Race mixing, advantages and disadvantages

[LuvSpune]

well not all of us, but point taken.

Im in no way for promoting or glorifying race mixing, I just dont see it as bad either. To answer your question I honestly cant say which racial element of my makeup I identify myself as. Culturally Im certainly far removed from my Asian heritage as I view it as somewhat regimented and conformist, but then again Im a pretty bizarre person overall so I dont know if I could say I was close to any standards of how someone "should" act.

As for viewing myself, or potential future descendants, I have no idea if Im "emerging" or choosing one identity over the over, I ve actually never thought about this. For now Ill oversimplify by saying I am what I am, and part of that is my choice not to associate myslef with any ethnic group, but regard myslef as just an individual.

[geirr]

JohnnyReb said:

First tell me, as you are mixed, do you identify with one of your foundation races more than another? Or do you see yourself as some sort of new emerging race? I am curious, because I think we're coming from different places on this issue. Just about everybody, up until recently, identified with their race. Many people still do. In my view, it's what makes a culture (ie subsaharan africans in France are not French). I am European of a fairly identifiable subtype. Why shouldn't I want to continue my lineage? As I stated previously, Europeans are in no danger of inbreeding. We have what we need in our population to thrive. Just as you say there is no biological reason NOT to interbreed, so there is also no reason TO interbreed. Natural selection is no longer a driving force of nature. We all live indoors and have food in the fridge.

Identifying with your own race group is a relatively new thing. There is really no such thing as a pure race, I think you are getting race and nationality mixed up. I mean, saying that a black is descended from the subsaharah is stating the obvious but then there are plenty of blacks with french passports. culture is derived from a variety of factors, race being one of many.
Your quote about natural selection no longer being the driving force of nature is not true. I assume your only talking about human beings because in the animal world its still very much survival of the strongest. Us humans can't stop nature and evolution, its just to strong. If race mixing happens it will happen, there is no social policy or racial theory that can stop it. So sit back and relax, nature is in control.

[CrowWoman]

JohnnyReb: I don't think race should matter..we are all humans after all. I hate it to death when someone generalizes people. Acutally you are quiet wrong when you say that the "whites" are superior physically. You are dead wrong!!! In sports today the majority are blacks, esp. football. Blacks are great athletes, and so are some whites. Not all blacks are "stupid" as you've said. But you know the real reason that you assume that blacks are "stupid" well it's because of people like you that they don't get the education they need. It's called racism and if we continue to have that kind of attitude then blacks will be nothing more than "stupid". Must I remind you that there are many forms of inteligence? I think you are limited in your thinking. You are condeming blacks and labeling something you have no clue about. Get a clue!!

[alex221166]

JohnnyReb said:

Hrmm, it would have to be an extremely small minority. I'd say no more than half of one percent before you start changing the general makeup of the country. With a bigger one, you still run the risk of "shade-ism" as is seen in some South American countries. I still think separation is the best answer. Groups of people just can't get along with those different from them.

You should contact JK Rowling: you have an excellent imagination. You won't significantly change the racial make-up of a country with TEN TIMES as much foreign blood than what you mentioned. EVEN MORE if we are talking about mongoloid admixture.

Seriously, you should return to Stormfront. I don't think Dienekes has or plans to institute "Afirmative Action" at Dodona, sorry.

[galvez]

alex said:

You should contact JK Rowling: you have an excellent imagination. You won't significantly change the racial make-up of a country with TEN TIMES as much foreign blood than what you mentioned. EVEN MORE if we are talking about mongoloid admixture.

Seriously, you should return to Stormfront. I don't think Dienekes has or plans to institute "Afirmative Action" at Dodona, sorry.

I agree with Johnnie Reb on the importance of preserving your type. Ideally mass immigration to the Iberian peninsula would be halted because the indigenous population risks getting displaced over the next century or so. I am not sure what percentage of non-Iberians it would take to alter the appearance of the population, but 5% does sound like it would have an impact. Ideally the number of foreigners would be much lower.

