Admixture in Human History

[Angela]

Razib Khan finally wrote a blog post on the paper, and got 97 replies...
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/our-magnificent-bastard-race/#comments

The big take away from the genetics for most of these people?

"I don't care if Europe is a genetic sink and every European is a mix of different incoming groups...I don't want any brown A-Rabs and Blacks immigrating into Europe. Maybe another one would be: I don't care if we've only been white for four thousand years; we're white now.

I'm sorry, but that seemed to me to be the sub-text. Other than that, not much there.

Oh, I learned a new word....net-Nazi. I warn you all I'm going to be using it a lot.

I also read about a lot of internet racist gurus that I never in my life heard of before... Who knew? So that's where a lot of these ideas that I find so uneducated and ignorant come from. I'm doing my best to now forget the names.

Oh, I did think this was good:

"Could I bother you to list the top three theories/positions that you see falling into this unsupportable category? Nothing elaborate, something at a high-level description, if you have the time. I’m kind of wondering if my hunches are right.

1) that phylogeny and phenotype track closely. just because you can’t tell the physical difference between two pops (e.g., solomon islanders and sub-saharan africans) they must be phylogenetically close. this is not the case.

2) the physical types we see around us are ancient. many of them clearly are not. change is continuing to this day.

3) that the history of the human race can be modeled as a series of unidirectional branching migrations out of africa. that’s ok to a first approximation, but misleading in any fine-grained sense."

I would add to number 1 that just because one group might "plot" slightly south on something like a PCA, doesn't mean that the more "southern plotting" group is the darker or more "southern" looking.


This is also interesting:
"https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6cI3DSdR7gIC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA529#v=onepage&q&f=false
Indeed, many aspects of skull shape that differ among populations tend to be quite recent in origin, so that most human skulls dated between roughly 150,000 and 10,000 years ago are more similar to other like-aged skulls than they are to those of historic populations, regardless of geographic location… Ths fact means we cannot use most cranial variations to reconstruct reliable phylogenies beyond 10,000 years ago in any one region, and it raises questions about whether similar features can be used to make reliable inferences over much greater spans of time”

 

[Hauteville]

It seems that only we Western Eurasians are an impure race while others are pure since the bing bang.

 

[davef]

Razib Khan finally wrote a blog post on the paper, and got 97 replies...
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/our-magnificent-bastard-race/#comments

The big take away from the genetics for most of these people?

I don't care if Europe is a genetic sink and every European is a mix of different incoming groups...I don't want any brown A-Rabs and Blacks immigrating into Europe. Maybe, another one would be, I don't care if we've only been white for four thousand years, we're white now.

I'm sorry, but that seemed to me to be the sub-text. Other than that, not much there.

Oh, I learned a new word....net-Nazi. I warn you all I'm going to be using it a lot.

I also read about a lot of these guys that I never in my life heard of... Who knew? So that's where a lot of these ideas that I find so uneducated and ignorant come from. I'm doing my best to forget the names.

Oh, I did think this was good:

"Could I bother you to list the top three theories/positions that you see falling into this unsupportable category? Nothing elaborate, something at a high-level description, if you have the time. I’m kind of wondering if my hunches are right.1) that phylogeny and phenotype track closely. just because you can’t tell the physical difference between two pops (e.g., solomon islanders and sub-saharan africans) they must be phylogenetically close. this is not the case.
2) the physical types we see around us are ancient. many of them clearly are not. change is continuing to this day.
3) that the history of the human race can be modeled as a series of unidirectional branching migrations out of africa. that’s ok to a first approximation, but misleading in any fine-grained sense."

I would add to number 1 that just because one group might "plot" slightly south on something like a PCA, doesn't mean that the more "southern plotting" group is the darker or more "southern" looking.


This is also interesting:
"https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6cI3DSdR7gIC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA529#v=onepage&q&f=false
Indeed, many aspects of skull shape that differ among populations tend to be quite recent in origin, so that most human skulls dated between roughly 150,000 and 10,000 years ago are more similar to other like-aged skulls than they are to those of historic populations, regardless of geographic location… Ths fact means we cannot use most cranial variations to reconstruct reliable phylogenies beyond 10,000 years ago in any one region, and it raises questions about whether similar features can be used to make reliable inferences over much greater spans of time”

How about "Netzis"?

