NationStates Jolt Archive

I always see the xenophobic arguements as pretty one-sided. Just to put a different perspective on things;

1) We white people are not dying out, we are Aryanising the other peoples and so eradicating pure African, Asian and South American strains. Those coloreds better watch out, cause we are going to through seduction inferioirize their races through our genes.

2) White people as an a pure ethnic group will die out. Well I doubt that, I know at least one country which has a white population and a high amount of children exists. Iran. Even the name Iran derives from the word Aryan. They may be muslim, however ethnically they are not arabs or turks. Look at a picture of most Iranians they are paler then most spaniards and italians. The Persian emperor Xerxes held as one of his proud titles, Emperor of the Aryans.

3) White and black genes are both exempt from dominant/recessive faults. I believe both are dominants, causing the child to usually be lighter than the dark member of the family and darker than the light element of the family. So multi-racial marriages also ruin the racial profile of the non-white side of the family. Since once a black person marries a white person, all his descendants will always carry with them white genes. I.e In east mongolia every once in a while a mongolian is born with blond hair, and rarer still blue eyes (this is explained through the fact that the formerly a european tribe immigrated and mixed with the mongols. Presumably this european tribe only had a few hundred members, hence why the results of the shared ancestry are only shown every generation or two in one or two individuals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_DN1OrD7Ng&mode=related&search=

comedy Gold

http://www.asiafolks.com/index.php?showtopic=211&pid=1315&st=0&#entry1315


Blond mongolians :D

I love hispanic people... (how is that for racism :) )

I always see the xenophobic arguements as pretty one-sided. Just to put a different perspective on things;

1) We white people are not dying out, we are Aryanising the other peoples and so eradicating pure African, Asian and South American strains. Those coloreds better watch out, cause we are going to through seduction inferioirize their races through our genes.


The thing is whites are like 10% of the world population. There wont be much "Aryanising".


2) White people as an a pure ethnic group will die out. Well I doubt that, I know at least one country which has a white population and a high amount of children exists. Iran. Even the name Iran derives from the word Aryan. They may be muslim, however ethnically they are not arabs or turks. Look at a picture of most Iranians they are paler then most spaniards and italians. The Persian emperor Xerxes held as one of his proud titles, Emperor of the Aryans.


Yes, I've seen Iranians and they werent white. "most Iranians they are paler then most spaniards and italians". That's just crap.


3) White and black genes are both exempt from dominant/recessive faults. I believe both are dominants, causing the child to usually be lighter than the dark member of the family and darker than the light element of the family. So multi-racial marriages also ruin the racial profile of the non-white side of the family. Since once a black person marries a white person, all his descendants will always carry with them white genes. I.e In east mongolia every once in a while a mongolian is born with blond hair, and rarer still blue eyes (this is explained through the fact that the formerly a european tribe immigrated and mixed with the mongols. Presumably this european tribe only had a few hundred members, hence why the results of the shared ancestry are only shown every generation or two in one or two individuals.

Yes but most white traits, like blond, blue eyes etc... are recessive. Although there are nonwhite blond, blue eyed people, etc, these are very rare. So that's why I called them white traits...

The thing is whites are like 10% of the world population. There wont be much "Aryanising".

ah but we have the albinos on our side ;)

Yes, I've seen Iranians and they werent white. "most Iranians they are paler then most spaniards and italians". That's just crap.

and I've seen white Iranians and Indians it depends on area really though most Iranians are in fact white

Yes but most white traits, like blond, blue eyes etc... are recessive. Although there are nonwhite blond, blue eyed people, etc, these are very rare. So that's why I called them white traits...

blondes where going along dying out long before globalization

Black/Brown hair, Brown eyes, Pinkish skin...... They're the evil ones... all those dominant genes they have there... evil!!
Wait...... I one of them... do'h

I am Iranian. My skin color is not white but that of some of my relatives is. Ethnically, however, I am Aryan (one of the reasons the Iranian government sided with Hitler in WW2)

ah but we have the albinos on our side ;)



<snip>

New Jersey has a whole village of them.

http://www.weirdnj.com/stories/_night04.asp

Yes, I've seen Iranians and they werent white. "most Iranians they are paler then most spaniards and italians". That's just crap.

i know two iranians. one looks like she could well be from italy or spain, the other has blonde hair and blue eyes and if she hadn't told me she was from iran i could easily have believed she was from northern europe.

http://www.asiafolks.com/index.php?showtopic=211&pid=1315&st=0&#entry1315


Blond mongolians :D

They look like they're mixed Eurasian.
They also seem to look albino, yet they're not.

