Experiment Your place on racism scale

[KingOfRome]

Although it is true that people tend to form clusters of genetically similar groups within geographic areas, the number of these clusters isn't strictly defined. If you already have an idea of the number of these clusters and take samples from each group to test for genetic similarity, each one would be similar to samples in its own group and different from those in other groups, which would apparently prove race theory. However, this effect is not affected by a change in the number of defined clusters, and clusters also exist within clusters. For example, if you took samples from white, black, Indian, and East Asian people--four clusters--you would have clearly defined clusters, or "races". However, if you took one of these clusters and further divided them into four clusters--for example, if you took whites and divided them into northern, southern, central, and east European--you would have the same effect. Even one of these smaller clusters could be further divided--say, northern European into English, Scottish, Irish, and Scandinavian. How far does race theory have to go before every human being on the planet constitutes his own race?

 

[Cuyen]

Although it is true that people tend to form clusters of genetically similar groups within geographic areas, the number of these clusters isn't strictly defined. If you already have an idea of the number of these clusters and take samples from each group to test for genetic similarity, each one would be similar to samples in its own group and different from those in other groups, which would apparently prove race theory. However, this effect is not affected by a change in the number of defined clusters, and clusters also exist within clusters. For example, if you took samples from white, black, Indian, and East Asian people--four clusters--you would have clearly defined clusters, or "races". However, if you took one of these clusters and further divided them into four clusters--for example, if you took whites and divided them into northern, southern, central, and east European--you would have the same effect. Even one of these smaller clusters could be further divided--say, northern European into English, Scottish, Irish, and Scandinavian. How far does race theory have to go before every human being on the planet constitutes his own race?

All Europeans are actually genetically different

 

[KingOfRome]

All Europeans are actually genetically different

And that's my point.

If race theory is true, why is it so easy to divide races into sub-races, sub-races into sub-sub-races, and so on? Why is it so easy to divide humanity into any arbitrary number of races and get the same genetic clustering effect?

 

[Wiseman]

And that's my point.

If race theory is true, why is it so easy to divide races into sub-races, sub-races into sub-sub-races, and so on? Why is it so easy to divide humanity into any arbitrary number of races and get the same genetic clustering effect?

How many grains of sand make a heap? Similarly to race, a heap of sand can't be clearly defined, but it's a useful concept. At some point, you'll have to draw a circle around some arbitrary cluster and declare it a race.

 

[Deleted member 18975]

To all the dumb race-deniars:
1) human is not a race but a species
2) Race is not a social construct. The world "race" yes but the differences between human races (negroid, mongoloid, australoid and caucasoid) are very real

 

[KingOfRome]

How many grains of sand make a heap? Similarly to race, a heap of sand can't be clearly defined, but it's a useful concept. At some point, you'll have to draw a circle around some arbitrary cluster and declare it a race.

Why would we have to? We define race by identity, phenotype, and ancestral background, not genetic makeup per se. Race is only relevant today because it's so deeply embedded into our collective consciousness. It's a construct of society, not biology.

 

[Cuyen]

And that's my point.

If race theory is true, why is it so easy to divide races into sub-races, sub-races into sub-sub-races, and so on? Why is it so easy to divide humanity into any arbitrary number of races and get the same genetic clustering effect?

I will quickly tell what race is. Today's races are actually a result of the mixing of ancient people like neolithic people

Here is a genetic result of a German from Baviera that lived 1500 years ago:

Now i will quickly tell what does it mean:

You see gedrosia is 7.64 percent, gedrosia is basically ancient yamnaya people then later spreaded to europe

northwest african refers to neolithic farmers of africa, then later they spreaded to europe

Caucasus refers to near east neolithic farmers

Atlantic_med refers to people of atlantic megalithic period

All of these percentages refer to different races, which means today's races are actually a result of the mix between ancient races that lived thousands of years ago.

For example, higher sub_saharan percentage you'll see African people

Or higher Siberian and east Asian basically Mongols.

The higher north European percentage is Scandinavians.

lower or higher those numbers, you'll see totally a different race.