[Kukul-Kan]

CrowWoman said:

JohnnyReb: I don't think race should matter..we are all humans after all. I hate it to death when someone generalizes people. Acutally you are quiet wrong when you say that the "whites" are superior physically. You are dead wrong!!! In sports today the majority are blacks, esp. football. Blacks are great athletes, and so are some whites.

What’s physically superior in one environment might be inferior somewhere else. A slender Black Nilotic man is perfectly adapted to the dry conditions in his native Africa, but he wouldn’t last long in the extreme artic conditions in which the chubby Eskimos live. That’s why some races a re better suited for certain athetic competitions like Blacks in short distance races or whites in swimming.Here are other articles that deal with these topics.

BODY SIZE AND NATURAL SELECTION

Among the many differences between races, variations in body size are especially conspicuous. In some groups males average close to six feet, and in other populations average male stature is nearer to five feet. The fat-free body weight of American males approximates 135pounds (some go as high as 190 pounds), while the comparable fat-free weight in other groups may average as little as 105 pounds.

Large body size can be advantageous. It commands respect, it is helpful in wrestling and hand-to-hand fighting, and it is a useful adjunct in hunting big game. The bigger man can cover more territory, he is speedier, he can tackle bigger game and bring back larger cuts of meat Not too surprisingly, the noted hunting peoples of North America and Europe have been tall on a world scale. Given large animals to hunt, size is adaptive.

But size and massivity have their disadvantages. Larger size requires more calories, merely to keep alive, as Americans, Dutchmen and Englishmen learned in Japanese concentration camps. Larger size requires more calories to grow on so that the genetically-Iarge child is at a particular disadvantage when food is scarce. And the large man, while more efficient at heat regulation in cold weather, is less efficient in hot weather.

For small size, the advantages and disadvantages reverse. Size is of no advantage when lending a trap. The less food there is, the more advantages accrue from being sub-sized. On short rations the genetically-small child has a better chance to live and come to maturity. In the extremes of heat, the small man is unquestionably favored, as is true also during violent exercise even at moderate temperatures.

The small peoples of the world tend to be found nearer the equator, and there is a marked negative correlation between the mean annual temperature and weight. As one moves southward in Europe temperature rises and weight drops, as D. F. Roberts (1953) has demonstrated for 116 different populations the world around. The very lowest average weights (96-100 pounds) are associated with mean annual temperatures of 70-82° F., the highest average weights (in excess of 160 pounds) are associated with a mean average temperature of 40° F. (Fig. 12).

As with any statistical association, the relevant variables are undoubtedly complex. Part is unquestionably physiological adaptation. Russell Newman (1956) has demonstrated for America that the colder the state of origin, the more fat young men have! Part is in all probability gene tic adaptation to extremes of heat and cold with the little men stemming from lands that are hotter.

And part may be attributed to genetic adaptations to nutritional extremes in the overcrowded, "underdeveloped" equatorial lands.

Famine is a powerful selective force, differentially eliminating the massive and large. Famine does not have to be a consistent part of the environment; one dies but once of starvation. In the face of continual caloric restriction, the geneticalIy-smalI individuals have a better chance to reach maturity and to reproduce themselves.


Within each geographical race there is a range of sizes small to large. This range can best be comprehended in terms of the selective forces, temperature for one, and the available food supply for another. However, these generalizations about body size are fully documentable but do not explain the Ituri Forest Pygmies. Nor do they explain the surprising fatness of the Papago Indians of North America. These particular exceptions merit very particular investigation and the metabolism of the Pygmies has been investigated by Dr. George Mann, with surprising results.

BODY-BUILD AND NATURAL SELECTION

Design a man for extreme cold and you have a virtual globule. Thick-set, reduced of leg and peripheries, there is a minimum of outstanding projections. By limiting surface relative to mass, less heat is lost by radiation, conduction and convection and (probably) by insensible perspiration. By pulling in projections closer to the warm body core, differential cooling is avoided with consequent danger of freezing.

Design a man for dry-desert heat and he approaches paper thinness. By maximizing surface relative to mass, heat loss s by perspiration is maximized. Long hands and feet and a beaky bony nose, while contributing relatively little to the total cooling surface, are at no disadvantage where environmental temperatures are high relative to body heat.