 

[MOESAN]

"https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6cI3DSdR7gIC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA529#v=onepage&q&f=false
Indeed, many aspects of skull shape that differ among populations tend to be quite recent in origin, so that most human skulls dated between roughly 150,000 and 10,000 years ago are more similar to other like-aged skulls than they are to those of historic populations, regardless of geographic location… Ths fact means we cannot use most cranial variations to reconstruct reliable phylogenies beyond 10,000 years ago in any one region, and it raises questions about whether similar features can be used to make reliable inferences over much greater spans of time”

I agree as a whole
- every phoenotypic traits is highly genetically determined, as functions and so on - but the part taken by the genes coding external look are a very small % or the whole genome -
- some of these external traits are linked to adaptation and can undergo selection to convergence even betwee pops very different as a whole -
- some others are without apparent link to adaptation and don't undergo convergence (or only by hazard, what is very seldom, I think), and at the contrary can undergo anarchic mutations by hazard, differentiating populations close enough for the most of their auDNA -
So differences in aspect are a bit more useful for recent History than similitudes.
But in a continuum, I think it would be very astonishing if two pops showing a majority of similitudes in all the details - not only the skulls - would not have been some recent enough common ancestry (ancient ancestry is almost the same for all of us!). Crossings/admixture complicate the analysis in craniology, it's true. making the only metrics analysis inappropriate without study of features and tries to some imperfect typology, often helping spite a bit "nose dependant". Two distinct pops with two distinct sources for everyone of them, can make a beautiful "cloud" overlapping almost entirely on certain PCA's, I think, ...

 

[Angela]

It seems that only we Western Eurasians are an impure race while others are pure since the bing bang.

I don't know of anyone who says or implies that, certainly not here. How could they? Aren't we constantly talking about the papers that show major turnovers in the Middle East since the Holocene, and isn't the same true for South Asia, Central Asia?

Native Americans have been isolated for so long, somewhere on the order of 12,000 years, that maybe you're thinking of them as a "pure race"? On the other hand, we know that they result from the admixture of some population also related to the Han and a population that is ANE, no?

Even though we don't post much about it here, the Han are the product of their own admixtures.

This stasis punctuated by periodic migrations and admixture is the history of the human race. Who says it only applies to Europeans?

The only reason I referred to Europe as a genetic sink is because other than with the Indo-Europeans, who are a mixed group themselves, there's been more gene flow into it than from it.

 

[Angela]

I made the mistake of reading some more of the comments on that blog post.

To all the clueless out there:

I'll speak only of Italian men, since obviously I know them better, but the same is true in general for Spanish men, and French men, and Greek men. Yes, Italian men, in general, are not as shy as northern European men, so it's not at all uncommon for them to go up to a strange girl/woman and compliment her, ask her if she'd like to get a coffee or a drink. They may whistle, or catcall, or at least they did in the past, although usually even then more in some areas than in others. When I was a young woman traveling on a bus in Italy, and leaning out the window when we stopped, a seven year old boy and a seventy year old man both, at the same time, bowed their heads and then kissed their fingers to me. I thought it charming and wonderful then and I find the memory charming now. Sitting on a suitcase and getting out a cigarette meant that you could count on six men suddenly appearing with lighters. Yes, occasionally, one would step over the line, but some well chosen words about father, husband, brother, or where you might place your high heels took care of it.

Anyone who would equate this with the kind of sexual aggressiveness, the surrounding of women by a group of men, the groping, tearing at clothes, horrible obscene remarks that takes place in Muslim countries when women go out alone, and that if reports are correct took place recently in Germany, has never been in either Italy or Egypt/Morocco, etc.

Ditto if anyone thinks that an Italian woman being approached by a man doesn't know if the man is Italian or Moroccan/Afghan/Iranian/South Asian, as some genius suggested as the reason there are fewer such reports of harassment by Muslims in Italy.

What is wrong with you people? You have to get out of your basements and spend a year or so traveling around the world. Until then, don't talk about things about which you don't have a clue.

 

[Tomenable]

I don't care if Europe is a genetic sink and every European is a mix of different incoming groups...I don't want any brown A-Rabs and Blacks immigrating into Europe. Maybe another one would be: I don't care if we've only been white for four thousand years; we're white now.

I say that Arabs and Blacks are too homogeneous and they need more of genetic diversity.

Mixing with some Chinese surely would not be so bad for Black and Arabic IQ, would it ???