So, current immigration and race-mixing will create new races. That's why I laugh when an SJW says that race-mixing will destroy races, no it will create new races as it did before. The race is a reality of the nature
Not even blood brothers have same percentage of these results, you see one of them have higher north european perc. and other have higher Caucasus

 

[Wiseman]

Why would we have to? We define race by identity, phenotype, and ancestral background, not genetic makeup per se. Race is only relevant today because it's so deeply embedded into our collective consciousness. It's a construct of society, not biology.

It can be useful in medicine, for instance, as some 'races' are more prone to certain diseases. It is a construct of both society and biology because, while race is impossible to define, genetic differences between population groups do exist and might have implications.

 

[Cuyen]

Why would we have to? We define race by identity, phenotype, and ancestral background, not genetic makeup per se. Race is only relevant today because it's so deeply embedded into our collective consciousness. It's a construct of society, not biology.

Autosomal DNA is what determines phenotype, so yes its biology.

 

[Blacktarpill]

Not even blood brothers have same percentage of these results, you see one of them have higher north european perc. and other have higher Caucasus

Totally man, i have darker skin and different facial features than my brother. He looks more European.

 

[KingOfRome]

It can be useful in medicine, for instance, as some 'races' are more prone to certain diseases. It is a construct of both society and biology because, while race is impossible to define, genetic differences between population groups do exist and might have implications.

It's a use we've found for something that was already there and otherwise completely useless. Though it is true that some population groups are more prone to certain diseases than others, the groups we've defined as races are too wide to access these risks accurately from person to person, especially when you factor in miscegenation, which blurs the lines even further.

Autosomal DNA is what determines phenotype, so yes its biology.

Not to the extent that biology is the root cause of race, or to the point where it would be accurate to say race is a biological construct. If you look and identify as white, your parents also look and identify as white, and society agrees with the way you've identified yourselves based on your looks and identity, then you're white. You don't get a DNA test to determine what race you are. If you got one, and discovered you have ancestry outside the race with which you've identified, you're not going to scramble to get all your paperwork changed to reflect your mixed-race ancestry, especially if the admixture is very slight.

 

[Cuyen]

Not to the extent that biology is the root cause of race, or to the point where it would be accurate to say race is a biological construct. If you look and identify as white, your parents also look and identify as white, and society agrees with the way you've identified yourselves based on your looks and identity, then you're white. You don't get a DNA test to determine what race you are. If you got one, and discovered you have ancestry outside the race with which you've identified, you're not going to scramble to get all your paperwork changed to reflect your mixed-race ancestry, especially if the admixture is very slight.

Of course, white, black, yellow these are found by Americans and don't make any sense. but it doesn't change the fact that race is real
yes race is social construct nowadays,lmao but it doesn't mean it is not based on biology. again, the american definition of races are so different than what race is in biology
The thing is, there is nothing like "white race" or "black race" in biology. you have different European nations that actually differ from each other biologically, culturally, linguistically and traditionally.

Also, if you look german for example, your DNA results will be similar to that, you may have slightly Italian blood for example, but still predominantly german and most probably you'll match with germans in the autosomal DNA test due to fact that you're phenotypically german.

 

[KingOfRome]

Of course, white, black, yellow these are found by Americans and don't make any sense. but it doesn't change the fact that race is real
yes race is social construct nowadays,lmao but it doesn't mean it is not based on biology. again, the american definition of races are so different than what race is in biology

"Race" in biology is those genetic clusters I just talked about. (In reality, "race" is not a scientific term used formally by biologists.) You could split humanity into any number of groups and still get the same genetic clustering effect. The American definition of race is just as valid as anyone else's since race is defined by society.

 

[Cuyen]

"Race" in biology is those genetic clusters I just talked about. (In reality, "race" is not a scientific term used formally by biologists.) You could split humanity into any number of groups and still get the same genetic clustering effect. The American definition of race is just as valid as anyone else's since race is defined by society.

so youre saying race is not real? lmao
also read the things i wrote

 

[KingOfRome]

so youre saying race is not real? lmao
also read the things i wrote

You consistently fail to explain how a genetic cluster within the human population constitutes a group distinct enough from the species as a whole to be meaningfully considered a sub-species.

