying eyes of the public? Nothing in peer-reviewed journals, I presume? Nothing actualy posted on a company's website, that can actually be evaluated, I presume?

    By the way: any answer than involves single locus uniparentally inherited markers is going to provide us with hours of mirth and joy.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Please, my name is “Gioiello” and not “Gioillo”. I have never called you “Just say nigger”. But are you a Liar or a Dyer?
    As I wrote in a previous post, Mr Dyer (Ysearch: ZSXFH) matches closely a Mr Foster (X6ZDC) from England and, being R1b1b2g1 more Germanic than Celt, I think that probably his paternal origin is from a Saxon than from a Cornish.
    Everything I said is true or likely probable. Give me something more probable than mine, if you can. And this is worth also for all the rest.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Since the last post went through…..

    In the Novembre study, the sample size for Turks, was n = 4 (the same for Cypriots). That’s hardly representative for any population, much less one that is likely as genetically heterogeneous as Turks (based upon history and phenotype, for example).

    Even if we assume that this (spatially separated) Turkish sample is representative, putting aside that it is more distant, in the Near Eastern direction, from the European genetic centroid than any other population pictured, Fst measures depicted in 2-D analyses do not constitute the full picture of genetic variation. Turks - a heterogeneous population that undoubtedly contains some genetically European minority elements - may represent (along with Ashkenazim) the "most European" boundary of any putative non-European Caucasoid cluster. But if the Turkish genepool contains significant levels of ancestral elements that are essentially alien to European ethnic groups (at the same high levels), then slightly closer Fst differences do not always correlate with racial affinities. For example, Central Asian/modern Middle Eastern (not Neolithic)/South Asian ancestral components at significant levels that would be found in indigenous Europeans at low levels.

    And again, Turks and Cypriots, along with the Ashkenazim, would be expected to be genetically closer to Europeans than most other non-European Caucasoid groups, and thus, cannot reasonably be expected to represent the totality of any non-European Caucasoid genetic clustering.

    This all presumes this is all in a purely genetic frame of view. If cultural and historical and civilizational aspects of identity are included, indigenous Europeans, particularly those from the Balkans (!), do not in any way positively identify with Turks. This non-genetic component of course does not alter the genetics, already discussed. But superimposed on top of, and synergistic with, the biological differences, these other considerations emphasize the integrated “alieness” of Turks to Europe. Hence, the extremely bitter controversies about Turkish admission to the EU, with the “man in the street” joining traditionalist politicians and nationalist activists in opposing said admission, with a vehemence that would not exist for admission of any European people. Yes, there was some opposition – mainly for economic reasons – for the admission of some Eastern European nations. But the opposition to Turkey is of a different plane – it is total, “existential” – when even some in the mainstream say that Turkish admission will “destroy” Europe, there is something going on far deeper than concern about economics. It is civilizational, historical, cultural, and biological. And with respect to the latter, further genetic studies, on sample sizes greater than 4, can help illuminate this.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Hitlerid the Kid said...

    "@Extermination of the Jews - Ha! If only. Mind you, Jews have been expelled from EVERY country they have lived in. Quite a record."

    Well... Hitlerid the Kid it seems that you are a antisemitic/revisionnist kid.

    Could you at least tell us in which country you live ? That way someone will "take care of you"...

    ReplyDelete
  71. As I wrote in a previous post, Mr Dyer (Ysearch: ZSXFH) matches closely a Mr Foster (X6ZDC) from England and, being R1b1b2g1 more Germanic than Celt, I think that probably his paternal origin is from a Saxon than from a Cornish.

    Now I see you have enough sense to preface "origin" with "paternal." However, Dyer's Y chromosome progenitor is one of thousands (or...millions of documented..?)of his ancestors. It demonstrates NOTHING about whether, in toto, he's of "Cornish" or "Saxon" ancestry.

    You'd equally "demonstrate" that Rick Kittles is "Germanic" based on his NRY data.

    However, admixture testing gave 88% sub-Saharan African measure for Kittles.