It is not quite appropriate to bring in a variety of species for comparison, selecting perhaps the rotund seagoing mammals at the one extreme, and the linear desert fox at the other. Nevertheless, desert-adapted representatives of a species do tend toward linearity while related arctic forms exhibit a lower surface-mass ratio (Bergmann' s law). And, in man, there is a distinct tendency for the more linear groupings to be associated with high (and relatively dry) environmental temperatures, and for the thickset populations to inhabit areas where below-freezing temperatures predominate.

Adaptations in body-build, however, involve more than just proportions, complicating the analysis of what we readily see and most easily measure. We must consider body composition, the amount of fat and especially the thickness of the insulating blanket of outer fat. We must consider the location or "patterning" of the outer fat, which is subject to sexual as well as climatic selection. Fat over the cheekbones of Eskimos, even thin ones, and about their orbits, not only contributes to their flat-faced appearance, but constitutes a protective mask as well. The stored fat on the rumps of Bushmen and Hottentots, an exaggeration of the typical hominid pattern, constitutes a particularly neat solution to two different problems. It provides a caloric reserve, an energy store for use during periods of food-scarcity, and being restricted in its location, least interferes with heat loss to the environment.

Variations in body proportions, in the amount and patterning of fat, and in other bodily constituents including the plasma volume and red cell volume, are not the only cold-climate and hot weather adaptations. Each environmental stress is met by multiple and often different adaptations. But the racial variations in body build are more conspicuous and we are beginning to learn much more about the "inner contours" of people of different faces. Moreover, experimental studies are now going on to test the adaptive values of differences in body form and build, to verify the directions that natural selection has so often taken in shaping the shapes of man.

Stanley M. Garn, The Human Races , 1965, pp. 56-62.

[jul]

What are you afraid of a big *brown* race? ;D
I guess a lot of people are just afraid about because its the Invading of the foreign, not a real biological reason.
We are all homo sapiens sapiens are we?
The intelligence factor? come on people!!! We all live under differ circumstances yeah? Just under these situation you cant compare.
The emotional Factor?
I do agree. Its not easy to be foreigner wherever you be.
The only advantage you ever have as *pure*: you know where you belong to. No confuzzles. No courious looks. No daubt.
On the other side: Mixed people do may speak differ languages may are not that narrowminded(in the best case). In Ideal way they should beabled to see the things we ALL have in common.
Its a cultural thing not a race thing. Just because someone look differ than you. It do not mean he is. He may have other medical problems than you. In this case it is Importent.
At least no one is the same. Not even siblings. We have all unique genes and we have unique experience. We dont need the racial features like we needed them in the past because of technic. So why beeing uniform? Who need blondes? And if you wanna be a blonde you can be...your drugstore has the color you want!
Mixed are in all colors from blonde to black and all are unique most are beautiful. So what the real problem?
the fraight your genes got lost? get children. Youre afraight your language your cultur get lost? I do understand that. But it all change. The World is getting closer. We all(try in my case) speak english here yeah?
Why not greek? Why not spain? because we couldn`t talk to each other (proberly). How many of you can speak stil the real dialect of your region? So it has started... Getting influence of others can be interesting helpful and exiting. Dont close your eyes.
On the border of our continents...whenever foreigners met they mix up. We are all the result of that and at least its healthy. Or are you *full* dinaric /med/ alpine/nordic/whatever?.

Diversity is a wonderful thing:)

[Dienekes]

jul said:

We are all homo sapiens sapiens are we?

Homo sapiens is the name of our species. The designation Homo sapiens sapiens is preferred by those who consider the Neanderthals, H. s. neanderthalensis as a subspecies of H. sapiens. However, much recent work supports the idea that the Neanderthals should be given specific rank, i.e., H. neanderthalensis.

[jul]

Dear Dienekes I do know...I have a *crush* on neanderthals;) kinda.
My knowing is it not fully cleared. I do kow its kinda like we said first:they where totally differ spiecies. Then they say they where actually not and now we are quasi back to the splitted theory what should mean that(roughly):

Europa & Africa : Homo heidelbergensis
Europa archaic -> classic Neandertaler
Africa archaic -> modern Sapiens
At least Mr. Neadertaler was pretty smart and do have a lot of abilitys we call human.
I apologise for using the wrong *term*.
When I wrote my last reply i actually don`t wanna talk about the Neanderthaler;) . my fault.