As for native Europeans - since we already are highly mixed, do we need further mixing?

Maybe we should rather send a lot of European settlers to Africa to mix with locals there.

We Europeans are the "True People of Color". Just look at hair colors, eye colors, etc.

Black is not even a color: https://www.quora.com/Counterfactua...color-then-how-do-you-explain-the-color-clear

The true "absence of color" is black. Black is not a color, it is a either an absence of light (hence, no color), or a pigment (ink) that absorbs all light and doesn't reflect any back (hence, no color).

It is ironic that we call Blacks "people of color", while in fact they are "people of NO color".

 

[Tomenable]

I don't care if Europe is a genetic sink and every European is a mix of different incoming groups.

Most of those "incoming groups" were just moving from one part of Europe to another part of Europe. Take for example Proto-Indo-Europeans, who were native to Eastern Europe (EHG + CHG, they emerged between the Caucasus and the Baltic Sea) and expanded to Western Europe. Europe according to the commonly accepted definition extends as far east as the Ural Mountains.

Another example is the Villabruna Cluster (WHG), which was native to the Balkans - and Balkans are in Europe.

We don't even know where did EEF cluster originate, because it could be in Anatolia, but could be also in Greece. As we now know, Levantine Farmers were completely different genetically than Early Anatolian and Greek farmers.

So it is very much possible, that EEF also did not come from the Middle East, but were native to Greece. We have Mesolithic aDNA of Greek hunter-gatherers, and their mitochondrial haplogroups were the same as those later found in EEF. So at this point it is possible that EEF were Greek hunters who learned how to farm and expanded from Greece into the rest of Europe.

In other words, all these ideas that Europe has always a genetic sink might be just "wishful thinking".

What we observe are mostly expansions within Europe itself - from one part of Europe to another part of Europe.

More importantly - Proto-Indo-Europeans expanded from Europe to Asia. So here we have a major Native European admixture outside of Europe. Those guys descended from European Hunters and conquered most of West Asia and South Asia. European origin of the PIE is what many people cannot stand, because it shows that Europe started colonizing other parts of the world long before 1492 AD. All of these butthurted individuals cannot accept that Europe has been so dominant for such a long time.

 

[Tomenable]

Also note, that the four most common Y-DNA haplogroups in modern Europe are: R1b, R1a, I1 and I2.

All of these hour haplogroups are native European and had been present in Upper Paleolithic & Mesolithic Europe:

R1b - Villabruna and EHG (Volga Steppe)
R1a - EHG (Karelia and Volga Steppe)
I1 - SHG (Stora Forvar), Hungarian HG
I2 - WHG, SHG, samples all over Europe

So even though Neolithic Europe got overwhelmed by foreign Y-DNA, native Y-DNA "re-emerged" in the Bronze Age.

This shows that native European straight sometimes-white* patriarchal males (as Marija Gimbutas described them) "took back" the continent from Neolithic foreigners. "Took back", because all of Proto-Indo-European Y-DNA originated from Mesolithic Europe.

Of course those straight sometimes-white* Mesolithic males were not racist - at least not as far as love is concerned - so they enjoyed having a lot of kids with Neolithic women, after taking them as war booty. Hence we also have substantial amounts of EEF admixture. But our EEF obviously comes mostly from women, because Neolithic males were largely replaced by descendants of Euro HGs.

*Some of them were white (especially in Eastern and Norhern Europe), some were swarthy (especially WHG), but other than skin-deep differences, they were similar. And just like modern Europeans, they had a lot of blue-eyed individuals - also WHG.

 

[Tomenable]

This stasis punctuated by periodic migrations and admixture is the history of the human race.

Human is a species, not a race.

There are races within the human species (just like in case of any other animal species).

Check this 2015 paper (193 pages) arguing for the biological reality of human races:

PDF: http://openpsych.net/OBG/wp-content...-Constructs-Contemporaneous-Utility-Final.pdf

