|
Post by executiona9 on Apr 28, 2004 4:55:16 GMT -5
Graeme is correct on many points and he makes a lot more sense than you Dyn. There is big relation between nordics and mediterraneans, the skull types are almost completely similar. Famous anthropologists like Coon claim that Nordics are just blond blue eyed Mediterraneans. And this seems accurate due to the similar skull type the 2 groups have. Furthermore an Italian has much more in common with a Norwegian than with a Moroccan or Egyptian. First of all Italians and Norwegians both have white skin and caucasian features, while Moroccans and Egyptians usually have dark skin and black blood mixed in, most North-africans are not pure Caucasian. DNA also points to the fact that all Europeans are very close related. Take a look at this DNA map, it shows clearly that for example Italians and Greeks are very close to Danes and English people, and North-african berbers are very different from Greeks/Italians in terms of DNA
|
|
|
Post by Springa on Apr 28, 2004 8:08:20 GMT -5
Nobody said dark haired people are a minority, they said black haired people are. I believe everybody recognizes that most people in Portugal do have some kind of dark hair, just not jet black. Also I´m stunned seeing where people stating that in Portugal there is only a minority of ppl who have dark hair, my Wife as a pure black hair, as lot of friends I have. Now, as I said on another topic, what troubles me is that there are always ppl in this Forum saying that we are diferent from the spanish ppl, sorry that´s not true.
|
|
|
Post by buddyrydell on Apr 28, 2004 17:17:59 GMT -5
The DNA map makes perfect sense in order to understand the relationships among different human groups. English and Danes sprung largely from similar Germanic stocks in Schleswig-Holstein (Angles, Saxons, and Jutes), South Chinese are closest relatives to southeast Asians (Thais, Burmese, Vietnamese, etc.) as these peoples originally migrated from southern China, and as for people on both sides of the Mediterranean, gene flow was rather limited across the Mediterranean between southern Europeans and North Africans. Southern Europeans generally have straighter hair, lighter skin, and more European facial features than typical North Africans. Although North Africans are predominantly Caucasoid, they're not European Caucasoid. Therefore, as a whole North Africans/Near Easterners are closer to Europeans than to any other population around the globe, but are still a distinct population. Italians and Greeks, for example, are closer in genetics and physical appearance to the French, Germans, British, and other Europeans. Trust me on this, in the winter, Italians and Greeks look pale along with other whites. Plus, northern Europeans can tan quite well along with southern Europeans. Southern Europeans have darker hair and eyes on average of course (although light eyes are not uncommon), but this does not make them look non-European.
|
|
|
Post by dyn on Apr 28, 2004 17:47:43 GMT -5
Furthermore an Italian has much more in common with a Norwegian than with a Moroccan or Egyptian. I know that you are given to making ridiculous statements, which is why no one takes you seriously. You are talking about ethnicities/nationalities whereas I was talking about racial types. Not all Italians for example can be called Mediterranean. You could just as well say that Moroccans and Norwegians both have white skin. What exactly do you mean by "white" skin? Is brunet white white? Some Italians have pinkish-white skin but at least as many do not. If you seriously think that Italians and Norwegians are generally of identical pigmentation then you are not worth talking to. There is no such thing as "pure" Caucasian and there is no point in using such terms. According to Coon, Rif Berbers are lighter than Spaniards and Italians. So what do you think this means? That map is garbage, as is the site you got it from. So "Sardinian" is closer to "Near Eastern" than to Italian? What the hell is "Near Eastern"? Am I to believe that all the groups in the Near East are identical and can be classed together like this? Or what? Greek is closer to English than to Italian? English is closer to Iranian than to Italian? There is no "Berber" group, only different Amazigh groups that are not identical. This is just laughable.
|
|
|
Post by executiona9 on Apr 28, 2004 18:08:16 GMT -5
Indeed, angles and Saxons originally come from Northern-Germany/Denmark. However dna studies point out that the English are mostly a celtic/anglosaxon mixed nation. Celtic blood is very high in England. exactly here is another DNA map that clearly shows how related all Europeans are with eachother and the difference with the Middle East and North-Africa > racialreality.shorturl.com/
|
|
|
Post by executiona9 on Apr 28, 2004 18:30:46 GMT -5
Italians are usually brownhaired browneyed whites, Norwegians are usually blondhaired blue eyed whites. They are both white people, so they are very close related.