 

[Guest2]

@Cuyen very high iq

 

[Cuyen]

You consistently fail to explain how a genetic cluster within the human population constitutes a group distinct enough from the species as a whole to be meaningfully considered a sub-species.

of course, there are similarities between all humans we are all the same species after all, but it doesn't mean there are no differences between individuals, yes? it either doesn't mean there are no differences between different groups of people. just simply as that. anthropology and DNA is enough to understand that
not every group of people are genetically similar to each other. not knowing is not a shame, not learning is a shame. start with these basic things: https://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

 

[KingOfRome]

of course, there are similarities between all humans we are all the same species after all, but it doesn't mean there are no differences between individuals, yes? it either doesn't mean there are no differences between different groups of people. just simply as that. anthropology and DNA is enough to understand that

These differences are too slight and varied between individuals to justify any splitting of the human species into sub-species. No group of humans has been geographically isolated from other human groups long enough for any human sub-species to develop.

 

[Deleted member 9229]

Races were categorized in colors to make it more overseeable, thus Indians and Sub-Saharan Africans both belong to black race, as they are both shitskins, have lowest IQ and are subhuman thrash.

Lol I can understand blacks but what did poor high inhib beta curries do to you?

 

[Cuyen]

These differences are too slight and varied between individuals to justify any splitting of the human species into sub-species. No group of humans has been geographically isolated from other human groups long enough for any human sub-species to develop.

I never said they are isolated from other humans to develop as subspecies. You didn't even read the ancient german DNA example I gave just above.
https://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml also start from here to know about basic things about genetic genealogy

 

[KingOfRome]

I never said they are isolated from other humans to develop as subspecies. You didn't even read the ancient german DNA example I gave just above.

Those are just more genetic clusters already predefined based on geographic area. Your example does not prove your claim that race forms any meaningful distinction between humans.

 

[tooth monster]

I hate everyone equally.

 

[Cuyen]

Those are just more genetic clusters already predefined based on geographic area. Your example does not prove your claim that race forms any meaningful distinction between humans.

No those are not based on geographic are, those are based on genetic differences between the ancient cultures lmaof
I already linked you to learn basic things but you fail to understand, anyway ,its your fault

 

[KingOfRome]

No those are not based on geographic are, those are based on genetic differences between the ancient cultures lmaof
I already linked you to learn basic things but you fail to understand, anyway ,its your fault

Northwest african
Southeast asian
Caucasus
Et cetera

These are not terms based in taxonomy, but in geography.

You've taken groups from certain geographic areas and studied their DNA for similarities. Of course they are going to form these clusters. However, you consistently fail to explain how these clusters constitute meaningful distinctions between humans. All you can do is point to these clusters and insist that they're meaningful because they exist. Your amoeba IQ doesn't even allow you to reckon the notion that you're peddling pseudoscience. That is sad.

 

[Cuyen]

Northwest african
Southeast asian
Caucasus
Et cetera

These are not terms based in taxonomy, but in geography.

You've taken groups from certain geographic areas and studied their DNA for similarities. Of course they are going to form these clusters. However, you consistently fail to explain how these clusters constitute meaningful distinctions between humans. All you can do is point to these clusters and insist that they're meaningful because they exist. Your amoeba IQ doesn't even allow you to reckon the notion that you're peddling pseudoscience. That is sad.

That's why I send you this link but damn you have IQ of a baby ape. just read here: https://www.eupedia.com/europe/autosomal_maps_dodecad.shtml
This link details the terms " north europe" or "caucasus" and I actually explained it in post above, said that caucasus refer to neolithic farmers etc. just jfl

 

[Wiseman]

Reminder to all the 'muh IQ' wignats viewing this thread that Brits used to be retarded back in 1942, according to the Raven's test.