Abstract: http://openpsych.net/OBG/2015/06/the-nature-of-race/

Racial constructionists, anti-naturalists, and anti-realists have challenged users of the biological race concept to provide and defend, from the perspective of biology, biological philosophy, and ethics, a biologically informed concept of race. In this paper, an onto-epistemology of biology is developed. What it is, by this, to be "biological real" and "biologically meaningful" and to represent a "biological natural division" is explained. Early 18th century race concepts are discussed in detail and are shown to be both sensible and not greatly dissimilar to modern concepts. A general biological race concept (GBRC) is developed. It is explained what the GBRC does and does not entail and how this concept unifies the plethora of specific ones, past and present. Other race concepts as developed in the philosophical literature are discussed in relation to the GBRC. The sense in which races are both real and natural is explained. Racial essentialism of the relational sort is shown to be coherent. Next, the GBRC is discussed in relation to anthropological discourse. Traditional human racial classifications are defended from common criticisms: historical incoherence, arbitrariness, cluster discordance, etc. Whether or not these traditional human races could qualify as taxa subspecies – or even species – is considered. It is argued that they could qualify as taxa subspecies by liberal readings of conventional standards. Further, it is pointed out that some species concepts potentially allow certain human populations to be designated as species. It is explained why, by conventional population genetic and statistical standards, genetic differences between major human racial groups are at least moderate. Behavioral genetic differences associated with human races are discussed in general and in specific. The matter of race differences in cognitive ability is briefly considered. Finally, the race concept is defended from various criticisms. First, logical and empirical critiques are dissected. These include: biological scientific, sociological, ontological, onto-epistemological, semantic, and teleological arguments. None are found to have any merit. Second, moral-based arguments are investigated in context to a general ethical frame and are counter-critiqued. Racial inequality, racial nepotism, and the “Racial Worldview" are discussed. What is dubbed the Anti-Racial Worldview is rejected on both empirical and moral grounds.

Table 4.1 from this paper shows, that there is no consensus among scholars whether human races exist or not:

https://s32.postimg.io/dx80o8byt/Survey_race.png

 

[Angela]

Was there an intellectual point in post #383? I couldn't find any.

You're also skirting really close to making racist comments, and I can and I will issue infractions for that.

As to post #384, I could barely find any there either...

I already said that the Indo-Europeans moved from Europe to Central and South Asia, and West Asia too. Perhaps you missed it.

You are seriously confused about the Indo-Europeans, however. They were an admixed group of EHG and CHG, the latter of which is definitely "Near Eastern", with a big Basal Eurasian component, NOT "European" by any stretch of the imagination. No matter how you try to twist the facts, the CHG are NOT an eastern European group. ANE is an ancient North Eurasian group, not European. To the extent that the EHG contain ancestry from them they're not totally "European" either. We also know that from the fact that they have Han affinities. We have to see about the WHG. According to Reich and Company, they don't know yet whether they came from the Near East into Europe or from a refugia perhaps near the Black Sea or in Greece into both Europe and the Near East.

Regardless, the very use of the word "European" for these ancient peoples is anachronistic. There were no "Europeans" in any meaningful sense until between 3000-2000 B.C. The WHG may have been a group that always straddled both Europe and the Near East.

Please spare me the drivel about the uniparental markers. The yDna "R" clades didn't drop into Europe by alien space ship. They came from elsewhere on planet earth, and the ultimate source is Asia, probably Central Asia. As for mtDna, 3/4 of the mtDna in modern Europe is from the Middle East.

And no, none of these ancient people were "white", as in white European. I told you, they didn't exist until very recently as these things go. Races are more or less continent wide "breeding" groups which also formed relatively recently, although longer ago than 5000 years.

I'm not some ignorant teen-ager you can persuade by these a-scientific distortions.

If you continue to deliberately distort the record to push some racist agenda you'll get infractions for that as well. I've received complaints about the stuff you post, but in recognition of some significant contributions you've made, I've interpreted them as positively as I can. However, you're now straddling the line. You can't operate under a different set of rules. I've done it to other net-nazis, and I won't be shy about doing it again. Go post this garbage at that echo chamber on Stormfront or forum-biodiversity.

I'm very sorry to see what has been behind the mask all this while, Tomenable. Very sorry, indeed. I did see hints of it all along, however, as I pointed out; I'm going to collect a bet about it, in fact.

