War on white people?

[Esternial]

You can correctly classify people into distinct clusters based off of their genetics, given enough genetic data, although you don't just base it off genetics. You also base it off of their linguistics, cultural characteristics, history, geography, etc.

You didn't bother reading any of Dr. Carlo-Sforza's study on how this works, did you lol?

Trying to mix genotypes, phenotypes AND environmental variables into one category makes little sense to me and wouldn't be useful as a scientific classification at all.

[Dyakovo]

Trying to mix genotypes, phenotypes AND environmental variables into one category makes little sense to me and wouldn't be useful as a scientific classification at all.

Bingo.

[Wolffbaden]

Problem being that we don't tend to have a gene map of every person on the planet to accurately determine one's race, since in some cases a person that seems to be belong to one race may have more traits that are assigned to another.

Which happens because people fuck with other people.

We're working on it. It'll be 10 years next year since the Genographic Project started, collecting hundreds of thousands of DNA samples from people all around the world and mapping human migration patterns throughout our history.

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/

You should get involved with this actually and contribute a sample. I did.

Also, what would you call a family of "Caucasians" that has several generations in South Africa, adopting their linguistics characteristics, history, geography, etc. and 'mingling' with the local population that also consists of white people alongside Africans?

When you say "mingling", are you still referring just linguistically and culturally here or does this also include sexually (and therefore, genetically) "mingling"? Based off blood polymorphisms, there's nine different clusters which we use to group distinct populations into: Sub-Saharan Africans, two Caucasoid clusters (European and "extra-European"), Northern Mongoloids, Southern Mongoloids, Northeast Asian Arctics, Pacific Islanders, New Guineans and Australians, and Amerindians.

Trying to mix genotypes, phenotypes AND environmental variables into one category makes little sense to me and wouldn't be useful as a scientific classification at all.

Bingo.

Except when you examine their ancestral histories, as the Genographic Project has to do in order to compile accurate migration pattern models for their work. Then no, it makes a lot of sense and is actually very useful. Linguistics are especially useful for this purpose, and there are only a few exceptions where this isn't the case: the Lapps (whom I am related to on my mother's side) because of the hybridization that occurred between them after they left the Urals and intermixed with the Scandinavians especially and other European groups as well, the Tibetans (who are genetically related to the Northern Chinese), and the Ethiopians.

EDIT:

Basically, all information which can be gathered is useful information, and the more information which can be acquired the better.

[Ulrenon]

I like how you add "non-hispanic" to the white option.

There are white Hispanics though...

You have no idea how angry you would have just made the people who agree with the man in this article.

[Alien Space Bats]

It's Democratic Party (seriously, do you not understand how adjectives work?).

Republicans always refer to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Party". They do so on purpose, as some silly point of honor.

It's like a club that thinks that walking around with your fly open is cool. You can't persuade them that they're just making fools of themselves, because they somehow think that have to.

[Valica]

Can we not with this topic?

[Ifreann]

Can we not with this topic?

He said on page 61.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

There are white Hispanics though...

You have no idea how angry you would have just made the people who agree with the man in this article.

It's not like I care. They can get angry, as much as they want, it still doesn't change the fact that there are white Hispanics.

NOTE: my disdain is not aimed at you.

[Valica]

Can we not with this topic?

He said on page 61.

I came in late, but I wish I hadn't come in at all.

[The Land of Truth]

He said on page 61.

I came in late, but I wish I hadn't come in at all.

Then leave.

[The Land of Truth]

Didn't bother reading the whole thing, did you?

"The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them."

You can correctly classify people into distinct clusters based off of their genetics, given enough genetic data, although you don't just base it off genetics. You also base it off of their linguistics, cultural characteristics, history, geography, etc.

You didn't bother reading any of Dr. Carlo-Sforza's study on how this works, did you lol?

First you claimed that people can be categorized into races based on genetics, and thus, that it's scientific. And you claim that "you don't just base it off genetics. You also base it off of their linguistics, cultural characteristics, history, geography, etc." Except, that isn't. It's sociology. So, which is it?

Furthermore, are you trying to argue that race is phenotypical, genotypical, or sociological? If it's based on phenotype, then why stop at skin color? As has already been explained, there's more genetic diversity between people of the same skin color than with people of different colors, so skin color is obviously not an accurate measure of "race". If it's based on genotype, then where is the gene that you can look at and know immediately that the person is/was black/white/Asian/etc.? If it's sociological, then why are you arguing for its scientific merits, when natural sciences and social sciences are two completely different fields?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

How exactly is that a "good case for racialism"? It's not asserting the superiority for any one race over the others; it's trying to determine why clusters are distinct and what exactly makes them distinct. It's as much a question of genetics, which you clearly know absolutely nothing of as you made no attempt to refute the scientific portion of my argument, as it is of linguistics, archaeology, geography, history, etc.