 

[KingOfRome]

That's why I send you this link but damn you have IQ of a baby ape. just read here: https://www.eupedia.com/europe/autosomal_maps_dodecad.shtml
This link details the terms " north europe" or "caucasus" and I actually explained it in post above, said that caucasus refer to neolithic farmers etc. just jfl

All you're proving is the existence of these clusters. They're not meaningful distinctions just because you feel like they are. You can plainly see the overlap between clusters within certain geographical areas.

 

[Cuyen]

All you're proving is the existence of these clusters. They're not meaningful distinctions just because you feel like they are. You can plainly see the overlap between clusters within certain geographical areas.

damn I knew all weebs are brainless cucks thats the third time I send you the link but you fail to understand, anyway do whatever you want

 

[KingOfRome]

damn I knew all weebs are brainless cucks thats the third time I send you the link but you fail to understand, anyway do whatever you want

You can't even answer a simple question, but sure, I'm the one who fails to understand. Just JFL @ u.

 

[Cuyen]

You can't even answer a simple question, but sure, I'm the one who fails to understand. Just JFL @ u.

I send you the link like many times I wouldnt take your word at first because its my mistake to take a weebcuck serious. anyway ignore you weeb faggot

 

[KingOfRome]

I send you the link like many times I wouldnt take your word at first because its my mistake to take a weebcuck serious. anyway ignore you weeb faggot

And you thought the link was some magic spell that would change my mind and make me worship you the second I clicked on it? No. All this web page lays out is a set of distinct genetic clusters. It doesn't explain why they matter or why anyone should care.

 

[IamLost]

Only the white race is able to create sophisticated civilizations. The other races can only destroy civilizations. Thats why jews bring all this third world people in.

 

[Deleted member 16455]

I was actually talking about Indigenous Americans and Dravidian. Most people in India are rather ethnic is right, but they're still at the bottom of the table. Their population is almost as much as China, and look how inferior they are compared to the Republic of China.

How they became such a huge population goes against the concept of Darwinism

 

[DerPreuße]

I'm privately a Racial Realist by that definition.
Politically I'd still make a difference between people just based on their race, because I don't think that anyone has to be "fair" about what to offer other people. Metaphorically just because a country allows some people to be guests in their country, doesn't mean that anyone on the planet has an enforceable right to be guests in my country.
It's still a privilege granted by us.

And I know how ridiculous that is given that over a million people basically forced themselves into my country and we are forced to pretend they are guests to save face and pay them money to placate them, because otherwise they'd start attacking.

 

[Adolf_Hitler]

A white levantine and a white dane aren't part of the same race just because they share the same skin color. Race is determined by genetics. Why is this so difficult for you retards to comprehend?


Fuck off faggot.

This is apparently difficult for you to understand because of your ethnic intelligence. Race is highly correlated with degrees of skin color which align with genetics. You're right to state that genetics and skin color aren't always paired up when determining the descendants of an individual. However, the Fitzpatrick Scale, for example, is a predictor of race and its correlation with skin type. Also, I hate to break it to you boyo, but Levantine descends from philistines and different nordid groups, often giving them valuable genes passed down through centuries. I recommend actually reading books instead of talking off your ass. I hope you're intelligent enough to fulfill that request. Thank you for taking your valuable time to read this post rofl.

 

[Wiseman]

This is apparently difficult for you to understand because of your ethnic intelligence.

The peoples of the north are those for whom the sun is distant from the zenith. Their bodies are large, their natures gross, their manners harsh, their understanding dull and their tongues heavy; their religious beliefs lack solidity; those of them who are farthest to the north the most subject to stupidity, grossness and foolishness.

On Snow Niggers, al-Masudi

Race is highly correlated with degrees of skin color which align with genetics. You're right to state that genetics and skin color aren't always paired up when determining the descendants of an individual. However, the Fitzpatrick Scale, for example, is a predictor of race and its correlation with skin type.

Race is correlated with skin color! What a grand revelation. Truly, your superior Aryan intelligence is out of this world.

Race is correlated with many traits, and skin color is only one such trait. That skin color doesn't determine race is very obvious in a place like the Middle East, where it isn't rare to have siblings one of whom is white and the other brown. If you will concede this point, then spare me your insufferable pedantry.