 

[MOESAN]

Human beings are submitted more or less to the same genetic laws as other living species.
So raciation exists among them; but to get to race(s) we need isolation; it has been the case more than a time but did not dure as it has done among animals species. Human beings are the most successfull and adaptative specy in the today creation so they moved here and there and recross more than a time AND ESCAPE OFTEN ENOUGH TO NATURAL PRESSURE.
That didn't prevent some beginning of raciation at large scale, between 'eurasians', 'east-asians' and 'SS-Africans' - -, making them KINDS of "race", with subtypes based upon the same principles but with even less "etancheity", even before our times of more massive migrations and crossings (say: since the 3500 BC???); some pops didn't undergo a clear evolution on one or another side, keeping closer to "archaïc" pops -
But the boundaries where never totally closed to exchanges in contact zones. So, if some bunch of typical traits can help to separate diverse types, less the subtypes, our "races" show very less clear cuts than animals races.
The pigmentation is an obsession among some people, not aware of the close proximity of SW-Asians with N-Europeans by instance...
This continuum between human pops doesn't discard great differences between some extreme pops of our earth, that said. And the argument about weak % differences in genes frequency is not the decisiive one: ave we published results of %s of different or shared genes within and between animals pops? Our variability and trans"races" sharings of genes are not always the proof of a recent common origin; maybe some genes are heterozygotous since a very long time, before our Sapiens-Sapiens specy? It could depend on their roles: selection can select homozygotous genes for some purposes and heterozygotous others for other purposes: the making of a skeleton or of pigmentation doesn't answer, perhaps, to the same problematics than blood defense system? Here I ask to knowledged persons.
Personally I think first crossings, with neighbouring pops, create new looks and skills (and lack of skills sometimes).
But I FEEL (not a political thought) a global crossing process involving all the extreme pops in the same huge melting pot is a lost for Humanity diversity (mix all colours and you have grey! just a picture!), and I know it resolve not any problem of racism, or class segragation, or aesthetic segregation and so on... Look at so called multiracial countries where supposedly no racism exists. In my extended family the process is already engaged at low level and I don't enjoy it as the conservator I am on this matter only. But I don't interfere in others life and leave them making their bed, without hate or disdain for them. This is my first and last post concerning the personal aspect. Past shows us crossings did not kill us, after all!

 

[Angela]

I swore I wouldn't respond again, but if there has been admixture, most of it is down to the decision of the male of the species. They admixed with Neanderthals, and Denisova, and goodness knows which other of our relatives not only in Eurasia but in Africa, with "people", at the very edge of human compatibility in David Reich's terms. The results were not always so great, imho, as I've said before. Obviously, you can't help yourselves, but if you're going to constantly be stepping over the line, stop complaining if the lines get blurred.

Sometimes it seems to me that the big problem for the white supremacist types is that this time it's white women who are crossing the line instead of them.

Well, that's just too darn bad, even if it's not something I've ever done. Heck, I wouldn't even cross the nationality line; I really didn't want to marry someone who wasn't Italian. I'm like Sophia Loren that way; she even turned down Cary Grant, for that reason, and to marry Carlo Ponti. Sophia, really? When Marcello was around? I don't know if even I would have gone that far...However, like Moesan, I don't choose for others. I can't figure out the mate choices of the people around me on any number of levels. I no longer try.

This isn't about that, however. It's about science, and history, and what happened, not what we wish had or had not happened. As I said, Eurasians may have been in stasis for a long time after they left Africa, but with the coming of the Holocene they've been admixing, a lot, and modern groups are the result of that admixture, whether it's Europeans, West Asians, East Asians, or Native Americans. Only the degree may be different. Whether some of you like it or not is irrelevant.

 

[Tomenable]

if there has been admixture, most of it is down to the decision of the male of the species. They admixed with Neanderthals, and Denisova, and goodness knows which other of our relatives not only in Eurasia but in Africa, with "people", at the very edge of human compatibility in David Reich's terms.

In my opinion most of "admixture events" with Neanderthals and Denisovans was probably down to rapes of Sapiens women by Neanderthal/Denisovan males. This is the most likely explanation of why we did not inherit any Neanderthal/Denisovan mtDNA (children born from rapes inherited mtDNA from their Sapiens mothers). As for Y-DNA - hybrid human-Neanderthal/Denisovan boys were infertile, only hybrid girls were fertile, but girls don't have Y-DNA. All of these assumptions combined, explain why we have archaic autosomal admixture, but no any archaic mtDNA or Y-DNA haplogroups.

Had Sapiens males peacefully intermarried with archaic women, we would have had at least some archaic mtDNA. But if Sapiens men only raped archaic women, they stayed in their own tribes and eventually got extinct. And if archaic men raped our women, then hybrid babies were born to our tribes, and we got their autosomal DNA.

