Caucasians

[steve789]

As for Iranians calling the Danes "cousins"...not very likely, unlesss we are talkinag about very distant cousins.

But closer than Lapps, Scandinavians and Tamils. This evidence together with the linguistic trail points to a common and relatively recent ancestry.

Not even close. I have never heard any credible genetic scientist ever make the claim that Danish people are closer related to Iranians then they are to Scandinavians. Genetically the Danes are FAR more closely related to Scandinavians then they ever were to Iranians.

"[Haplogroup I] lineages are nearly completely restricted to northwestern Europe. These would most likely have been common within Viking populations. One lineage of this group extends down into central Europe." Viking invasions of England were common, and Danes even ruled a section of England for a time, called the Danelaw. The Norman invasions after 1066 brought more Viking genes, as the Normans were Vikings who had previously settled in France. However, the lineage extending down into central Europe would also include the Angles and Saxons, who invaded England at the end of Roman times. The ancestors of Gordon Pace of Canada, whose DNA matches the John of Middlesex group, trace to near the English/Welsh border. A British study found heavy concentrations of Danish/Anglo Saxon genes in this area. (The Angles and Saxons came from an area bordering on Denmark and their DNA cannot be clearly separated from the Scandinavian DNA.) Haplogroup I Y-chromosomes have also been found among some populations of the Europe and Anatolia at frequencies exceeding 10% particularly among Germanic, Slavic, Uralic, as well as among the Romance-speaking populations of France, Romania, Moldova, and Sardinia, the Albanian-speaking population of Albania, the Greek-speaking population of Greece, and Turkic peoples of Anatolia.

http://www.orkneyjar.com/history/vikingorkney/genetics.htm

Haplogroup R1b - originated prior to or during the last glaciation, when it was concentrated in refugia in southern Europe and the Aegean. It is the most common haplogroup in Europe, but has been found at low frequency as far away as Iran and Korea. In southern England the frequency of R1b is about 70%; in parts of Spain, Portugal, Wales and Ireland, it is as high as 90%; and in parts of north-western Ireland it reaches 98%. The R1b clade appears to have a much higher degree of internal diversity than R1a, which suggests that the M343 mutation that derives R1b from R1* may have occurred considerably earlier than the SRY1532 mutation that defines R1a. R1b (previously called Hg1 and Eu18) is the most frequent Y-chromosome haplogroup in Europe.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/...22/10/1964/FIG6

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Danish...ixed_columns=on

Haplogroup U (mtDNA): - Haplogroup U is believed to have arisen somewhere in Near East around 50,000 to 55,000 years before present. It is found throughout Europe, and contains many subgroups, each reflecting unique geography and history.

Haplogroup U5

Haplogroup U5 was the very first mtDNA haplogroup to settle Europe, approximately 40,000 years ago, at a time when many other mtDNA and Y-chromosome haplogroups were arising far to the East. Haplogroup U5 originated somewhere between Turkey and the Ukraine, possibly in the Balkan region.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_U_...9#Haplogroup_U5

Haplogroup U7

Many European populations lack Haplogroup U7, but its frequency climbs over 4% in the Near East and up to 5% in Pakistan, reaching nearly 10% level in Iranians. In India, haplogroup U7 frequency peaks at over 12% in Gujarat, the westernmost state of India, while for the whole of India its frequency stays around 2%. Expansion times and haplotype diversities for the Indian and Near and Middle Eastern U7 mtDNAs are strikingly similar. The possible homeland of this haplogroup spans Indian Gujarat and Iran because from there its frequency declines steeply both to the east and to the west. If the origin were in Iran rather than in India, then its equally high frequency as well as diversity in Gujarat favors a scenario whereby U7 has been introduced to the coastal western India either very early, or by multiple founders.

http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Metspalu2004.pdf#

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_U_...9#Haplogroup_U7

[Rue]

I guess this means Paris Hilton is not Sri Lankan after all. Lindsay Lohan is most certainly French. How else can one explain her repeated surrenders.