    Likewise, Dyer - whoever that is - may well be overwhelmingly of "Cornish" origins, regardless of your "demonstration" of his "paternal origins."

    And if this Dyer got so upset over your "exposure" of his "non-Cornishness" due to NRY,then's he's more ignorant about genetics than even you.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Picture of Kittles on page 8 of that PDF.

    That way someone will "take care of you"...

    I see. Your method of "debate." Cyd is correct to ditch this thread at this point. Everytime Dienekes posts on the biological realities of race and ethinicty, hyterical leftists pop out of the woodwork.

    When they lose the argument their true colors come out.

    And they then have the nerve to critize European history as violent.

    Pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  73. just say negro said...

    "Cyd is correct to ditch this thread at this point"

    What do you mean ? Do you agree with him on "@Extermination of the Jews - Ha! If only. Mind you, Jews have been expelled from EVERY country they have lived in. Quite a record." ? If so just say "yes"

    ReplyDelete
  74. that it is more distant, in the Near Eastern direction, from the European genetic centroid

    The "European genetic centroid" may interest people descended from all over Europe. For members of particular ethnic groups, the point of interest is the centroid of their own ethnic group, and the relationship of other ethnic groups to it.

    E.g., from the Italian point of view, Cypriots and Turks are much closer than Russians, Norwegians, or Irishmen are, even though the latter set are Europeans geographically and the former are not.

    Thus, from your favorite vantage point of "ethnic genetic interests", a marriage between an Italian and a Turk is less "damaging" to Italian genetic interests than a marriage between an Italian and a Finn is.

    If cultural and historical and civilizational aspects of identity are included, indigenous Europeans, particularly those from the Balkans (!), do not in any way positively identify with Turks.

    People from the Balkans do not positively identify with most other people from the Balkans either! Being on one side of an imaginary line separating continents is no guarantee of amity. Indeed, most ethnic conflict that European nations have faced is with their neighbors (European or not).

    It's preferrable to have a realistic policy towards other ethnic groups based on particular circumstances and common interests, rather than on a sort of sentimental idealism about Europeans vs. non-Europeans.

    ReplyDelete
  75. E.g., from the Italian point of view, Cypriots and Turks are much closer than Russians, Norwegians, or Irishmen are, even though the latter set are Europeans geographically and the former are not.

    ---------

    It's preferrable to have a realistic policy towards other ethnic groups based on particular circumstances and common interests, rather than on a sort of sentimental idealism about Europeans vs. non-Europeans.


    Really now! We are to reward the Turks for their centuries long aggression into Europe and her peoples, which includes brutality and I'm sure a hefty amount of rape, pillage, and forced intermixing. Kinda like giving a burglar your house since he managed to come in multiple times, steal stuff, and get away with it. Uh-huh. Turks are Asiatics, NOT European.

    As to the second part, let's see if we can bring it down into the real world. You have 4 children, 3 that are blonde and one brunette. It is acceptable in your mind for the brunette to associate with the brunette family next door and not yours due to her having "particular circumstances and common interests" with them? Despite being part of YOUR family?

    As for the non-white idiot who is lacking humility in view of his pummeling, he needs to tell all his ethnic background before he feels the need to go on and on about the "evil Europeans".

    ReplyDelete
  76. Really now! We are to reward the Turks for their centuries long aggression into Europe and her peoples

    What does the recognition that Italians are genetically closer to Turks than to Irishmen, Russians, or Norwegians have anything to do with "rewarding" Turks?

    ReplyDelete
  77. What does the recognition that Italians are genetically closer to Turks than to Irishmen, Russians, or Norwegians have anything to do with "rewarding" Turks?


    1) You apparently feel a closer kinship with Turks and Asiatics than you do with Northern Europeans. Something I have learned from your writings and elsewhere.

    2) These Turks are "closer", genetically, to Southern Europeans and you feel that is a more "realistic" coupling versus the "artificial and archaic" European and non-European grouping.