So the fact that we have some archaic admixture (and that Altai Neanderthals had some of our admixture) does not prove that there was peaceful coexistence, because it could all be wartime rapes.

But Australian Aborigines and Papuans have so much of archaic admixture, that I would still expect them to have at least some archaic mtDNA. Surprisingly, it seems that none has been found so far.

this time it's white women who are crossing the line instead of them.

If your claim was right, then we should have a lot of Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA. But we don't have any.

More likely, at that time Neanderthals raped our women, and nowadays Muslims are doing the same thing.

 

[MOESAN]

For interested persons, these last exchange of opinions would be put in another thread, I think. I do not see the very link with the present thread which ask for sufficient understanding efforts in itself.
Guid nicht, bona nueit, nos vas (I like dialects for my ears)

 

[Tomenable]

CHG, the latter of which is definitely "Near Eastern", with a big Basal Eurasian component, NOT "European" by any stretch of the imagination. No matter how you try to twist the facts, the CHG are NOT an eastern European group.

Caucasus / Georgia count as parts of Europe by most definitions, and CHG ancestry was present in Georgia (and most certainly also to the north and north-west of it) already during the Upper Paleolithic period. How long does one need to live in Europe, to be counted as native European? Today, leftists say that already a 2nd generation Third World immigrant is "just as European as you and me". But if we talk about ancient DNA, then apparently everything is not native to Europe, even after thousands of years of living there.

Interesing why people have such double standards...

IMO if some admixture was present already in Upper Paleolithic or Mesolithic Europe, then we can count is as native.

Ultimately, everyone came from Africa - also all of Near Easterners. But do I claim "Basal Eurasians" to be Africans?

I probably should, because "Basal Eurasians" likely lived also in North Africa, not just in the Near East.

ANE is an ancient North Eurasian group, not European.

But ANE has been present in Europe for at least 10,000 years. See above - after such a long time, it is native to Europe.

ANE ancestry was present in Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europe - already long before early farmers came to Europe.

So ANE are more native to Europe than Sardinians (and I do count Sardinians as native Europeans, why shouldn't I?).

Besides - modern Near Easterners are not so similar to ENF farmers. Even Turks from Anatolia are different. So there have been population replacements and turnovers not just in Europe, but also in areas from which EEF had probably originated.

Muslim immigrants who are coming to Europe today, are not the same people as ENF who came 8000 years ago.

And it's really not about race, but about culture. ENF brought with them positive things, they improved Europe. What are Muslims bringing with them, how are they improving Europe? They are not as beneficial as ENF, who brought farming and stuff.

You see, some visitors are unwanted, but at least beneficial - as was the case with Romans in "barbarian" lands:

 

[Tomenable]

Ithe big problem for the white supremacist types

Uhm, why exactly are they different/worse than Black supremacist types, Asian supremacist types, etc. types?

For example the Japanese killed just as many innocent civilians during WW2 as the Germans did, and their brutality was just as appalling. Yet for some reason it is OK to be a Japanese/Asian supremacist, but not to be a German/White supremacist?

"Political correctness" is not color-blind, apparently:

"Asian Pride" = being proud of things such as the Nanking Massacre, Unit 731, Kamikaze, etc. is PC - why?:

 

[Angela]

If you can't prove the things you say they're irrelevant...

1. No one knows how Neanderthal ancestry got into homo sapiens sapiens. Stop pretending that you do.

2. No, Georgia is not Europe by any one's definition, nor is Armenia, another possible source, nor is the Iranian plateau. Not unless being in the same media market and so being allowed to participate in Eurovision is what you're thinking of...I forget how young some of your people are...Stop making things up.

3. Let me explain something to you: if you're going to go with a certain definition of European-ness, then it has to apply to everyone. You do understand the rules of logic, right? You're sort of asking the right question, but you don't understand the implication. The operative question is how long does it take to become "European"? Equally importantly, who gets to decide? The WHG didn't originate there, no matter where they spent the LGM, but you seem to think they became European by moving there. OK, and so did the Anatolian farmers (9,000 years ago), and the ANE in the bodies of the EHG (maybe also about 9,000 years ago), and the CHG from south of the Caucasus (maybe 6,000 years ago) , and the Siberians who moved to northeastern Europe (maybe 2500 years ago-are the Finns European, btw), and the Moors who came into southern Europe (1100 years ago).