[M.Dancer]

As for Iranians calling the Danes "cousins"...not very likely, unlesss we are talkinag about very distant cousins.

But closer than Lapps, Scandinavians and Tamils. This evidence together with the linguistic trail points to a common and relatively recent ancestry.

Not even close. I have never heard any credible genetic scientist ever make the claim that Danish people are closer related to Iranians then they are to Scandinavians. Genetically the Danes are FAR more closely related to Scandinavians then they ever were to Iranians.

But the first authority you relied on does...........

According to Cavalli-Sforza they do.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9...eneclusters.jpg

So closely related are the iranians to the Europeans that they can call the Danes cousins

[steve789]

how many times in the last 200 have there been between Indians and Chinese.....? once? Twice?

........If you had no false premises, where would you start from?

Don't know about Indians, though given the many tribes that existed in the continent I would venture to claim fighting between them was more then just once or twice, but I know for a fact in China's history internal fighting between different Chinese ethnicity took place more then just once or twice. Why China has over 5,000 years history and it wasn't until the year 221 BC that internal fighting between different Chinese Dynasties ended under the sword of Qin Shi Huang who unified them under one Empire. Not that the ethnic fighting between them ended, far from it. As long as China's history is, so is her peoples ethnic conflicts, upto modern times.

I don't believe ethnic groups fighting among each other has anything to do with race, nor did one ethnicity have more conflicts then the others. Its human nature. Wars were fought and have been fought since the beginning of history by all humans and animals alike. :-)

[steve789]

As for Iranians calling the Danes "cousins"...not very likely, unlesss we are talkinag about very distant cousins.

But closer than Lapps, Scandinavians and Tamils. This evidence together with the linguistic trail points to a common and relatively recent ancestry.

Not even close. I have never heard any credible genetic scientist ever make the claim that Danish people are closer related to Iranians then they are to Scandinavians. Genetically the Danes are FAR more closely related to Scandinavians then they ever were to Iranians.

But the first authority you relied on does...........

According to Cavalli-Sforza they do.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9...eneclusters.jpg

So closely related are the iranians to the Europeans that they can call the Danes cousins

I believe a lesson is needed on the different MtDNA and YDNA Haplo-subgroups that exist. Cavalli-Sforza findings again do not change what was stated to you from the start - not ALL Caucasoids are the same.

[M.Dancer]

I believe a lesson is needed on the different MtDNA and YDNA Haplo-subgroups that exist. Cavalli-Sforza findings again do not change what was stated to you from the start - not ALL Caucasoids are the same.

I never said they didn't have differences, just that the differnence are minimal. What I maintain is the asssertion that skin colour has something to do with caucasoid is false, which is what you tried to pass off. Or that Caucasian means white, which Scooter would have his fellow nutbars believe......

[steve789]

I believe a lesson is needed on the different MtDNA and YDNA Haplo-subgroups that exist. Cavalli-Sforza findings again do not change what was stated to you from the start - not ALL Caucasoids are the same.

I never said they didn't have differences, just that the differnence are minimal. What I maintain is the asssertion that skin colour has something to do with caucasoid is false, which is what you tried to pass off. Or that Caucasian means white, which Scooter would have his fellow nutbars believe......

Please don't put words in my mouth, I stated and made bold so you would comprehend EUROPEAN Caucasian WHITE. Notice Caucasian wasn't made into bold lettering, go back and re-read how I wrote it for verification. I was under the assumption people would make the connection by "White European" that is what I was talking about, not that Caucasians means only whites. Guess I was mistaken. Like it or not unlike what the PC world likes to fool everyone into thinking, skin tone, among other things, does vary between people, including between people who are Caucasoid, and between people who are Negroid and between people who are Mongoloid etc.. Trying to deny that is as stated before denying reality.