Haircolour and eye colour are not important. My mother is a blondhaired blue eyed Dutch woman, my father is a blackhaired brown eyed Dutch man. Are you claiming my mom and dad are a different race now? Dont be silly
The difference between North-Europe and South-Europe is just haircolour and Eyecolour, thats all. All Europeans are the same white race.
This cannot be sad for North-Africans. Most North-Africans have darker skin than white, white people are a minority in Northern Africa.
|
|
|
Post by dyn on Apr 28, 2004 20:18:18 GMT -5
Haircolour and eye colour are not important. My mother is a blondhaired blue eyed Dutch woman, my father is a blackhaired brown eyed Dutch man. Are you claiming my mom and dad are a different race now? Dont be silly Where did I claim anything of the kind? What the hell are you talking about? Don't be silly. And frankly, I doubt that about your father. You have called hair that is barely even dark brown "black" here before. You are not to be taken seriously in general. No, it's not just hair and eye color, but skin color as well. How can you seriously claim otherwise? This is just ridiculous. The fact is that many southern Europeans (and some northerners) have "dark" skin, darker than "white." So are they white or not? Moreover, why are huge differences in hair and eye color less important than relatively minor differences in skin color?
|
|
|
Post by dyn on Apr 28, 2004 21:17:18 GMT -5
Southern Europeans generally have straighter hair, lighter skin, and more European facial features than typical North Africans. Although North Africans are predominantly Caucasoid, they're not European Caucasoid. There are differences between northern and southern Europeans in all of those categories-- so who is not European Caucasoid? There is no such thing as "European Caucasoid"-- that's a figment of your imagination. You can say the same thing about Greeks and Spaniards for example. According to that map, Sardinians are closer to "Near Easterners" than to other Italians. So what does this mean? A dubious assertion at best. Italian and Greek Mediterraneans look more like other Mediterraneans than non-Mediterraneans from Germany etc. Trust me on this, so do "Near Easterners." Sorry, but brunet white skin will tan "better" than pinkish-white skin EVERY TIME. As a southerner myself, I don't appreciate you insulting my intelligence. Many southerners have something of a year-round tan, and that is not open to debate. Claiming otherwise = lying. What did I say about insecurities bleeding through posts...
|
|
|
Post by buddyrydell on Apr 28, 2004 21:41:17 GMT -5
Ok I realize there's some overlap, but as whole, southern Europeans have straighter hair, lighter skin, etc. than North Africans. This is a fact. I didn't say that southern Europeans looked exactly like northern Europeans, you're putting words into my mouth. I just said that besides hair and eye color, they're closer to other Europeans in appearance. Just because hair and eye color differ can't cancel out similarities in features or skin tone. Yes I know some Near Easterners look southern European but most can be told apart, at least in my eyes, and dyn, I'm also part Sicilian so I could also call myself a "southerner". I've seen pics of North Africans and most don't look Sicilian to me. Do some, yes, but more are a bit more distinct in appearance. I'm not racist, I was simply stating that southern Europeans are not the same as North Africans but are Europeans like the others.
|
|
|
Post by dyn on Apr 29, 2004 1:14:46 GMT -5
Ok I realize there's some overlap, but as whole, southern Europeans have straighter hair, lighter skin, etc. than North Africans. This is a fact. The overlap is simply too large to be written off. Notice that I'm not talking about just any southern Europeans here. A southern European Nordic will look more like a Swedish Nordic than any kind of Mediterranean. First of all, I didn't say or imply that you said that. Second, you realize that you are in effect categorizing an entire range of features as "non-European" despite the fact that they are found in Europe in large numbers? Do you really contend that European Mediterraneans (and Dinarics, Armenoids) look more like European Nordics, UPs etc than Near Eastern Mediterraneans? You know it goes both ways. Some Near Easterners look like "typical" southern Europeans and vice versa. The fact that one may usually be able to tell them apart doesn't change anything. Do you really think that Sicilians look more like Scandinavians than "north Africans" (whatever that means)?
|
|
|
Post by buddyrydell on Apr 29, 2004 3:05:51 GMT -5
No I don't think that Sicilians and Scandinavians look exactly the same. This is absurd. But southern Europeans are of course EUROPEAN in origin and genes do not lie. While I'm most assuredly not going to go out on a limb and start advocating racial purity (leave that for the racists), The Middle Eastern admixture in southern Europeans is without question overblown and is not as widespread as is commonly believed. I dislike it when people say that southern Europeans are exactly the same as Middle Easterners or North Africans. I hate to keep harping on this but it's simply not true and really shows how uneducated some are. If people can't distinguish Saddam Hussein from Al Pacino or Andy Garcia, they are frankly ignorant (not implying that that's you). Yes there has been mixing but not to the point that you can't tell a very large number of people apart. And yes, Europeans are not all exactly the same. I realize that it's possible to distinguish a German from a Frenchman from an Italian from a Serb many times.