Rhetorical question. It's not a "good case for rationalism". It's a good scientific question.

EDIT:

I'd suggest you study the work of Dr. Carlo-Sforza in order to understand how this works, Soldati. He did a study in 1994 that studied genetic distance between races just by examining blood polymorphisms, and he outlines the importance of examining linguistics, the development of agriculture and other such items of historical interest, culture, etc. in the process of his work. No "racialism" anywhere.

I don't need to refute the argument for genetical variation between races to tell you it's a bullshit comparison the one you're making.

What most of their research suggest is that they are trying to map an anthropological map as to how the different "races" or the ancestors of people migrated into what it is today's modern world. It is NOT something to justify that people are different, as you so succintly put it because - and this is important - we're not that different from each other. Hell, what makes up our DNA different from another person's is very, very small variations, and from what I understand from this Genographic Project is just to say "alright this is how historically people have been migrating from one place to another, if you see this map right here and you fast forward through time you can see that X and Y migrations occurred at the beginning of our history, following such and such period this happened" and so on.

The problem with your initial assertions was that you said "no two people are equal, we're all different" and it depends on what you mean. If you mean we are ALL different as in a neutral basis then yes, we are all different and we fuck with one another to have even more diverse offspring.

If what you mean by "we're not all equal" is using the studies' data to justify the fact racialism is an actual valid concept then it isn't; which is the problem I am having with several people in this thread. That they don't look at the data and just isolate conclusions about the study of said data and learn something useful. No, they already make up their mind racism is good and they try and find any shred of evidence that racism is perfectly fine and dandy and make sweeping generalizations about groups of people without any scientific backing saying so, and the research they put forward doesn't assert what they think it says.

[Scholmeria]

There's no reasonable solution for "Muh white majority is going to be gone if these damn immigrants keep reproducing!" or "White people are going to go extinct!" mostly because they are ignoring most things about social science and biology.

Both of those projections are coming true, there probably won't be a White majority anywhere and while Whites won't immediately go extinct, they will perhaps shrink to a small enough size where they could be successfully genocided if non-Whites turned against them.

You know, Argentina and Chile are whiter than the US.

[Scholmeria]

There was a Vandal Kingdom in modern-day Tunisia.

It got its start in Morrocco. Tunisia was only the capital.

Yes, until the Arabs came and islamised them and genocided them (oh, the famous Islamic Golden Age). Before that they were Aryanic Christians.

[Farnhamia]

It got its start in Morrocco. Tunisia was only the capital.

Yes, until the Arabs came and islamised them and genocided them (oh, the famous Islamic Golden Age). Before that they were Aryanic Christians.

The Vandals were never a majority in their North African kingdom. Being Arians they were always at odds with their Trinitarian subjects. The Vandal kingdom wasn't destroyed by the Muslims in the 7th century, it was destroyed by Belisarius working for Justinian in the 6th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandals#The_turbulent_end

[Scholmeria]

Yes, until the Arabs came and islamised them and genocided them (oh, the famous Islamic Golden Age). Before that they were Aryanic Christians.

The Vandals were never a majority in their North African kingdom. Being Arians they were always at odds with their Trinitarian subjects. The Vandal kingdom wasn't destroyed by the Muslims in the 7th century, it was destroyed by Belisarius working for Justinian in the 6th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandals#The_turbulent_end

Tell me, how come that people think that Spain was originally a Muslim land? What happened to all the Christians in Northern Africa prior to the Arab muslim invasion?

If the Muslims were really religious tolerant than there would also be even today a significant part of the population of Christians in marocco, Libya, Tunisia and so on?

[Farnhamia]

The Vandals were never a majority in their North African kingdom. Being Arians they were always at odds with their Trinitarian subjects. The Vandal kingdom wasn't destroyed by the Muslims in the 7th century, it was destroyed by Belisarius working for Justinian in the 6th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandals#The_turbulent_end

Tell me, how come that people think that Spain was originally a Muslim land? What happened to all the Christians in Northern Africa prior to the Arab muslim invasion?

If the Muslims were really religious tolerant than there would also be even today a significant part of the population of Christians in marocco, Libya, Tunisia and so on?

I can't answer the first question because I don't know that many people do think Spain was originally Muslim. As for the second question, those North African Christians converted to Islam in the generations after the conquest, as they did in Spain. The Islamic conquerors places societal and economic constraints on non-Muslims. When it became obvious that there was not going to be a Christian resurgence, that the Empire was not, in fact, going to strike back, people did the sensible thing and converted. You need to go along to get along, after all.

[The Land of Truth]

It got its start in Morrocco. Tunisia was only the capital.