    3) There wouldn't be this genetic similarity if it weren't for those vile and aggressive demons spreading their demon seeds about Europe. As far as we know, the best way to spread genes is through fucking, forced or otherwise. There wouldn't have been such fucking if they kept to their demon lands.

    4) Their centuries long aggression is "rewarded", by you, with a Southern Euro - Turkic camaraderie.

    See now?

    Simply recognizing genetic similarity is not a problem. You enjoy poking the eye of Northern Europeans with this "recognition" of yours. Snuggling up to 80 million rapists, liars, cheats, and murderers to piss off the Northerners may be your cup of tea, but it is not mine nor most Europeans.

    ReplyDelete
  78. 1) You apparently feel a closer kinship with Turks and Asiatics than you do with Northern Europeans. Something I have learned from your writings and elsewhere.

    "Feelings" are irrelevant to the issue of genetic distance.

    2) These Turks are "closer", genetically, to Southern Europeans and you feel that is a more "realistic" coupling versus the "artificial and archaic" European and non-European grouping.

    You are seriously confused. Apparently you think that I ascribe to the notion that people should associate, form alliances, or marry people who are genetically close to them.

    That is not the case: I would prefer, for example, for a Greek to marry an orthodox Palestinian, or an orthodox Lapp, provided that they raised their children in the Greek tradition, rather for for him to marry another Greek, if they raised their children as atheist anarchists.

    3) There wouldn't be this genetic similarity if it weren't for those vile and aggressive demons spreading their demon seeds about Europe. As far as we know, the best way to spread genes is through fucking, forced or otherwise. There wouldn't have been such fucking if they kept to their demon lands.

    I think you've lost it now.

    4) Their centuries long aggression is "rewarded", by you, with a Southern Euro - Turkic camaraderie.

    Once again, it is no "rewarding" to state that genetically Italians are closer to Turks than they are to Finns.

    Simply recognizing genetic similarity is not a problem. You enjoy poking the eye of Northern Europeans with this "recognition" of yours.

    What do "Northern Europeans" have to do with anything? Is the recognition that Italians are genetically closer to Turks than to Northern Europeans insulting or detrimental to Northern Europeans?

    ReplyDelete
  79. My friend, who royally pisses me off, I have to point out that it is you who is seriously confused.

    Feelings are irrelevant to genetic distance, though they are extremely relevant to European survival. Hence my strong feelings when you promote such lunacy as this...It's preferrable to have a realistic policy towards other ethnic groups based on particular circumstances and common interests, rather than on a sort of sentimental idealism about Europeans vs. non-Europeans.

    Europeans have a commonality, whether you care to admit it or not. Whether the "genetic distance" says so or not. We are forever linked by our region, our histories, our people, our thinking, our beliefs and so on. We are not linked to Turks or Jews or any other Asiatic or Semitic people. Some foods, drinks, and even music has transcended the cultures due to a variety of reasons, similar to Asians and Africans taking up Christianity, though we are not them and they are not us.

    Apparently you think that I ascribe to the notion that people should associate, form alliances, or marry people who are genetically close to them.

    No. Just the opposite, in fact. I WANT you to have those notions, but alas, you do not.

    I would prefer, for example, for a Greek to marry an orthodox Palestinian, or an orthodox Lapp, provided that they raised their children in the Greek tradition, rather for for him to marry another Greek, if they raised their children as atheist anarchists.

    There is some validity to this, though only up to a certain point. As I brought up the issue about jus sanguinis citizenship, Greece would not be Greece with an entire populace that is 1/32 Greek and 31/32 Nigerian or Turk or whatever. You can attempt to teach others about Greek Orthodoxy and traditions and many will be able to mimic it to varying degrees though one NEEDS to BE Greek in order to understand what exactly the traditions mean that are being passed on from generation to generation. Same goes for Italians, English, Irish, Russians, Norwegians, Swedes, Germans et al. Each group KNOWS the meaning of their traditions and they know WHY it means so much to them that they pass it on. Just what the fuck would a Turk or Nigerian know about Greece that they could continue the meaning of being Greek, generations down the line?