Hmmm.....!!!!

i know two iranians. one looks like she could well be from italy or spain, the other has blonde hair and blue eyes and if she hadn't told me she was from iran i could easily have believed she was from northern europe.

Same here. Out of the many Iranians I knew, there were quite a lot at my school due to them being the children of those who fled the Islamic revolution.
Only 1 out of the 8 had darker skin. And that was because his grandmother was a pashtun. Of course they all had names such as Khaled and Massoum, but two of them had blond hair with one of them having blue eyes radiant enough to come from Sweden. The rest had dark brown, and one of them light brown hair. And dark brown eyes is the sheer majority though.
But even the darker skinned one, could count as a Maltese or Sicilian, in skin tone if one wanted to make a direct comparison.

Some pictures of Iranians;

http://www.iraniansca.com/img/model02.jpg

http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~nima/photo/iranian%20boys.JPG

Now compare their skin color to any europeans.



Yes those Mongolians are really curious. You see that family that had all blue eyes, the mother and her two kids.

The annoying thng is when Iranians are called Arabs. I have nothing against Arabs but I am not one.

The annoying thng is when Iranians are called Arabs. I have nothing against Arabs but I am not one.

out os amusment i'm now dedicating my self to learn farsi.

i know two iranians. one looks like she could well be from italy or spain, the other has blonde hair and blue eyes and if she hadn't told me she was from iran i could easily have believed she was from northern europe.

Blond hair and blue eyes are very rare there. See:

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Frost_06.html

And I still dont think they are as pale as Italians and Spanish, on avarage. When watching news, during rallies or stuff in Iran, with lots of people, all of them look mid eastern to me.

ah but we have the albinos on our side ;)


Which is like 0.0001% of the world population? Albinos are very rare...



and I've seen white Iranians and Indians it depends on area really though most Iranians are in fact white


I disagree. They may be Caucasian but not white. In Austalia, even some Med Europeans arent seen as white. Google "wog".



blondes where going along dying out long before globalization

I dont think so. Nordic countries are either majority blond or almost majority blond. And there are communities like Amish, which reject values of the society they are in...

Which is like 0.0001% of the world population? Albinos are very rare...

I disagree. They may be Caucasian but not white. In Austalia, even some Med Europeans arent seen as white. Google "wog".

I dont think so. Nordic countries are either majority blond or almost majority blond. And there are communities like Amish, which reject values of the society they are in...

Give me a scientific, DNA-based definition of "white".

Don't worry, I'll wait...

I am Iranian. My skin color is not white but that of some of my relatives is. Ethnically, however, I am Aryan (one of the reasons the Iranian government sided with Hitler in WW2)

Yes you are Aryan, in a linguistic sense though. That wasnt how Hitler used the term though. He used it to refer northern Europeans. And some Nazis believed Aryans were descendants of Atlantis and were actually not from this world. Something like that...

Give me a scientific, DNA-based definition of "white".

Don't worry, I'll wait...

Give me a scientific definition of "young". Give me a scientific definition of "healthy".

Don't worry, I'll wait...

Same here. Out of the many Iranians I knew, there were quite a lot at my school due to them being the children of those who fled the Islamic revolution.
Only 1 out of the 8 had darker skin. And that was because his grandmother was a pashtun. Of course they all had names such as Khaled and Massoum, but two of them had blond hair with one of them having blue eyes radiant enough to come from Sweden. The rest had dark brown, and one of them light brown hair. And dark brown eyes is the sheer majority though.
But even the darker skinned one, could count as a Maltese or Sicilian, in skin tone if one wanted to make a direct comparison.

Some pictures of Iranians;

http://www.iraniansca.com/img/model02.jpg

http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~nima/photo/iranian%20boys.JPG

Now compare their skin color to any europeans.



Yes those Mongolians are really curious. You see that family that had all blue eyes, the mother and her two kids.