Did I miss anyone? Are you with me so far? So, are their descendants, i.e. the people who have ancestry from them, including you, (except for the Siberian and Moorish bits) European?

See what happens?

Why would the WHG get to be in the club and no one else? Because they were here 6,000 years before anyone else? That doesn't seem fair. Plus, They weren't even "white" as we now discover. The Anatolian farmers were "whiter" than they were. Heck, everybody was "whiter" than they were. I do realize that it was much easier when there wasn't all this pesky genetics stuff to consider, when people could think that "white" Paleolithic Europeans were made in a petri dish somewhere and then dropped into Europe, and didn't "admix" with lesser, darker, breeds, except maybe in southern Europe. Problem is, we do have the genetics now, and that's just not how it works. You can cry in your beer or weed about it, but you can't change it. So, when you go around saying that other migrations into Europe, like the Anatolian farmers and the CHG aren't "European", you're saying a lot of you isn't "European" as well. See how logic just trips you up all the time.

4. You have no idea if Basal Eurasian was in North Africa. No one does. Stop making up supposed facts.

5. Where's the proof that ANE was already in Europe 10,000 years ago. Plus, the farmers were in Europe 9,000 years ago. Are we going to quibble about a thousand years, Tomenable. Surely even you must see how silly this is...

6. The big change in the Middle East, much bigger than the SSA that entered later and that is less than 10%, and which barely exists in places like Turkey and Iran, is all that ANE, which is why the groups with the most ANE, eastern Europeans and Near Easterners, have those rough facial features, in my opinion.

7. Don't create straw man arguments. Haven't they taught you about them yet in your legal studies? Nobody ever said Asian supremacists or Black Supremacists are any better than white supremacists. However, let's get it right: the Japanese were, and many are still racists; however, they did not try to exterminate an entire race. The goal was economic control and any niceties about human rights weren't allowed to stand in the way.

"And it's really not about race, but about culture. ENF brought with them positive things, they improved Europe."

Finally, after what I consider to be illogical and a-scientific "stuff", or just absolutely off the wall speculation unsupported by any proof, there is something about which we can agree.

However, even there logic is going to trip you up. Is a Lebanese engineer, a practicing Christian, fluent in French (I use that example because I know one), all that different from you culturally? Yes, they missed out on the Reformation, and the Enlightenment, but then so did eastern Europeans, right? But you don't want him either. Look how welcome you made those poor Syrian Christians feel.

The issue with immigration, imo, is that every sovereign state, or collection of states, has the right to control its own borders, and how many "foreigners", from anywhere, it is going to admit, and under what circumstances. One of the criteria should be whether they can economically pull their weight eventually, unless there is a desire to admit a certain number regardless, for humanitarian reasons. Even when the reasons are humanitarian, in all cases the immigrants have to be willing to adopt the cultural mores of the host country. That's across the board, and no private or religious law can supersede the legal system of the host country. If those things were enforced, and the numbers weren't overwhelming, I don't think there'd be many problems in most areas. Of course, if we're talking about places where racist dogmas never really dissipated, then it would be a different story.

Because see, it wouldn't matter to guys like you, would it? These people could convert to Christianity, swear on a dozen holy books they'd accept the mores of the common European culture, be chemical engineers with a hefty bank account, and it wouldn't be enough for people like you. It's all about this insane obsession with "color", and you yourselves haven't been "white" forever, as we've discovered, nor am I overwhelmed by the Nordic-ness of some of you, to be honest. Heck, my Dad was more "Nordic" than probably 90% of the people on Stormfront, and definitely more than 90% of the people on sites like Forum Biodiversity, and theapricity, and anthroscape. The whole thing is depressing as hell.

Didn't anyone ever teach these people to concentrate on the quality of the character and the mind? Those are things worth obsessing over.

 

[Tomenable]

nor is Armenia

Historical Greater Armenia not - but modern Armenia is on the borderland between Asia and Europe.

Anyway, culturally both Georgia and Armenia are closer to Europe than to their Muslim neighbours.

Genetically, Armenians and Georgians are closer to Middle Easterners and Anatolians - here I agree.

Linguistically, IE Armenians are closer to Iranians, Kurds and Europeans than to Azeris and Turks.

IF Georgians and Armenians want to be associated with Europe, then I have no problem with it.

2. No, Georgia is not Europe by any one's definition

Lesser Caucasus is often considered to be the border of Europe (and Georgia lies to the north of it):