    Is the recognition that Italians are genetically closer to Turks than to Northern Europeans insulting or detrimental to Northern Europeans?

    I think the resentment is within you and not them, per se, and I'm not sure why you dislike them. The insulting issue, in my opinion, lies with the groups you are tying to Turks. It also creates division, distancing, and potential for chaos, as if Europeans need any impetus for chaos. If we accept your ideology and begin to formally associate Greece, Italy, and whoever else with Turkey, then the seed for dissolution is in place and the rest of Europe will follow. Without Europe, Europeans will be but a footnote in history. Europe is more than a landmass, it is a historical homeland to a race of people. A people that I do not want to see go extinct no matter how many Africans, Turks, Semites can mimic our customs and traditions.

    ReplyDelete
  80. I agree in many things with Dienekes: his prudence, his “Realpolitik”, his true interest in scientific method, but I am very surprised by his defense of religion (orthodox or other doesn’t matter). Also religion has an origin, a “Genealogie” would say Nietzsche: it is born in the time and will die with it. What a pity that “Cyd the Kid” doesn’t know Italian, since in my poem his ideas, unpresentable, I think have reached their metaphysical absoluteness.
    “God” was created as the god of that city, of that people: YHWH is the god of the Jews, who protects that people against all the others. God was created racist by a racist people. Without the faith in his power they have never challenged the Roman power, by whom they were annihilated (the Jews of to-day are another thing, but if they would accept this everything would crash for them, the fetishistic link with Abraham which guarantees the fetishistic link with YHWH: prehistory of the mind in a people for other reasons so evolved).
    Dear Dienekes, your Christianity was created by Saint Paul and is based on the faith that Christ has risen again and this guarantees the resurrection of anyone trusts in him. The real Jesus wasn’t Christian, was a pious Jew, with four brothers and at least two sisters. Probably was a son of a Roman soldier named “Panthera” of Phoenician extraction (see: The Jesus’ Dynasty of Tabor). After his dead the brother James became the guide of his followers at Jerusalem. Probably they existed for many centuries and influenced the same Mohammad and his monotheistic religion. The western Christianity were another thing with is diuturnal quarrels on his nature, a mix of polytheism, paganism, magic, superstition. What are we waiting to throw all this in the rubbish skip! Or, with the Nietzsche’s refinement,: “Who would believe that someone yet believes to all this?”

    ReplyDelete
  81. Culture is one element people (especially those who focus on "ethnic genetic interest") are overlooking here.
    I don't doubt that Greeks and central/southern Italians are more closely related to some Middle Eastern people than to some Northern European people, as much as that may offend insecure and racist people such as "cyd the kid" or "just say negro."
    On the other hand, European culture is very different from that of the Middle East, including Turkey. (Europe is historically Christian, with ideals inherited from Greece and Rome. The Middle East is Islamic, and heavily influenced by Arab and Persian culture.) The differences in culture and lifestyle between Northern and Southern Europe pale in comparison.

    ReplyDelete
  82. >> Apparently you think that I ascribe to the notion that people should associate, form alliances, or marry people who are genetically close to them.

    No. Just the opposite, in fact. I WANT you to have those notions, but alas, you do not.


    Ok, so:

    1. People should associate, form alliances, or marry people who are genetically close to them
    2. Italians are closer to Turks genetically than to Irishmen

    1,2=>Italians should associate, form alliances, or marry Turks rathern than Irishmen

    The conclusion of the syllogism contradicts your notion that "Italians should not associate with Turks" (3)

    The contradiction can be resolved either by withdrawing your notion (3), or by accepting my notion that genetic similarity is _not_ the basis of alliances.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Ok, so:

    1. People should associate, form alliances, or marry people who are genetically close to them
    2. Italians are closer to Turks genetically than to Irishmen

    1,2=>Italians should associate, form alliances, or marry Turks rathern than Irishmen


    I have this strong inkling your are being willfully obtuse in this matter. You've heard of Lewontin's Fallacy, no? Well, we are on the verge of coining a new term, that being Dienekes' Fallacy.