I think this is as scientific as we can get:

"Data for native populations collected by R. Biasutti prior to 1940"

Use with caution; The best known of these maps is that composed by the Italian geographer Renato Biasutti, which was based on von Luschan's chromatic scale. This map has gained broad circulation in several widely distributed publications (Barsh 2003, Lewontin 1995, Roberts 1977, Walter 1971), despite the fact that, for areas with no data, Biasutti simply filled in the map by extrapolation from findings obtained in other areas [1].

Plate carrée projection, coastal outline based on Image:Earth_satellite_plane.jpg. Biasutti data copied manually from Image:Map of skin color distribution.gif

The 'white' streak across Morocco and Algeria was not present in the original map by Biasutti, but it appeared on later maps and has probably no basis in reality. Biasutti's own map shows an intermediate skin tone value in this band. The map's intended use is in articles dealing with the history of the notion of race, and it should not be used as an up-to-date reference.

(From English Wikipedia. Originally uploaded by en:User:Dbachmann. See en:Image:Map_of_skin_hue_equi.png).


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Map_of_skin_hue_equi.png

Give me a scientific definition of "young". Give me a scientific definition of "healthy".

Don't worry, I'll wait...

You're the one tossing around "Aryan" and "white" as though they were scientifically defined.

Still, I'll wait.

You're the one tossing around "Aryan" and "white" as though they were scientifically defined.



When? Which post?

Which is like 0.0001% of the world population? Albinos are very rare...

about 1 in 75 are carriers of the gene

I disagree. They may be Caucasian but not white. In Austalia, even some Med Europeans arent seen as white. Google "wog".


actually there more French than med (http://www.bakterienkultur.de/blog/uploaded_images/IMG_4536_new.jpg)

I dont think so. Nordic countries are either majority blond or almost majority blond. And there are communities like Amish, which reject values of the society they are in...

blonde isn't a dominant gene and so every time a blonde breeds with a lets say a brunette that blonde gene is gone forever

SNIP

why are Chinese put in the same group as Spaniards:confused:

why are Chinese put in the same group as Spaniards:confused:

Because their skin colour are similar. You can set them apart by their eyes though...

Because their skin colour are similar. You can set them apart by their eyes though...

so when I get a good tan I become asian?

Because their skin colour are similar. You can set them apart by their eyes though...

Show me the science, please.

Amazing to point out that the genetic difference concerning skin, eyes and hair between humans is very much unnoticeable in the human genome

Show me the science, please.

Ahh...so many things...Here's a start:


Recent research indicates that self-described race is a near-perfect indicator of an individual's genetic profile, at least in the United States. Using 326 genetic markers, Tang et al. (2005) identified 4 genetic clusters among 3,636 individuals sampled from 15 locations in the United States, and were able to correctly assign individuals to groups that correspond with their self-described race ("white", "African American", "East Asian", or "Hispanic") for all but 5 individuals (an error rate of 0.14%). They conclude that ancient ancestry, which correlates tightly with self-described race and not current residence, is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population.

http://shrn.stanford.edu/workshops/revisitingrace/Risch_confound.pdf

I always see the xenophobic arguements as pretty one-sided. Just to put a different perspective on things;

1) We white people are not dying out, we are Aryanising the other peoples and so eradicating pure African, Asian and South American strains. Those coloreds better watch out, cause we are going to through seduction inferioirize their races through our genes.

2) White people as an a pure ethnic group will die out. Well I doubt that, I know at least one country which has a white population and a high amount of children exists. Iran. Even the name Iran derives from the word Aryan. They may be muslim, however ethnically they are not arabs or turks. Look at a picture of most Iranians they are paler then most spaniards and italians. The Persian emperor Xerxes held as one of his proud titles, Emperor of the Aryans.

3) White and black genes are both exempt from dominant/recessive faults. I believe both are dominants, causing the child to usually be lighter than the dark member of the family and darker than the light element of the family. So multi-racial marriages also ruin the racial profile of the non-white side of the family. Since once a black person marries a white person, all his descendants will always carry with them white genes. I.e In east mongolia every once in a while a mongolian is born with blond hair, and rarer still blue eyes (this is explained through the fact that the formerly a european tribe immigrated and mixed with the mongols. Presumably this european tribe only had a few hundred members, hence why the results of the shared ancestry are only shown every generation or two in one or two individuals.

Believe it or not - 30 % of the european population, can geneticaly related to each other through one single person: Ghenkis Khan!

