|
Post by Springa on Dec 22, 2004 9:26:41 GMT -5
Despite "your opinion", studies don't show any saami admixture in icelanders at all. And the Greenland conection is unlikely, because not only it also doesn't appear in their genes, but the actual part of Greenland where eskimos live is on the other side. Also, the Vikings did more than plunder and pillage. Of course they didn't build an centralized empire or a civilisation of Greek or Roman proportions. But they founded the Russian state, for instance and did have proper colonies in Iceland and Greenland, although everybody died in the latter. While the idea that the nordics are/were the pillars of European civilization is stupid, the idea that they were just a bunch of thugs is also not acurate. the people from Iceland may be less mixed than Scandinavians... but it still to close to Greenland (which did have an inuit population). It was settled by Scandinavians who have a significante mixed populations among them (Lapps), and they may also carry that above mentioned oriental haplogroup (haplogroup Q), which is present in the Hay family of the Shetlands, a group of islands which was also colonized by the Vikings before its control was transferred to Scotland. Although Iceland is relatively pure it is not free from non caucasoid influence, in my opinion. Anyway, Iceland could almost compare to Ireland. Ireland being the most caucasoid because of its remote location. The Vikings never really established kingdoms and colonizations... the did an overall plundering (as it was their habit), but nothing really beyond that...
|
|
|
Post by Springa on Dec 22, 2004 9:27:43 GMT -5
Genes? No. Phenotype? No.
|
|
|
Post by Springa on Dec 22, 2004 9:34:14 GMT -5
It's one thing to have a homogeneous and old population. It's another to have the "most caucasian population in Europe". I'm not saying that's the case of Poland of course, but imagine a hypothetic country where people were unmixed for, say 5000 years, but their genes are half non European, this population would be, at the same time pure in the sense of being unmixed with other populations, and not totally caucasian, even if the original mix has occured long before. Or even if there was no mix at all ever and this population is some kind of intermediate evolutionary case. In any case, it's not the most caucasian just because it's the msot unmixed. Despite the (minor) slave trade and the (recent) immigration, genetic studies do show the Irish and the Icelanders as the populations with the least non caucasian genes in Europe. Does it make them better than anyone else? No. Do I have any specific desire for it to be that way? Not at all. It's just the way it is, what can I do? Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger... POLAND! VIVA POLONIA! Poland (at least in 1997) was the most ethnically pure country in Europe. Part of this was derived from it's Second World status and its fierce patriotism. Ukranian and Byelorussian lands were taken by the USSR and Poland received its old Polish lands in Germany due to Stalin's territory switch-up post-WWII. Another country would be Estonia. Ireland the purest? Not since the Brits used Blacks and Indians to quell Irish uprisings and to plain annoy them. Plus it has been targeted heavily for African immigrants recently. And its population cannot handle such migrations while Poland's (relatively) untouched population of 40 millions can. Hell, Poland won't even give Germany the time of day. Finally having their long-sought national sovereignty, they would agree to admixture? No way. Ireland.... what a laugh. Analyzing population movement requires more than just an atlas and cursory knowledge of history and linguistics. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by buddyrydell on Dec 22, 2004 21:13:09 GMT -5
I suppose Britain and Ireland in all honesty, because of their isolated location and history. I'm not including immigrant populations in this, only the people of indigenous origin. No population in the world is totally pure as gene flow has linked humans together since we first evolved, but because the Brits and Irish were never invaded by Mongols, Huns, Tatars, etc. and never received migrations of people from farther east, they're probably the European populations with the least admixture from non-Caucasoids.
I'd say that after the Brits and Irish, the French, Italians, and Iberians would be next. They were invaded to a certain extent by tribes of people from the steppes of easternmost Europe and central Asia (who in many cases had East Asian admixture), but the impact was extremely minor. As for invaders from North Africa and the Near East in southern Europe, not only are these people Caucasoid, but their impact on the genetic makeup of southern Europeans has been greatly exaggerated. Minor gene flow from sub-Sahara via Arabs and Berbers occurred, but was surely limited. I'd say the most admixture occurs in Finns and especially Lapps, followed by the Russians and other eastern Europeans. I guess the Germans would also be similar to the French, Italians, and Iberians, though I believe Germany was invaded by more tribes from the steppes than the other countries. Overall, East Asian ancestry is undoubtedly much more common than sub-Saharan in Europe.
|
|
|
Post by boriqueno on Dec 26, 2004 1:22:59 GMT -5
stupid pointless thread
We're all related distantly, there is no such thing as "purity"
only thing pure is the fact we're all human beings
some people are blinded by race and cant see that
|
|
|
Post by Springa on Dec 26, 2004 6:56:51 GMT -5
Noone's claiming that purer people are better people. It's just a healthy curiosity, to know which European country has less admixture. Plus: "We're all related distantly, there is no such thing as "purity"" -No shit... everyone knows that. "only thing pure is the fact we're all human beings" -Who said we're not? Just as some people can't see beyond race, some people can't talk about race without freaking out, even when there's no racism involved. Drop the paranoia. stupid pointless thread We're all related distantly, there is no such thing as "purity" only thing pure is the fact we're all human beings some people are blinded by race and cant see that
|
|
|
Post by boriqueno on Dec 26, 2004 18:26:53 GMT -5
Show me where I said purer people are better, where did you get this mentality from?
|
|
|
Post by Springa on Dec 27, 2004 10:00:32 GMT -5
You obviously didn't say purer is better. But the way you put your "anti racist" rant, you made it sound like you were argueing with a bunch of racist supremicists, which is totally not the case. My point is, since no one's saying "pure" people are better people, you don't need to give us this whole "we're all the same" talk. People here are not discussing diferences in terms of who's superior. We're just discussing the physical differences within mankind. Show me where I said purer people are better, where did you get this mentality from?
|
|