    Let us use identical twins, as an example. Are identical twins genetically similar, Dienekes? I'd say identical. Are identical twins the same person with the same interests, likes and dislikes, aptitudes etc? Nearly every time, no, they are their own individual selves. Why is that? It is the expression of their genes that causes a divergence in their personality traits and interests in the context of being brought up in the same household. Same goes for Europeans and Asiatics. Italians may be more similar, genetically, to Turks though it is their gene expression that has caused a different culture and thinking. Patrick, in the comment above yours, makes the same case when he writes...

    On the other hand, European culture is very different from that of the Middle East, including Turkey. (Europe is historically Christian, with ideals inherited from Greece and Rome. The Middle East is Islamic, and heavily influenced by Arab and Persian culture.) The differences in culture and lifestyle between Northern and Southern Europe pale in comparison.

    There has to be a reason why certain peoples developed one culture while another, very similar genetically by our current standards of evaluation, developed something quite different. Try as you might, Europeans cannot be easily mixed with Asiatics. If that were the case, it would have happened ages ago.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Patrick,

    I don't doubt that Greeks and central/southern Italians are more closely related to some Middle Eastern people than to some Northern European people, as much as that may offend insecure and racist people such as "cyd the kid" or "just say negro."

    It has nothing to do with "insecurity" or "racism", Patrick. It has to do with reality and context. You've made the point in your following paragraph as to a potential reason for cohesiveness amongst Europeans which is absent with the Asiatics and Semites. In time, I'm certain, there will be even clearer reasoning.

    As to your racism charge, what exactly is that? It couldn't possibly be a case where a certain person is voted into the presidency by >95% of people of his own race? Or it couldn't be cases where individuals of a certain race that do not know each other swarm Europeans that need a good ass kicking? Is that what you mean by racism?

    ReplyDelete
  85. I have this strong inkling your are being willfully obtuse in this matter. You've heard of Lewontin's Fallacy, no? Well, we are on the verge of coining a new term, that being Dienekes' Fallacy.

    A fallacy occurs when either the premises are wrong, or the syllogism is wrong. You have demonstrated neither.

    All you can do is give a nonsensical example which only serves to demonstrate you don't know what "gene expression" is.

    There has to be a reason why certain peoples developed one culture while another, very similar genetically by our current standards of evaluation, developed something quite different. Try as you might, Europeans cannot be easily mixed with Asiatics. If that were the case, it would have happened ages ago.

    Nonsense. Christianity, for example, an almost universal characteristic of European culture developed in Asia, and exists today in very diverse populations both in Europe and outside of it.

    And "Europeans mixing with Asiatics" did happen ages ago.

    In fact Europeans are the result of several waves of migration from Asia, each of which mixed with the earlier inhabitants.

    ReplyDelete
  86. For the non-white idiot,

    Further information regarding the Spanish Inquisition. Some of which is new even to me...

    The Spanish Inquisition, which began in 1481, cannot be understood without recognizing the significance of this epic 771-year struggle between Christians and Muslims over the Spanish peninsula. What took the great Berber Gen. Tariq ibn Zayid only eight years to conquer on behalf of the Umayyad Caliphate required almost 100 times as long to regain, and neither King Ferdinand II of Aragon nor his wife, Queen Isabella of Castile, was inclined to risk any possibility of having to repeat the grand endeavor. Isabella, in particular, was concerned about reports of conversos, purported Christians who had pretended to convert from Judaism but were still practicing their former religion. This was troubling, as it was reasonable to assume that those who were lying about their religious conversion were also lying about their loyalty to the united crowns and it was widely feared that Jews were again encouraging Muslim leaders to attempt the recapture of al-Andalus, as they had its original capture eight centuries before. ("It remains a fact that the Jews, either directly or through their coreligionists in Africa, encouraged the Mohammedans to conquer Spain." The Jewish Encyclopedia (1906). Vol XI, 485.)