Edited August 1, 2007 by steve789

[M.Dancer]

Don't put words in my mouth, I stated and made bold so you would comprehend EUROPEAN Caucasian WHITE. Notice Caucasian wasn't made into bold lettering, go back and re-read how I wrote it for verification. I was under the assumption any logical person would have known by "White" I meant EUROPEAN, not that Caucasians means white or European only. Guess I was mistaken to make that assumption. Like it or not unlike what the PC world likes to fool everyone into thinking, skin tone does vary between people, including between people who are Caucasoid, and those who are Negroid and those who are Mongoloid. Trying to deny that is as stated before denying reality.

Is that your argument? That skin tones vary between people?

Are you familar with Ann Elk's theory of Dinosaurs?

[M.Dancer]

Hello, a slight correction, based upon facial features and skin tones Greeks are of Caucasian white European origins. This surprised even me when I visited the country for the first time last year. I had a job through a contractor based over there for a year and let me tell, you'll not find many Greeks who are not white European Caucasian. The few that exist are of foreign extraction. What surprised me most was the fact that Greek women are very fair skin toned, even the ones with dark hair and coloring. I ways thought them ME dark but this is not the case. During the winter when they are not working on a tan they get as pale as nothern Europeans. Guess that's their natural skin tone.

You know what would have been really surprising? Greeks of non caucasian non white european orgins....or finding out that non white greeks aren't really non-greeks, that would be suprising too.....only less so....

[steve789]

Don't put words in my mouth, I stated and made bold so you would comprehend EUROPEAN Caucasian WHITE. Notice Caucasian wasn't made into bold lettering, go back and re-read how I wrote it for verification. I was under the assumption any logical person would have known by "White" I meant EUROPEAN, not that Caucasians means white or European only. Guess I was mistaken to make that assumption. Like it or not unlike what the PC world likes to fool everyone into thinking, skin tone does vary between people, including between people who are Caucasoid, and those who are Negroid and those who are Mongoloid. Trying to deny that is as stated before denying reality.

Is that your argument? That skin tones vary between people?

Among other things but given you are one of those who likes to fool himself into believing genetics differences between people are "minimum" it does not surprise me that you would try to lump everyone as the 'same'. I still can't believe you tried to pull that bull that Iranians are closer related to Danish then their Nordic brothers.

Edited August 1, 2007 by steve789

[steve789]

Hello, a slight correction, based upon facial features and skin tones Greeks are of Caucasian white European origins. This surprised even me when I visited the country for the first time last year. I had a job through a contractor based over there for a year and let me tell, you'll not find many Greeks who are not white European Caucasian. The few that exist are of foreign extraction. What surprised me most was the fact that Greek women are very fair skin toned, even the ones with dark hair and coloring. I ways thought them ME dark but this is not the case. During the winter when they are not working on a tan they get as pale as nothern Europeans. Guess that's their natural skin tone.

You know what would have been really surprising? Greeks of non caucasian non white european orgins....or finding out that non white greeks aren't really non-greeks, that would be suprising too.....only less so....

The whole year I was there, I didn't meet one none white European Greek who was of Greek origins that was not of foreign extraction, so if you know of any then please inform us.

Edited August 1, 2007 by steve789

[guyser]

[

Among other things but given you are one of those who likes to fool himself into believing genetics differences between people are "minimum"

Are you saying they are not ?

[M.Dancer]

Among other things but given you are one of those who likes to fool himself into believing genetics differences between people are "minimum" it does not surprise me that you would try to lump everyone as the 'same'.

Ho hum.....not just me......