Believe it or not - 30 % of the european population, can geneticaly related to each other through one single person: Ghenkis Khan!

And I suppose you wont be able to provide a link to back that up...

Some pictures of Iranians;

http://www.iraniansca.com/img/model02.jpg

http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~nima/photo/iranian%20boys.JPG

Now compare their skin color to any europeans.
Wow, those people are all pastier than me and I'm 100% of European descent. And not even southern Europe, like, I'm part irish.

I dont think so. Nordic countries are either majority blond or almost majority blond. And there are communities like Amish, which reject values of the society they are in...
Did you know that Sweden has the world's highest consumption of bleach for hair per capita?

Not all those scandinavian blondes are naturally so.

blonde isn't a dominant gene and so every time a blonde breeds with a lets say a brunette that blonde gene is gone forever
Uh, no. Let's break it down this way. We have a blonde woman, her hair colour alleles are bb (two blonde alleles) she marries a brunette man whose hair colour alleles could be Bb (one allele for brown, one for blonde) or BB (two allelese for brown). They have children. If the man has BB as his alleles, the couple will not have blonde children. If he has Bb as his alleles, then there's a 50% chance of having a blonde kid. Even if his alleles are BB, all their children will have Bb as their alleles for hair colour, so if one of them goes and marries a blonde, or someone else with Bb alleles for hair colour, then it's possible for them to have a blonde kid.

Did you know that Sweden has the world's highest consumption of bleach for hair per capita?

Not all those scandinavian blondes are naturally so.

A lot of them are redheads. Red hair is quite common in Scandinavian countries.

Ahh...so many things...Here's a start:


http://shrn.stanford.edu/workshops/revisitingrace/Risch_confound.pdf
This says nothing of the global population of humans. All it says is that people from different "racial groups" who migrated to the US are genetically similar.

It's a bit of a bottleneck effect, like how a chinese person might be more closely related genetically to a french person than one person from africa is to another.

A lot of them are redheads. Red hair is quite common in Scandinavian countries.
Yeah, although red hair is most common in Scotland, with Ireland a close second, if I'm not mistaken.

(I read the wiki articles about hair colour a while ago... useless information is good :P)

Did you know that Sweden has the world's highest consumption of bleach for hair per capita?

Not all those scandinavian blondes are naturally so.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/Light_hair_coloration_map.PNG

This is a derivative work from a free-use map I found on Wikipedia link. I recolored it. It is a recreation of anthropologist Robert Frost's study on light hair color link. The yellow represents 80%+ light hair, light orange is 50-79% light hair, light brown is 20-49% light hair, dark brown is 1-19% light hair, and black represents no presence of light hair in the indigenous population. I plan to use it in a template where I will label these percentages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Light_hair_coloration_map.PNG

based on

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Frost_06.html

Yeah, although red hair is most common in Scotland, with Ireland a close second, if I'm not mistaken.

(I read the wiki articles about hair colour a while ago... useless information is good :P)

And lucky me, my genes are totally White. Heh, even my Native American ones seem to be (Cherokee/Chickasaw; that whole Blackhawk thing seems to have been a fluke).

I'm extremely white, to the point of having a pinkish hue.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/Light_hair_coloration_map.PNG

This is a derivative work from a free-use map I found on Wikipedia link. I recolored it. It is a recreation of anthropologist Robert Frost's study on light hair color link. The yellow represents 80%+ light hair, light orange is 50-79% light hair, light brown is 20-49% light hair, dark brown is 1-19% light hair, and black represents no presence of light hair in the indigenous population. I plan to use it in a template where I will label these percentages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Light_hair_coloration_map.PNG

based on

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Frost_06.html

Ok?

And what do you think this means?

Personally, I think that it's due to the fact that light hair often correlates with light skin and in northern latitudes, it is an advantage to have light skin for absorbing vitamin D (good for fetal development) and to some extent it might be the result of sexual selection, a certain community determines that blondes are hot, the blondes have more babies, they begin to make up a greater percentage of the population. Blondes aren't special or superior to anyone else, they just have different coloured hair. Blonde hair is also found in all racial groups (despite your incorrect claims of it not being found in the region you have coloured black) just in different proportions.

And lucky me, my genes are totally White. Heh, even my Native American ones seem to be (Cherokee/Chickasaw; that whole Blackhawk thing seems to have been a fluke).