    As well...

    It is one of the great ironies of history that three times more people died in the forgotten event that almost surely inspired the Spanish Inquisition than died in the famous flames of the inquisition itself. Despite its reputation as one of the most vicious and lethal institutions in human history, the Spanish Inquisition was one of the most humane and decent of its time, and one could even argue the most reasonable, considering the circumstances.

    * The Spanish Inquisition did not attempt to convert anyone to Christianity.
    * The inquisitors were not slobbering psychotics as portrayed by Dostoevsky and Edgar Allan Poe.
    * Torture was rarely used, and only when there was substantial evidence to indicate that the accused was lying.
    * The main reason there was a Spanish Inquisition in the first place is that, unlike in other European kingdoms, Ferdinand and Isabella encouraged Jews and Muslims to convert to Christianity instead of simply expelling them all.

    In light of its nightmarish reputation, it will surely surprise those who believe that millions of people died in the Spanish Inquisition to learn that throughout the 16th and 17th centuries, less than three people per year were sentenced to death by the Inquisition throughout the Spanish Empire, which ranged from Spain to Sicily and Peru. Secular historians given access to the Vatican's archives in 1998 discovered that of the 44,674 individuals tried between 1540 and 1700, only 804 were recorded as being relictus culiae saeculari. The 763-page report indicates that only 1 percent of the 125,000 trials recorded over the entire inquisition ultimately resulted in execution by the secular authority, which means that throughout its infamous 345-year history, the dread Spanish Inquisition was less than one-fourteenth as deadly on an annual basis as children's bicycles.


    Amazing what one finds when actually looking for truth instead of buying the propaganda that becomes truth over time. Shameful.

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=56045

    ReplyDelete
  87. All you can do is give a nonsensical example which only serves to demonstrate you don't know what "gene expression" is.

    I see. Well then, I'm sure you can point me to a copy of your dissertation that has explained the genome, all the genes and what they express, how they do it, how they affected by certain pressure, whether any take over during period of stress, blah blah blah.

    I'm no geneticist, though I do know many things and only recently, the anti-racists were beating the no-such-thing-as race- drums. Now, that drum beats much more softly.

    The only thing truly nonsensical is your illogic when it comes to issues such as these.

    ReplyDelete
  88. ...continued due to my pressing submit instead of preview...

    Your treatment of Christianity is disingenuous at best. Attempting to paint the picture that it is "universal" and a Christian is a Christian is a Christian. Nonsense! You specifically want someone "Orthodox". What the fuck for? How about a Christian Nigerian. We're all the same anyway.

    And "Europeans mixing with Asiatics" did happen ages ago.

    In fact Europeans are the result of several waves of migration from Asia, each of which mixed with the earlier inhabitants.


    Context my friend. Context. We all were space dust at one time as well prior to all being African. Though I am not inclined to have much affinity for either.

    ReplyDelete
  89. "blah blah blah" pretty much sums up your entire contribution to this argument.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Well maybe I should just conveniently "ignore" things I have trouble addressing like you do?

    ReplyDelete
  91. I have to agree with Cyd the Kid, we were all African at one point, that does not mean we're all African now genetically. So, Asiatics mixing with Europeans doesn't mean there was really admixture as we think of today.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Sorry for the belated response. Holidays, etc. You know how it goes...

    "You need to give me some credit and stop arguing with me in a manner that is representative of a high school debate."

    Look, I have been reading what you have written, and have taken the time to consider your POV. YOU are the one who has resorted to name calling and jumping to conclusions. Relax. We may or may not agree, but I am still willing to listen to your perspective.

    "People argue in a dichotomous fashion where either you are for something or diametrically opposed to it. If one is not for multiculturalism, they must be for genocide and Hitler. If one loves Europeans, then they must hate non-Europeans. If I give an example of European accomplishments by referencing Murray's book, then I view his book as the final word, bible if you will, and all others as inferior, ready for genocide."