Also, I hate to break it to you boyo, but Levantine descends from philistines and different nordid groups, often giving them valuable genes passed down through centuries.

Levantines are most closely related to other West Asians. They descend from many different ethnic groups: mostly Semitic, but the Romans probably also had an influence.

Philistines lived in Canaan, located in modern-day Palestine/Israel (hence why philistine sounds like Palestine). The Levant is a much wider area, encompassing Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan. Some might even add Northern Iraq. In any case, and regardless of your geographical ignorance, this has nothing to do with my original claim: that skin color doesn't determine race, and that there's no one-to-one relationship between the two.

I recommend actually reading books instead of talking off your ass. I hope you're intelligent enough to fulfill that request. Thank you for taking your valuable time to read this post rofl.

I have read more books than you will in your lifetime, wigger.

 

[LastGerman]

So, current immigration and race-mixing will create new races. That's why I laugh when an SJW says that race-mixing will destroy races, no it will create new races as it did before. The race is a reality of the nature

But what about the heritage? The original form needs to be maintained.

 

[Adolf_Hitler]

The peoples of the north are those for whom the sun is distant from the zenith. Their bodies are large, their natures gross, their manners harsh, their understanding dull and their tongues heavy; their religious beliefs lack solidity; those of them who are farthest to the north the most subject to stupidity, grossness and foolishness.

On Snow Niggers, al-Masudi


Race is correlated with skin color! What a grand revelation. Truly, your superior Aryan intelligence is out of this world.

Race is correlated with many traits, and skin color is only one such trait. That skin color doesn't determine race is very obvious in a place like the Middle East, where it isn't rare to have siblings one of whom is white and the other brown. If you will concede this point, then spare me your insufferable pedantry.


Levantines are most closely related to other West Asians. They descend from many different ethnic groups: mostly Semitic, but the Romans probably also had an influence.

Philistines lived in Canaan, located in modern-day Palestine/Israel (hence why philistine sounds like Palestine). The Levant is a much wider area, encompassing Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan. Some might even add Northern Iraq. In any case, and regardless of your geographical ignorance, this has nothing to do with my original claim: that skin color doesn't determine race, and that there's no one-to-one relationship between the two.


I have read more books than you will in your lifetime, wigger.

The first part of what you said in quotation is just the ramblings of someone who doesn't realize they have nordid dna. Your second observation is a deviation from your first. You are the one that made the bold claim that skin color and genetics are separated to a large degree, not me. You literally ignored the scientific explanation behind why some middle easterners are pale. It's due to partial nordid ancestry. This also explains the possibility of having two brown eyed middle easterners giving birth to a blue eyed or green eyed child. These valuable Nordid traits like skin color and eye color carry on through generations. The most important of these traits is skin color, so you may often see those Nordid traits reoccurring in offspring through generations. Secondly, Levantines descend from "semitics" i.e., nordids that brought the civilized linguistic customs and cultural traditions that would later be eradicated by a true semitic group. The history here is slightly confusing, but what is often accepted is that pre-semitic settlers were more civilized nordids which were confused for semites far before the eradication of the native peoples there. Roman "influence" is Nordid entirely, and the West Asian you refer to isn't entirely scientifically valid but may be explained by the early "west asian" Nordid settlers.

"Philistines lived in Canaan, located in modern-day Palestine/Israel (hence why philistine sounds like Palestine). The Levant is a much wider area, encompassing Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan. Some might even add Northern Iraq. In any case, and regardless of your geographical ignorance, this has nothing to do with my original claim: that skin color doesn't determine race, and that there's no one-to-one relationship between the two." Most of this is just you babbling on trying to make up for your lack of knowledge and intellect. In fact what you're saying here is exactly why I pointed out they have distant Nordid ancestry that would explain their intellectual vitality and lighter skin tone. It has entirely to do with Nordid settlements across the fertile crescent and Levant. This added to the native civilizations with rich culture and racial history that had not yet been seen in before history. What you say at the end is stupidly inaccurate. Race and skin color have a very close relation. Lighter skinned northern Indians are known for this due to closer amounts of nordid ancestry spanning back through generations similar to the middle eastern case. it's a simple fact. This argument is incredibly ridiculous, but I'd recommend you actually read more things instead of pontificating and rambling about things you have little expertise in. Goodbye.