I'm extremely white, to the point of having a pinkish hue.
My genes are "totally white" but I'm still a lot darker than a lot of "non-whites", and my skin definitely has olive undertones.

Blondes aren't special or superior to anyone else, they just have different coloured hair. Blonde hair is also found in all racial groups (despite your incorrect claims of it not being found in the region you have coloured black) just in different proportions.

I saw a report on the ABC news a few years back that said different hair colors corresponded to different amounts of hair.

Blondes, on average, had the most hair, with over 200,000 strands (Platinum blondes having the most, close to 300,000). Black was next, with about 150,000 strands on average. Then comes Brown, with about 125,000 strands on average. Last, there's Red, with an average of just over 75,000 strands.

Whether this is true or not, I have no idea. But, I know that I was born Platinum Blonde (it's darkened over the years, but I still have blonde highlights), and several barbers have commented on how unbelievably thick my hair is.

I saw a report on the ABC news a few years back that said different hair colors corresponded to different amounts of hair.

Blondes, on average, had the most hair, with over 200,000 strands (Platinum blondes having the most, close to 300,000). Black was next, with about 150,000 strands on average. Then comes Brown, with about 125,000 strands on average. Last, there's Red, with an average of just over 75,000 strands.

Whether this is true or not, I have no idea. But, I know that I was born Platinum Blonde (it's darkened over the years, but I still have blonde highlights), and several barbers have commented on how unbelievably thick my hair is.
I don't know how set that is... my hair's really thick and it's just brown, one of my friends has really thin hair and her hair's black. I know there is some variation in the number of hair strands based on colour, but I really think there's probably a lot more variety on an individual level than anything.

I don't know how set that is... my hair's really thick and it's just brown, one of my friends has really thin hair and her hair's black. I know there is some variation in the number of hair strands based on colour, but I really think there's probably a lot more variety on an individual level than anything.

Yeah, that's what I'm guessing. I mean, I've seen a lot of blondes with very thin hair.

Yeah, that's what I'm guessing. I mean, I've seen a lot of blondes with very thin hair.
Yeah, see that's the issue with this whole bit of grouping people based on their physical characteristics. You might find some average value, but the individual variety is so wide that the average value is pretty much meaningless.

This is all very interesting. You have to consider where this came from. A European created a bunch of categories for different peoples. He categorized the people by what he thought were the defining characteristics of each people. Before it really got going, it included a lot of things like phrenology, measuring the size and shape of your head to determine your intelligence, measuring your hands to see if you were a craftsman, and other stuff like that. It is amazing that people so readily accept these categories for themselves. The people that created them didn't really have good intentions for the people being measured.

Now it is backfiring, the categories are being changed to match what people want to be called and it is causing a lot of bizarre claims and weird problems. The opposite of using race to classify someone clearly is using ability or belief to classify someone.

Some people are trying to use the bizarre claims of ethnic superiority made by the nazis and eugenicists for their own purposes. Things like the Hindu extremists claiming Aryan descent to attack Muslims. Or the Iranians claiming they are Aryans. It is very weird. A lot of the old myths are coming back in new clothing.

My mother was Basque{?} and italian, my father was English and German. I'm the ideal Aryan male, I suppose, except for being a gimp with a bum hip. Tall, blonde, blue-green eyes. My wife is half Mexican and... mut. No one seems to know, but our kids both turned out pale skinned. Brooke is pure blonde and icy blue eyes, but my son got dark hair and and very dark eyes. /random personal info.

I knew a blonde, grey-eyed Iranian girl who was pretty much the most beautiful specimen I've ever had the pleasure to lay eyes on. She was born in Europe, but her parents were fresh immigrants from Iran, and soon after moved to the States. She was gorgeous, and looked fresh from Austria. The 'We can make beautiful Aryan babi3s!' argument was probably the only one I didn't try on her, and was probably the one that would have worked. DAMN! I chased her for years, and even got a little delicious action once, but sadly she had the snatch on lockdown and sent me on my way. :(

In ten thousand years, when my bones are dust and my memory forgotten by mankind, there is going to be a small part of me still left, saying 'Damn... I wish I could have nailed her.'

This says nothing of the global population of humans. All it says is that people from different "racial groups" who migrated to the US are genetically similar.