Yes, until the Arabs came and islamised them and genocided them (oh, the famous Islamic Golden Age). Before that they were Aryanic Christians.

The Vandal kingdom was gone long before Islam even existed (and the Vandals had assimilated into the local Berber population by that time, anyway--as there were never that many of them to begin with). Furthermore, the Arabs did very little "genociding" (in case you have noticed, there's still a rather large Berber population in North Africa).

Also, firstly, "Aryanic" is not a word. Secondly, they were Arians, not Aryans (completely different things).

EDIT: Left out a parentheses.

[Farnhamia]

Yes, until the Arabs came and islamised them and genocided them (oh, the famous Islamic Golden Age). Before that they were Aryanic Christians.

The Vandal kingdom was gone long before Islam even existed (and the Vandals had assimilated into the local Berber population by that time, anyway--as there were never that many of them to begin with). Furthermore, the Arabs did very little "genociding" (in case you have noticed, there's still a rather large Berber population in North Africa.

Also, firstly, "Aryanic" is not a word. Secondly, they were Arians, not Aryans (completely different things).

Some of them assimilated. Some were recruited into the Byzantine Army and sent to the Persian frontier, some of the women married Byzantine soldiers. By the time the Arabs got to Tunisia the Vandals were no longer a distinct ethnic group.

[The Land of Truth]

The Vandals were never a majority in their North African kingdom. Being Arians they were always at odds with their Trinitarian subjects. The Vandal kingdom wasn't destroyed by the Muslims in the 7th century, it was destroyed by Belisarius working for Justinian in the 6th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandals#The_turbulent_end

Tell me, how come that people think that Spain was originally a Muslim land? What happened to all the Christians in Northern Africa prior to the Arab muslim invasion?

If the Muslims were really religious tolerant than there would also be even today a significant part of the population of Christians in marocco, Libya, Tunisia and so on?

Depends on what you mean by "originally" (as in, what date are you using as the 'origin'?). Nothing happened to them, there were plenty of Christians in North Africa prior to the Muslim conquests.

Right, because people can only convert when forced? There were many socioeconomic and political reasons for converting to Islam, too, you know (like, for instance, lower taxes, more political freedom, more social mobility, marriage opportunities with Muslim royalty, etc.)? (And that's ignoring the people who converted because they, you know, actually believed in the religion.)

[The Land of Truth]

The Vandal kingdom was gone long before Islam even existed (and the Vandals had assimilated into the local Berber population by that time, anyway--as there were never that many of them to begin with). Furthermore, the Arabs did very little "genociding" (in case you have noticed, there's still a rather large Berber population in North Africa.

Also, firstly, "Aryanic" is not a word. Secondly, they were Arians, not Aryans (completely different things).

Some of them assimilated. Some were recruited into the Byzantine Army and sent to the Persian frontier, some of the women married Byzantine soldiers. By the time the Arabs got to Tunisia the Vandals were no longer a distinct ethnic group.

Indeed. Though, whatever the case, our companion here seems to think that change in ethnic demography can only occur via genocide (or that it's at least a large part of it)--which is demonstrably false.

[UNITED AMERICAN FEDERATI0N]

Damn you guys are still going at it about that graph. (Shakes head) so any way who's winning.

[The Land of Truth]

Damn you guys are still going at it about that graph. (Shakes head) so any way who's winning.

Not Blakk Metal.

[Scholmeria]

As for the second question, those North African Christians converted to Islam in the generations after the conquest, as they did in Spain. The Islamic conquerors places societal and economic constraints on non-Muslims. When it became obvious that there was not going to be a Christian resurgence, that the Empire was not, in fact, going to strike back, people did the sensible thing and converted. You need to go along to get along, after all.

Constrains? Impossible. But the Islamic Golden Age was supposedly tolerant toward other religious. Islam does not has a concept of Holy War.

Does that means that the Crusaders were justified? Jeez, but they were villans, werent they?

[Scholmeria]

Depends on what you mean by "originally" (as in, what date are you using as the 'origin'?). Nothing happened to them, there were plenty of Christians in North Africa prior to the Muslim conquests.

Where are they today? It is just that they had a dhimmi status so the Muslims rulers set untolerance on them and forced them to convert.

Chiristianity is more native to Africa and Spain than Islam. That was my point as it was there before Islam.

Right, because people can only convert when forced? There were many socioeconomic and political reasons for converting to Islam, too, you know (like, for instance, lower taxes, more political freedom, more social mobility, marriage opportunities with Muslim royalty, etc.)? (And that's ignoring the people who converted because they, you know, actually believed in the religion.)

Good, now we fanilly admitted that the religious tolerance in the so-called Islamic Golden AGe is notginh more than a liberal myth.