 

[Wiseman]

Your second observation is a deviation from your first. You are the one that made the bold claim that skin color and genetics are separated to a large degree, not me.

Oh? Will you point to the post where I made that bold claim? But if you're unable to do so, will you let me trample you with my feet and spit on you as my prize for winning?

Go back and read -- this discussion only began when one of your wigger brethren claimed that Indians and Sub-Saharans belong to the same race, the black race. Such a stupid statement, but fitting of a wignat.

You literally ignored the scientific explanation behind why some middle easterners are pale. It's due to partial nordid ancestry. This also explains the possibility of having two brown eyed middle easterners giving birth to a blue eyed or green eyed child. These valuable Nordid traits like skin color and eye color carry on through generations. The most important of these traits is skin color, so you may often see those Nordid traits reoccurring in offspring through generations. Secondly, Levantines descend from "semitics" i.e., nordids that brought the civilized linguistic customs and cultural traditions that would later be eradicated by a true semitic group. The history here is slightly confusing, but what is often accepted is that pre-semitic settlers were more civilized nordids which were confused for semites far before the eradication of the native peoples there. Roman "influence" is Nordid entirely, and the West Asian you refer to isn't entirely scientifically valid but may be explained by the early "west asian" Nordid settlers.

I see what you're saying -- you wuz sumerian n shiet. Perhaps you've been lurking Stormfront for far too long, or you might have read some wignat racial 'science' book and fancied yourself an intellectual. You're a delusional idiot who's coping with blind racial pride.

The skin color of Levantines can be easily explained by geography. There's no need for your wigger pseudoscience.

The farther from the equator you are, the lighter you will be, in general. This is why, for instance, northern Iraqis tend to be lighter-skinned than southern Iraqis (who are, by the way, the descendants of the non-Semitic Sumerians). It's also why gulf Arabs are generally darker than Levantines and North Africans.

Race and skin color have a very close relation. Lighter skinned northern Indians are known for this due to closer amounts of nordid ancestry spanning back through generations similar to the middle eastern case. it's a simple fact. This argument is incredibly ridiculous, but I'd recommend you actually read more things instead of pontificating and rambling about things you have little expertise in. Goodbye.

No one denies that race and skin color are correlated. Africans tend to be black, Europeans tend to be white. The point is that it isn't a good indicator of race, as an African can be an albino and still be African. Siblings, too, can have varying skin colors, despite being born from the very same parents. Again, if you don't object to this, spare me your pedantry. I've had to repeat myself for far too many times.

 

[Adolf_Hitler]

Oh? Will you point to the post where I made that bold claim? But if you're unable to do so, will you let me trample you with my feet and spit on you as my prize for winning?

Go back and read -- this discussion only began when one of your wigger brethren claimed that Indians and Sub-Saharans belong to the same race, the black race. Such a stupid statement, but fitting of a wignat.


I see what you're saying -- you wuz sumerian n shiet. Perhaps you've been lurking Stormfront for far too long, or you might have read some wignat racial 'science' book and fancied yourself an intellectual. You're a delusional idiot who's coping with blind racial pride.

The skin color of Levantines can be easily explained by geography. There's no need for your wigger pseudoscience.
View attachment 130190

The farther from the equator you are, the lighter you will be, in general. This is why, for instance, northern Iraqis tend to be lighter-skinned than southern Iraqis (who are, by the way, the descendants of the non-Semitic Sumerians). It's also why gulf Arabs are generally darker than Levantines and North Africans.


No one denies that race and skin color are correlated. Africans tend to be black, Europeans tend to be white. The point is that it isn't a good indicator of race, as an African can be an albino and still be African. Siblings, too, can have varying skin colors, despite being born from the very same parents. Again, if you don't object to this, spare me your pedantry. I've had to repeat myself for far too many times.