It's a bit of a bottleneck effect, like how a chinese person might be more closely related genetically to a french person than one person from africa is to another.

Not really. Human genetic variation is geographically structured. It's what the quote confirms actually.


Ok?

And what do you think this means?

Personally, I think that it's due to the fact that light hair often correlates with light skin and in northern latitudes, it is an advantage to have light skin for absorbing vitamin D (good for fetal development) and to some extent it might be the result of sexual selection, a certain community determines that blondes are hot, the blondes have more babies, they begin to make up a greater percentage of the population. Blondes aren't special or superior to anyone else, they just have different coloured hair. Blonde hair is also found in all racial groups (despite your incorrect claims of it not being found in the region you have coloured black) just in different proportions.

LOL. I didnt do the map. I should have probably put the text in quotes. I copy&pasted the text in Wiki link.
And the map means that some Nordic populations are either majority blond or almost majority blond, as I claimed before...
And while blond hair is found in some racial groups (are they found in unmixed sub saharan africans?), it's quite rare in non-whites. That's a big difference.

My mother was Basque{?} and italian, my father was English and German. I'm the ideal Aryan male, I suppose, except for being a gimp with a bum hip. Tall, blonde, blue-green eyes. My wife is half Mexican and... mut. No one seems to know, but our kids both turned out pale skinned. Brooke is pure blonde and icy blue eyes, but my son got dark hair and and very dark eyes. /random personal info.

That's very common in Mexican families that tend to be very mixed. Some children will have light hair and white skin, like my sister; and others will have brown skin and black hair, like my other sister and me. In my extended family you find practically the entire range of colors except the extremes. Extremes get "diluted".

Not really. Human genetic variation is geographically structured. It's what the quote confirms actually.
Actually, there is more genetic variety in the human population of Africa than there is for the human population of anywhere else in the world. We evolved in Africa and only a small bit of the population left Africa, so only a (comparitively) small part of the gene pool went on to populate the rest of the world. So you, of European descent (I assume) are more closely related to an Australian aborginee than a man of Egyptian ancestry is to a man of South African ancestory. Seriously, look it up.

Also, the map you linked to still sucks, did you miss the pictures of all the blonde mongolians earlier? Should I bring up some pictures of blonde aborginees? Or green eyed Afghanis?

Because their skin colour are similar. You can set them apart by their eyes though...

:p
i thought this was funny

I think I wrote something about this when I was in a schizotypal episode type phase....

a few hundred years ago, Europeans believed they where better. They where clearly, intrinsicly, superior. Obviously - they had the big boats, they had the big guns, they had the big religion. Everyone else was below, Europeans where above. We now know these beliefs and practices as "racism". But then Europeans became enlightened. They realized this was a pretty bad way to think about the rest of humanity. So they formulated a new belief: "equality". The evils of the past eras were realized. Non-Europeans where not below Europeans. They where on the same level - everyone was European!

Only I think they got it wrong.

Europeans... are not European. Once upon a time, we had a real culture, we had real ways of life. We were savages, we were natives. We were ethnic. But it was taken from us, taken from us by an insidious cult of hate known as Christianity. It taught us to hate our nature, to destroy what was beautiful in ourselves. And when we'd destroyed everything beautiful in our own people - we turned to the rest of the world. Now, barely two thousand years after Europe first started to succomb to this cultural cancer, we've forgotten what it was like to view ourselves naturally. To view ourselves as part of the world rather than superior to it. And now, even worse, we're still exporting our hatred of self to everyone else. Christianity makes way for secular vapidness, but it's the same message - pretend you're better than human, pretend you're rational, pretend you're not your body, pretend that the world is a resource.

The "savages" of the imperialist/racist era are not, and should not, be civilized, rational, "christianized" human beings. It's the civilized human beings, the Europeans, that should be becoming savages again. Equality is the wrong way round.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/Light_hair_coloration_map.PNG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Light_hair_coloration_map.PNG

based on

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Frost_06.html

so the blondest people are the finno-ugric.
Since the blondest regions appear to be in finland or Lappland. intersting.

edit: just been looking around on wiki.
the regions covered in that graph where 80% are blonde, seems for norway to be 586000 people (country has 4600000 people) and for sweden the regions covered have a population of 940000 (out of 9000000)

Actually, there is more genetic variety in the human population of Africa than there is for the human population of anywhere else in the world. We evolved in Africa and only a small bit of the population left Africa, so only a (comparitively) small part of the gene pool went on to populate the rest of the world. So you, of European descent (I assume) are more closely related to an Australian aborginee than a man of Egyptian ancestry is to a man of South African ancestory. Seriously, look it up.

