|
Post by galton on Jan 3, 2006 9:31:34 GMT -5
As I much as I dislike Kemp & co., this is little more than anti-WN propaganda. Kemp is actually correct. Hence, the writer did not link to or mention the name of the study in question. Then he cites a genealogist as if he's a geneticist. Typical... I'm really appalled by the fact this grabage hasn't even been questioned yet. Does anyone here care about objectivity? Or is it always about ideology and counter-ideology? I'm disgusted. It's about Ideology. On an unrelated topic in another thread or two, I've encountered some rather rude, narrowminded and childish remarks and replies to my posts from time to time from the more knowledgeable regulars.
|
|
|
Post by Ilmatar on Jan 3, 2006 9:40:52 GMT -5
Here we go again.... I guess we can't pass a month without discussing Björk, Finns, Sámi and . Once again:
I don't understand why some people of Southern European origin constanly need to bring up the more or less "Mongoloid" origins of Eastern Europeans in general and Finns in particular when attacking the White Nationalists and their ideas. I think this is partly due to ignorance - not many people seem to know that Finns weren't indeed considered fully "white" by many of the anthropologists who inspired also the the current White Nationalists. However, it seems that some knowledgable people from Southern Europe still want to hold into views about Eastern Europeans having considerable and recent (Neolithic or later) "Mongoloid" admixture even in cases where there's no genetic, archeological, linguistic or even physical anthropological evidence to prove it.
Not really. Björk doesn't look particularly Lappish. More importantly, there really isn't any genetic evidence of Sámi admixture among the Icelandic. 3/4 of the haplogroups indicating supposed "Mongoloid admixtures" among the Icelandic and the Sámi are different. The remaining one, mtDNA haplogroup Z, is found among Swedish and Finnish Sámi and the Icelandic, but not the Norwegian Sámi. More importantly, the most common Sámi haplogroups are completely absent among the Icelandic. Björk doesn't look particularly Lappish.
|
|
|
Post by galton on Jan 3, 2006 9:47:15 GMT -5
I'm not sure, but I believe Bjork is half Chinese.
|
|
|
Post by Ilmatar on Jan 3, 2006 10:04:11 GMT -5
No, she is not. Unless you know some Chinese people named Guðmundur or Hildur. Padronymes of her parents and grandparents also seem quite Icelandic.
|
|
|
Post by galton on Jan 3, 2006 10:15:34 GMT -5
Oh that's right, she posed as a chinese girl some time ago. She definitely seems to have a substantial mongeloid ancestry.
|
|
|
Post by Ilmatar on Jan 3, 2006 13:15:25 GMT -5
She looks euro here-like Katherine Zeta Jones type or even Welsh. I actually think she would look a lot like Kate Moss. It's just the eyes that are very exotic in her.
|
|
|
Post by Funky Kong on Jan 3, 2006 14:50:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by gelaye on Jan 3, 2006 15:21:59 GMT -5
so thats why (well at least me and my friends are able to) you can tell a South African face from a British face! infact.....Antipodean faces have eyes that are a little more closer set, with smaller noses and mouths/lips, and the obvious - freckles or what we call 'chicken skin' - white skin that has gone a bit dry from the sun.....lol
|
|
|
Post by aroundtheworld on Jan 3, 2006 15:26:51 GMT -5
Bjork does not look 1/2 Asian to me.
|
|
|
Post by Funky Kong on Jan 3, 2006 16:01:48 GMT -5
That damn last picture doesn't show up... Here it is again: That's because she isn't.
|
|
|
Post by psychosemitic on Jan 3, 2006 16:17:45 GMT -5
It's well known bullshit, that's what it is. First, there were no eskimos in Iceland, and a few castaways wouldn't make any difference. Also, can you really picture people having children with eskimo castaways in ancient Iceland? Second, according to genetic studies, the Icelandic people are the single most purely European people in the world. Bjork looks like that because of chance. Look at her, no single trait of hers is impossible for a white person. I mean, you will see people with a nose like hers, with hair like hers, head shape, eyes, etc... which individually don't make a person look asian. But every once in a while a child will be born with this asian looking combination of all these traits, because of chance, because the combination of genes that for our appearance is random. So, once and for all: Inceland has nothing to do with Eskimos and Bjork is 100% european. Call me incredulous, but I don't believe it. Either that or you were seeing things. Tony, I do believe he would question her "whiteness". It's well-known that some Icelanders mixed with Eskimos. nice but you are just parroting what i said
|
|
|
Post by Yankel on Jan 3, 2006 17:31:25 GMT -5
Did you bother reading my last reply to Yigal? I conceded already.
Besides, I didn't speculate as to the origin of Bjork's phentotype, nor did I claim that Icelanders are Eskimos. All I said is that Kemp could probably "deny her whiteness" with relative ease -- he's made sillier claims.
You should probably calm down, maybe get some water or something, and try to lighten up. You don't have to justify your crappy taste in music to us, habibi.
|
|
|
Post by tonynatuzzi on Jan 3, 2006 17:38:40 GMT -5
Bjork is ugly don't you think Yankel.
|
|
|
Post by Yankel on Jan 3, 2006 17:53:41 GMT -5
Well, let's just say she didn't get where she's at on her good looks alone.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Jan 3, 2006 18:35:54 GMT -5
Bjork has clear non-Caucasoid admixture. Anyone who is denying this is in denial.
|
|