This entire post screams jealousy, stupidity, and lazily explained scientific explanations for skin diversity. I will only address your lazily crafted arguments, as the rest are nothing more than assumptions about my supposed false "intellectualism" which I never claimed and your obvious inferiority complex. Your first argument addresses the apparent diversity of skin indexes throughout the middle east and its separation at the equator. While these explanations do fit with the evolutionary model, it's important to address how these skin color changes occurred approximately ten-thousand years prior to this current era. Some scientific explanations put the range within ten thousand to seven thousand. Regardless, skin color patterns show that particular skin colors originated from gene mutations within certain races due to lack of proper exposure to UV rays as they had in their former environment. This means that the occurrence of 'lighter skin' based on the Fitzpatrick scale model, is a genetic mutation that occurred in or around the fertile crescent approximately ten thousand years ago. This would explain why peoples in Europe for thousands of years never had to change skin tones or colorations. These skin traits of humans stayed relatively the same regardless of climate until recently in human evolution. What this indicates is that skin color isn't a trait that changes based on climate very often. However, change in skin color can be explained as an evolutionary mutation within the masses of fertile crescent farmers prior to the Neolithic era. This would explain why modern populations of natives isolated within climates not suited for their phenotype stay the same for over thousands of evolutionary history. Skin color was a SPECIFIC genetic mutation within the areas that predominately consist of what is now the modern-day Caucasian race and its respected sub-racial divisions of Alpinid, Nordid, and Caspian/Med. Thus it's fair to say that lighter skin is more of a gene-specific phenomenon to whites then it is in most other races on this planet. This is why I can see partial validity in the previous users' post. Regarding why certain peoples have lighter skin tones above and darker below the equator, can be explained through a sociological explanation. Ever notice how most Iraqis have darker skin even in the north? This is due to them having descendants in the fertile crescent without the lighter skin mutation. Most northern Iraqis have the same skin tone as their southern counterparts with only partial skin deviation in rare instances. Individuals who have lighter skin, usually have a combination of nordid traits from birth such as blue eyes or even blond or reddish-brown hair. In addition to this, the genetic mutations that occurred in the fertile crescent occurred in the northern isolated regions where many farmers had specifically isolated and bred their Nordid populations. The southern isolated regions stayed browner and less intermingled with the northern Nordid counterparts. This explains most of the north and south division of the fertile crescent in terms of skin color variation. Now for your last argument, Albinism is a genetic condition just like the white skin mutation. However, its gene doesn't persist within a given population until every few generations. Even then, the gene is often completely eradicated through generations. The unique aspect of the white skin mutation is how it persists in a given population. Children born to parents who have different skin colors may have inherited a distant gene that has been passed down over thousands of years. This is still a case within Indian populations which have the persisting characteristics of green eyes from thousands of years of nordid invasions.

 

[Wiseman]

This entire post screams jealousy, stupidity, and lazily explained scientific explanations for skin diversity. I will only address your lazily crafted arguments, as the rest are nothing more than assumptions about my supposed false "intellectualism" which I never claimed and your obvious inferiority complex.

Ethnics be jealous of muh aryan genes. We wuz sumerian nigga we built ziggurats n shiet. Ishtar was a nordid white kween, nigga.