Also, the map you linked to still sucks, did you miss the pictures of all the blonde mongolians earlier? Should I bring up some pictures of blonde aborginees? Or green eyed Afghanis?

As I said before, those kinda Afghanis and aborigines DO exist. However, they are extremely rare. Read the .edu source in my map post.

so the blondest people are the finno-ugric.
Since the blondest regions appear to be in finland or Lappland. intersting.

edit: just been looking around on wiki.
the regions covered in that graph where 80% are blonde, seems for norway to be 586000 people (country has 4600000 people) and for sweden the regions covered have a population of 940000 (out of 9000000)

Lapps/Samis are very few. So they would not affect colouring maps much due to the fact that they are a small percentage, even in most northern areas. And yes, the yellow area in Sweden and Norway arent very populous. However the orange area still got 50-79% light hair, hence majority blond/red...

I always see the xenophobic arguements as pretty one-sided. Just to put a different perspective on things;

2) White people as an a pure ethnic group will die out. Well I doubt that, I know at least one country which has a white population and a high amount of children exists. Iran. Even the name Iran derives from the word Aryan. They may be muslim, however ethnically they are not arabs or turks. Look at a picture of most Iranians they are paler then most spaniards and italians. The Persian emperor Xerxes held as one of his proud titles, Emperor of the Aryans.

3) White and black genes are both exempt from dominant/recessive faults. I believe both are dominants, causing the child to usually be lighter than the dark member of the family and darker than the light element of the family. So multi-racial marriages also ruin the racial profile of the non-white side of the family. Since once a black person marries a white person, all his descendants will always carry with them white genes. I.e In east mongolia every once in a while a mongolian is born with blond hair, and rarer still blue eyes (this is explained through the fact that the formerly a european tribe immigrated and mixed with the mongols. Presumably this european tribe only had a few hundred members, hence why the results of the shared ancestry are only shown every generation or two in one or two individuals.

I'm actually suprised at your apparent lack of intelligence.
Firstly, how are you defining "white"? I am predominantly of Hungarian descent, with a little bit of Bulgarian, English, German and Welsh in the mix, and I live in (the relatively multi-cultural) Australia. I'm pretty much the palest person I know, but I'm technically European. I have dark hair and eyes, so technically I would have been slaughtered during Hilter's time. From what I've heard, (from Rotovia) is that Hilter actually thought it was important to preserve the "black" race.

I'm in an inter-racial relationship, and my fiance is "coloured" (according to South Africa: this means he is not purely African). There is no proof that the offspring of parents from different backgrounds will have more of one race's genes than another. [Apparently] the only dark-skinned race that is able to be "erradicated" is the Australian Aboriginals, because there are never "throw-backs" (meaning as they mix more and more with "white" Australians, their skin will always become lighter). Anyway, I would never refer to any mixed-race child as having a "ruined racial profile".

In fact, I believe it is improved. I'd love to witness a Utopia, in which everyone was the colour of a cup of coffee. Maybe then there won't be rediculous stereotypes and racism.

I disagree. They may be Caucasian but not white. In Austalia, even some Med Europeans arent seen as white. Google "wog".

The term "wog" has become so distorted, it's practically redundant. Me (Alemannic German/Ukrainian) and my mates (Croatian) are considered wogs.

The term "wog" has become so distorted, it's practically redundant. Me (Alemannic German/Ukrainian) and my mates (Croatian) are considered wogs.

My Hungarian mother used to get called a "wog".

I always see the xenophobic arguements as pretty one-sided. Just to put a different perspective on things;

1) We white people are not dying out, we are Aryanising the other peoples and so eradicating pure African, Asian and South American strains. Those coloreds better watch out, cause we are going to through seduction inferioirize their races through our genes.

2) White people as an a pure ethnic group will die out. Well I doubt that, I know at least one country which has a white population and a high amount of children exists. Iran. Even the name Iran derives from the word Aryan. They may be muslim, however ethnically they are not arabs or turks. Look at a picture of most Iranians they are paler then most spaniards and italians. The Persian emperor Xerxes held as one of his proud titles, Emperor of the Aryans.