But Europeans as a whole generally lack black hair, for example, varying shades of brown are much more common, dark brown (though it may be close to black) is more common among us southerners although yes black is found in some (though again, much more so in North Africa, along with a fairly high incidence of light eyes, which although found in some Berbers who are also blond, is generally much less frequent among average North African populations, along with lighter skin in southern Europe (not pinkish white like Scandinavia but not in the N. African range either), straighter hair (yes I know some of us southerners have curly hair but a solid majority of N. Africans do), and noses that tend to be straighter. Do some of us have more convex noses? Sure, but again, not nearly as common as in North Africa. Near Easterners, ok they indeed show much more overlap with southerners than North Africans, but some of them have a different look themselves, can't really describe it. It's just a unique look that some of them have. Near Easterners by the way show closer affinities to Europeans than North Africans, hence the greater similarity among them. Finally, I'm NOT going to deny some gene flow across the Mediterranean, but it is overblown to the point that some idiots think we have none of the Greco-Roman ancestry, what a joke! I've obviously said too much and I'm going to stop, I hope some people here understand what I'm trying to say, and that is that while there has been mixing and that while some southern Europeans look more N. African than the average and vice versa, it's not really the norm. Good night, LOL.
|
|
|
Post by executiona9 on Apr 29, 2004 7:34:25 GMT -5
Ireland soccer team : Italy soccer team : Morocco soccer team : Notice how similar the Italians (southern-Europeans) and Irish (northern-Europeans) look. Southern-Europeans and Northern-Europeans have a lot in common. Southern-Europeans (italians etc) are on average a little bit darkerhaired and darker eyed than Northern-Europeans (irish etc), but still they look very much alike. Notice how dark the Moroccans are, they look almost like negro`s compared to the italians and irish haha bullshit. All Europeans have white skin naturally from Greece to Finland. If you see an Italian, Spaniard of German with darker skin than white, then its because of laying too much in the sun on the beach ! suntanned ! f*cking idiot
|
|
|
Post by executiona9 on Apr 29, 2004 7:44:36 GMT -5
Here is another example : Germany soccer team : Spain soccer team Spaniards and Germans have very much in common as you can see on the pics. Spaniards may be darkerhaired and darker eyed on average than the germans, but still the similarities are big. Now compare them to the Iraq soccer team : Iraqies are so dark compared to Europeans, they look almost look like negro`s if you compare them to the Spanish team and German team.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Apr 29, 2004 7:57:14 GMT -5
haha bullshit. All Europeans have white skin naturally from Greece to Finland. If you see an Italian, Spaniard of German with darker skin than white, then its because of laying too much in the sun on the beach ! suntanned ! f*cking idiot Control your temper. Anyway, I doubt that's true.
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on Apr 29, 2004 9:22:20 GMT -5
dyn came out trolling from her first post. I doubt she is a Southerner. It is useless trying to make points with her.
I have known my fair share of blond Greeks and Italians, and they still look like Greeks and Italians just with blond hair. The skin colour difference between a typical Swedish citizen and a Portuguese citizen is over exaggerated. The terms used are not quite correct. European caucasian skin is not white, the nearest approximation to white is among some Keltic groups. The common skin colour found in Northern Europe is a light yellowish shade tinged pink by blood. There is a myth used often on Nordicist sites that says that Northern Europeans don't tan. That's not true. The same about skin freckling. It is Keltic. Southerns are stereotyped as being swarthy in order to make the skin pigmentation difference greater than it is in reality. For dyn and others like her they just see the myths not reality. I don't have any problems understanding DNA maps, but then I am a geneticist and molecular biologist. The fact is that Europeans cannot be easily classed just by their superficial appearance as sub racial types are found in every country and vary in each country by percentages.
|
|