Your first argument addresses the apparent diversity of skin indexes throughout the middle east and its separation at the equator. While these explanations do fit with the evolutionary model, it's important to address how these skin color changes occurred approximately ten-thousand years prior to this current era. Some scientific explanations put the range within ten thousand to seven thousand. Regardless, skin color patterns show that particular skin colors originated from gene mutations within certain races due to lack of proper exposure to UV rays as they had in their former environment. This means that the occurrence of 'lighter skin' based on the Fitzpatrick scale model, is a genetic mutation that occurred in or around the fertile crescent approximately ten thousand years ago. This would explain why peoples in Europe for thousands of years never had to change skin tones or colorations. These skin traits of humans stayed relatively the same regardless of climate until recently in human evolution. What this indicates is that skin color isn't a trait that changes based on climate very often. However, change in skin color can be explained as an evolutionary mutation within the masses of fertile crescent farmers prior to the Neolithic era. This would explain why modern populations of natives isolated within climates not suited for their phenotype stay the same for over thousands of evolutionary history. Skin color was a SPECIFIC genetic mutation within the areas that predominately consist of what is now the modern-day Caucasian race and its respected sub-racial divisions of Alpinid, Nordid, and Caspian/Med. Thus it's fair to say that lighter skin is more of a gene-specific phenomenon to whites then it is in most other races on this planet. This is why I can see partial validity in the previous users' post.

The specific mutation you speak of is extremely common to many West Eurasian populations; it is hardly exclusive to Europeans. Had it only being present in Europe, it would've made some sense to distinguish 'whites' from non-'whites' using it as a basis. Also, your post implies that a single allele can be completely responsible for a trait as complex as skin color, which isn't the case. Many dark Ethiopians posses the Ala111Thr allele. If you're going to make the argument that anyone who possesses this allele is somehow part European and was granted a glimpse of the white race's magical powers, then I advise you not to be so foolish.

To define a race by skin color, and even more so by a single gene, is plain stupidity. An Indonesian and an Arab can have the same skin color, but they're largely different ethnically. I'm sure you aren't going to deny this; no, you will just have me suffer yet another one of your ramblings about how skin color and genetics are correlated -- a point which I never contended.

Regarding why certain peoples have lighter skin tones above and darker below the equator, can be explained through a sociological explanation. Ever notice how most Iraqis have darker skin even in the north?

Man, you're funny. Seriously, you should consider pursuing a career as a clown.

No, I haven't noticed. In fact, I made the exact opposite assertion in my previous post. Northern Iraqis tend to resemble Levantines more than the southerners of Kufa and Basra. This isn't a secret or anything, it's common knowledge. It also follows the usual pattern you see in West Asia: the farther north you go, the lighter the skin pigmentation becomes. Yemenis and Omanis, at the very south of the region, are the darkest; Anatolians and North Levantines the lightest.

Individuals who have lighter skin, usually have a combination of nordid traits from birth such as blue eyes or even blond or reddish-brown hair. In addition to this, the genetic mutations that occurred in the fertile crescent occurred in the northern isolated regions where many farmers had specifically isolated and bred their Nordid populations. The southern isolated regions stayed browner and less intermingled with the northern Nordid counterparts. This explains most of the north and south division of the fertile crescent in terms of skin color variation.

I guess you were, after all, a Middle Eastern farmer n shiet. The civilizations of the Fertile Crescent would never have existed if not for the superior sperms and eggs of those Nordic farmers you've dreamt up. Your wigger brain is really too simple.

White skin and colored eyes aren't uncommon to Semitic populations; they don't necessarily imply 'European' influence, let alone 'Nordid'.
It is widely accepted that Middle Eastern farmers migrated and brought farming to Europe, but I'm not going to assert that Europeans are deep-down Middle Eastern in order to claim their achievements, as that would be quite wigger-ish of me.

Now for your last argument, Albinism is a genetic condition just like the white skin mutation. However, its gene doesn't persist within a given population until every few generations. Even then, the gene is often completely eradicated through generations. The unique aspect of the white skin mutation is how it persists in a given population.

But an albino African is just as African as any other, thus proving my point that using skin color as a criteria for race is idiotic. This will be the last time I repeat this self-evident fact that even a monkey wouldn't fail to grasp.

By the way, you have yet to point to the post where I said that skin color and race are separated to a large degree. Will you grant me my winning prize now? I'm itching for it.

 

[Wonder]

Races are not equal but we should strive to treat everyone equally, while at the same time recognizing our differences. I falit at the part where I have to treat everyone equally.

 

[Mainländer]

Racial realist. The differences between the races are obvious, but it's more about averages than anything really. There are smart, civilized, honest and good-looking people among all races, but the proportions vary wildly.