3) White and black genes are both exempt from dominant/recessive faults. I believe both are dominants, causing the child to usually be lighter than the dark member of the family and darker than the light element of the family. So multi-racial marriages also ruin the racial profile of the non-white side of the family. Since once a black person marries a white person, all his descendants will always carry with them white genes. I.e In east mongolia every once in a while a mongolian is born with blond hair, and rarer still blue eyes (this is explained through the fact that the formerly a european tribe immigrated and mixed with the mongols. Presumably this european tribe only had a few hundred members, hence why the results of the shared ancestry are only shown every generation or two in one or two individuals.


White people..too many white people....:eek: :eek: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:


Just a way of saying i don't take you seriously.

The annoying thng is when Iranians are called Arabs. I have nothing against Arabs but I am not one.

Any shia be it in Iran or parts of Iraq are not Arab. That is a blanket use of a people to describe anyone from the middle east. Egyptians or anyone from Africa are not Arab. Turks are not Arabs. The only Arabs are the ones from the Arabian peninisula. Even Palestinians are not Arabs for the most part. Even though they will wear that mantle in the west.

I'm actually suprised at your apparent lack of intelligence.
Firstly, how are you defining "white"? I am predominantly of Hungarian descent, with a little bit of Bulgarian, English, German and Welsh in the mix, and I live in (the relatively multi-cultural) Australia. I'm pretty much the palest person I know, but I'm technically European. I have dark hair and eyes, so technically I would have been slaughtered during Hilter's time. From what I've heard, (from Rotovia) is that Hilter actually thought it was important to preserve the "black" race.

I'm in an inter-racial relationship, and my fiance is "coloured" (according to South Africa: this means he is not purely African). There is no proof that the offspring of parents from different backgrounds will have more of one race's genes than another. [Apparently] the only dark-skinned race that is able to be "erradicated" is the Australian Aboriginals, because there are never "throw-backs" (meaning as they mix more and more with "white" Australians, their skin will always become lighter). Anyway, I would never refer to any mixed-race child as having a "ruined racial profile".

In fact, I believe it is improved. I'd love to witness a Utopia, in which everyone was the colour of a cup of coffee. Maybe then there won't be rediculous stereotypes and racism.

It wasn't lack of intelligence. It was a crack of cynicism at all the White/Black hype (And Ny Nordland posters who always becry the extinction of the white race) which you obviously lacked the depth to see or comprehend. Reread what I wrote and it should dawn on you. Although I could have taken the precaution and added a "lol" at the end to make it more obvious for some, however I deemed it unnecessary.

Also yes, what many people didn't know. The original planning of Hitler was to preserve and seperate all races and not allow any intermingling. I.e originally the Jews were to be deported to Madagascar, it was only that in the middle of the war the impracticality and resourcefull undertaking of such a plan was seen as not achievable while fighting. Hence even the term "Final" Solution. I will give you right on that.

Also where do you get the idea that Hitler would want you exterminated? The Hungarians fought for the Axis in world war II, almost 120,000 of them died in the battle of Stalingrad in the name of the Axis powers, and were allied the National Socialist State.

Also interestingly I doubt a Utopia of all same colored people will be nigh impossible. Even as I have shown before, with the blond and blue eyed Mongolians, genetics cannot be bent or defeated one way or another. There will always be people with different features, simply because possibly both parents have the recessives. I.e the meiotic division of human sex cells, ensures genetic variation. Meaning there will always be in a population dark skinned, light skinned, blond haired, or dark eyed people. It is only the percentage that can change. Unless in genocide where one would eradicate a whole strain from the gene pool, then perhaps that utopia is managable.

White people..too many white people....:eek: :eek: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:


Just a way of saying i don't take you seriously.

Read previous post first paragraph, mr sniper emoticon.

None of this does anything but mention race, therefore this discussion is not even the slightest bit about the opposite of racism. Virtually every post is about race. The opposite of racism has to be measuring someone by something other than race-- merit, skill, religion, etc.

My genes are "totally white" but I'm still a lot darker than a lot of "non-whites", and my skin definitely has olive undertones.
It's called sun tan.