[Graeme]

There is no biological advantages or disadvantages to the mixing of human races.

I am not into white superiority or negro inferiority or anyother claptrap, what I believe is this: Europe is a caucasian region, Africa is mostly a negroid region, a large part of Asia is a mongoloid region, and that they should stay that way. Where in China are there large groups of Europeans working in Chinese offices, factories or going to special schools for European immigrants? How about Japan? I can't see whole towns of African negroes in Hokkaido or Honshu. Where is the European Casbah in Tunisia?

Let's get real. It is only in Western and European countries where there is multiculturism, multi ethnicism, religious tolerance and provision of special services for foreigners. Try being a Christian in Saudi Arabia. In Australia where I live, the country was once 90%+ caucasian, European, British, mainly of English origin. Now the place is getting to be very foreign, new crimes have developed, understanding the English spoken by foreign born people is headache inducing and so on.

The point is I liked Australia the way it was. To me there is nothing inferior or superior in caucasian/mongoloid offspring compared to their parents. It is just that I find mongoloid features very ugly and their features are very persistent over time. In Europe, look at the Saami, some Finns, Russians and Hungarians. What a beautiful bunch! You may think looks are not important. They are the first thing that attracts or repels.

[jul]

I actually think Kristin Keuk and (in missing a better example) Keanu Reeves are drolling material!

[galvez]

Graeme said:

I find mongoloid features very ugly and their features are very persistent over time. In Europe, look at the Saami, some Finns, Russians and Hungarians. What a beautiful bunch! You may think looks are not important. They are the first thing that attracts or repels.

Mongoloid features among the nations you mentioned are likely to be in small amounts. Similarly, Arabid features are in small amounts in Southern Europe. The level of "non-White" admixture in Europe is often exaggerated by individuals with dubious motives.

For example, an ethnically mixed individual may feel bad about himself or herself and in order to compensate log onto the web and post information and pictures exaggerating the admixture among Mediterraneans. Now, you may ask, why would a racially mixed individual accuse others of being racially mixed? The internet just attracts these types of people; and this "trash" is particularly attracted to race forums, and especially politically extremist forums.

Similarly, a Northwest European may be jealous of the blondeness and social cohesion among northern Slavs -- not to mention the superiority of their fighting in WWII (excluding Poles) -- and may claim that most of them are Ladogans/Asiatics or are in some way inferior. Swarthy, non-Nordic Northwest Europeans are attracted to the Nordicist movement.

Lots of the anthropological work is written by very biased individuals. In any science or history personal prejudices are likely to be involved -- anthropology, especially in these race forums, is clearly no exception.

No nation in Europe is totally racially pure, and those that are accused of being the most impure in many cases have accomplished among the most in history. Look at Italy. The Scandinavian countries are not even worth mentioning when it comes to historical civilizations. That's not racism, that's a fact. All kinds of jealousies may be involved when nations in Europe are smeared, especially when certain nations are thought of as mongrelized.

[Graeme]

Yes galvez is right. I did exaggerate the mongoloid mixing in North and Central Europe. I use rhetoric which involves exaggeration. The amount of non caucasoid mixing is small and thoroughly assimilated into the populations of North and Central Europe.

The fact is that the skin colour of northern asians is light and "disappears" in mixing with caucasians in one to two generations. The dark skin of African negroes persists for three to four generations and is naturally conspicuous. Think of East African populations with Europid features combined with black skin. So, the two racial groups, mongoloids and negroids, each with distinctive and persistent facial/somatic features, give different results from race mixing with caucasoid. Mixed caucasoid/mongoloid people may be perceived as caucasoid by some white people, but caucasoid/negroids will not be by anyone. By the use of exaggeration I was hinting at the fact that mongoloid admixture in Northern European has been going on for a very long time and passing into the white population whereas in the South any negroid or very dark skinned person cannot pass or fool anyone that he is caucasion. In the USA light skinned blacks have had to move to different parts of the country and cut themselves off from family and friends in order to pass into white society.