    Look, I can only understand your perspective based upon what you write here. I am not assuming that you think one way or another, and am just responding to what you have posted--oftentimes different perspectives can get a little muddled in forums like this...it happens. I am not assuming that since you are proud of your European heritage you are automatically calling for genocide. I have NO IDEA why you keep saying that, in fact. You're the one who has repeatedly mentioned that, not me.

    "I've read his book and found more than a few faults with it as well. Though I never put it out as "the final word"."

    Then we both agree that the book has its share of faults.

    "More of a starting point for you and to show that Europeans have accomplished a tremendous amount."

    Granted. OF COURSE Europeans have accomplished a great many things. My field of study is anthropology, which means that I have interests that are pretty broad---and European history (going back pretty deep) is part of that.

    Where you and I seem to differ is here: I do not ascribe to Murray's need to RANK different histories or groups of people in such a simplistic way. I really don't get the point of that. Sure, Europeans have amazing histories, which are full of all kinds of achievements. So do many other groups of people.

    "With that said and with the acknowledgment of said and unsaid faults with the book, where are the Asian, South Asian, African, Arab, and Mestizo versions of "Human Accomplishments"? Certainly there are learned people in the above racial/ethnic groups that want to put their best forward as well, no?"

    There are deep histories in each of the regions that you mention. A person could take a lifetime to study the histories (or accomplishments) of any of them, IMO. Some of those histories are textual, some are not. Some are architectural, some are embedded in oral histories.

    "Regardless of the faults of the book, it does not alter my basic premise as stated a few comments above. I think it was you who took us on this inferior/superior tangent."

    Hmmm. I disagree--it seems to me that you are the one who has an interest in ranking groups (as Murray does). Here is the first post that I responded to that you wrote:

    Society, politics, and anthropology all are trickled down from genes. It is the capacity of the genes that bring about the above. Otherwise, if this is not true, kindly point me to the African version of Gallileo, the Asian Newton, the Arabic/Muslim version of the Enlightenment, the Mestizo origins of logic and philosophy. You cannot because they are not of European genetic make up and as much as they ape European accomplishments and behaviour, if left on their own, would quickly revert to what their genes tell them. Capiche?

    Maybe I read you wrong there, but you seem to be inferring the idea that Europeans are superior, and that everyone else are somehow inferior, or just "aping" what Europeans have accomplished. Let me know if I have misinterpreted what you are saying.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Duh! I already knew that Ethnicity was a real tangible biological entity and so is a mixed-ethnicity, but it helps if there is proof that it even exists,so skeptics have something to believe in too.

    ReplyDelete
  94. To the 10th comment by Kepler.
    You mention many people's ethnicities-Well,how about Stalin of Georgia,Dictator Of Russia? What's his Ethnicity? Is he Russian? He looks like Sadam Hussain.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Many authentic ethnicities may have died out .Are there any "real Italians" left? I heard most Italians are half Slavik nowadays-I guess the Mafia is all Blonde,Blue-Eyes,and no muscles ?

    ReplyDelete
  96. Kepler asks, "What is a Spaniard"? "What is a Russian" ? Well Dumbo,most Spaniards don't hail from Russia and most Russians don't hail from Spain.

    I mean Dumbo in a kindly joking way-like when you talk and joke with your friends.

    ReplyDelete
  97. dienekes has a point in this thread! south-eastern europeans (greeks etc) are closer to turks and possibly some west asian mid easterns then they are to northern irish-brits, fins latvians and norwegians even germans! all you guys have to do is look at the genetic distance map and get a ruler and measure the distances between these groups! turks are obviously muslims most people dont even consider them "europeans" yet they are only a few inches away from christian greeks on the genetic map! you cant really say a greek is closer to a irish men just because both are christians it doesnt work like that. and cypriots are more south then turks are on the map but a little more west! christianity did start in the middle east so dienekes has a point!

    ReplyDelete

Stay on topic. Be polite. Use facts and arguments. Be Brief. Do not post back to back comments in the same thread, unless you absolutely have to. Don't quote excessively. Google before you ask.