The main cause of the prejudice of Northerners to Southerners is the effect of wealth from the Industrial Revolution. Northerners could travel to the centres of civilisation, Italy and Greece, but what they found they didn't like. They found a poor and ignorant people uninterested in the glories of the past. So naturally they thought we are richer, better, superior, cleaner etc than these savages and they disassociated the past from the present. The present populations of Southern Europe must have been corrupted racially by mixing with negroids or near whites from the middle east. That lead to the idea of Nordicism and the superiority of pink fleshed/blond haired people to all others. Had the Industrial Revolution started in Spain instead of England none of this Nordic rubbish would have eventuated. A quirk of fate.

My roots are in the Mediterranean and are important to me. It shows how great the Meds are that the Northerners have made the makers of all the civilisations into their idealised Nordic image: Sumerian, Egyptian, Roman, Hellenic and Byzantine. Those poor sods have nothing to show as their own.

[xxx]

Graeme said:

Yes galvez is right. I did exaggerate the mongoloid mixing in North and Central Europe. I use rhetoric which involves exaggeration. The amount of non caucasoid mixing is small and thoroughly assimilated into the populations of North and Central Europe.

However exagerated your claims, they are real. And not just for Finland or Hungary, but also in Nordic countries. Somehow I believe Nordics have succeeded in claiming slight mongoloid traits on Europeans as originally European, something widely accepted as they are not as striking as, for instance, negroid traits no matter how slight. I wonder if saying that a part of the Nordic population are happas is excessive ;D

That lead to the idea of Nordicism and the superiority of pink fleshed/blond haired people to all others. Had the Industrial Revolution started in Spain instead of England none of this Nordic rubbish would have eventuated. A quirk of fate.

It might be interesting to find the letters that the Duke of Alba sent to King Felipe II while in The Netherlands. I've read a few of his observations about the Netherlanders, where he asks the king not to let them in the administration and place Spaniards all over instead, as he considered this Germanic people highly inefficient and uncapable of ruling themselves correctly.

My roots are in the Mediterranean and are important to me. It shows how great the Meds are that the Northerners have made the makers of all the civilisations into their idealised Nordic image: Sumerian, Egyptian, Roman, Hellenic and Byzantine. Those poor sods have nothing to show as their own.

If you ever come around here, please remind me to pay you a round of drinks

[tokenguy]

Graeme said:

There is no biological advantages or disadvantages to the mixing of human races.

I am not into white superiority or negro inferiority or anyother claptrap, what I believe is this: Europe is a caucasian region, Africa is mostly a negroid region, a large part of Asia is a mongoloid region, and that they should stay that way. Where in China are there large groups of Europeans working in Chinese offices, factories or going to special schools for European immigrants? How about Japan? I can't see whole towns of African negroes in Hokkaido or Honshu. Where is the European Casbah in Tunisia?

Let's get real. It is only in Western and European countries where there is multiculturism, multi ethnicism, religious tolerance and provision of special services for foreigners. Try being a Christian in Saudi Arabia. In Australia where I live, the country was once 90%+ caucasian, European, British, mainly of English origin. Now the place is getting to be very foreign, new crimes have developed, understanding the English spoken by foreign born people is headache inducing and so on.

The point is I liked Australia the way it was. To me there is nothing inferior or superior in caucasian/mongoloid offspring compared to their parents. It is just that I find mongoloid features very ugly and their features are very persistent over time. In Europe, look at the Saami, some Finns, Russians and Hungarians. What a beautiful bunch! You may think looks are not important. They are the first thing that attracts or repels.

What's interesting is that I bet there are a LOT of navtive Aborigines who wish Australia could go back to the way it was as well- before the arrival of all of those British Islanders. Its so funny to hear people complain about the influx of foriegners to Eruope and the western world, but American, South African, Austrailan, New Zealander, and Canadian Europeans are in no position to talk. We all arrived in these various countries by force, and didn't give a rats a$- what the natvies wanted as they lost their lands, languages, "racial purity"and lively hoods. How can the descendent of unwelcome invaders get upset now that the tables have turned.