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/298/5602/2381

Genetic Structure of Human Populations

Noah A. Rosenberg,1* Jonathan K. Pritchard,2 James L. Weber,3 Howard M. Cann,4 Kenneth K. Kidd,5 Lev A. Zhivotovsky,6 Marcus W. Feldman7

We studied human population structure using genotypes at 377 autosomal microsatellite loci in 1056 individuals from 52 populations. Within-population differences among individuals account for 93 to 95% of genetic variation; differences among major groups constitute only 3 to 5%. Nevertheless, without using prior information about the origins of individuals, we identified six main genetic clusters, five of which correspond to major geographic regions, and subclusters that often correspond to individual populations. General agreement of genetic and predefined populations suggests that self-reported ancestry can facilitate assessments of epidemiological risks but does not obviate the need to use genetic information in genetic association studies.

[M.Dancer]

Hello, a slight correction, based upon facial features and skin tones Greeks are of Caucasian white European origins. This surprised even me when I visited the country for the first time last year. I had a job through a contractor based over there for a year and let me tell, you'll not find many Greeks who are not white European Caucasian. The few that exist are of foreign extraction. What surprised me most was the fact that Greek women are very fair skin toned, even the ones with dark hair and coloring. I ways thought them ME dark but this is not the case. During the winter when they are not working on a tan they get as pale as nothern Europeans. Guess that's their natural skin tone.

You know what would have been really surprising? Greeks of non caucasian non white european orgins....or finding out that non white greeks aren't really non-greeks, that would be suprising too.....only less so....

Are you by any chance, quite short?

[steve789]

[

Among other things but given you are one of those who likes to fool himself into believing genetics differences between people are "minimum"

Are you saying they are not ?

I love how the political correctness crowd likes to play this "we are the same" game but can't explain the differences, both genetically and ethnically, in humans. Nope, they only give the "its all cosmetics". Riigghttt. Go on believing that.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6975009/

[steve789]

Hello, a slight correction, based upon facial features and skin tones Greeks are of Caucasian white European origins. This surprised even me when I visited the country for the first time last year. I had a job through a contractor based over there for a year and let me tell, you'll not find many Greeks who are not white European Caucasian. The few that exist are of foreign extraction. What surprised me most was the fact that Greek women are very fair skin toned, even the ones with dark hair and coloring. I ways thought them ME dark but this is not the case. During the winter when they are not working on a tan they get as pale as nothern Europeans. Guess that's their natural skin tone.

Are you by any chance, quite short?

Nope. Are you?

Edited August 1, 2007 by steve789

[FascistLibertarian]

If you don't know the difference between an Iranian and a Scotsman, then I'm sorry for your affliction, but need you celebrate it so loudly?

you could tell the difference 100% of the time eh

Could you also tell the difference between an Irish person and a Scottish person?

What exactly is wrong with the above? Why do you feel a moral imperitive to allow this country to become majority non-caucasian? What is so important about it in your mind?

Wow your silly. Its you who have a problem if whites become a minority, the rest of us dont care.

what I said is that Europe and North Amerioca and Australia are Caucasian homelands at this point in history, and that if and when Caucasians become minorities in them, these countries are, in the event of very probable trouble, no longer havens.

you see Canada as a white homeland.....

you are a racist, just admit it. You favour whites over non whites, you think we should allow more points for white immigrants, you think whites should have more privalages.

Deny the above if you want......

I am talking in these examples of the potential dangers facing our society in general and caucasians specifically if and when caucasians become a minority in their own countries.

What kind of specific dangers do you see?

you manage to capture in one flaccidly liberal sentence the reasons whites should take care not to become powerless minorities in Canada.

A powerless minority...... Yeah right.....

well if it happens you will be long dead anyways.

Your problem is you define yourself on your race. You must not have a lot else going for you then.

Yet you find it somehow sane to mock the possibility...and again I say possibility...that caucasians-by-whatever-name-you-want-to-call-them will suffer when they become minorities in the west. You mock the possibility even in view of the tangible seething hate against caucasians on this very thread. Who is the insane one here?

Show where people have posted things hating whites.

Your the insane one.

But i note that whites are a majoirty and we have things in place ensuring that minorities are protected from people like you.

Why would that change if they became the minority.

This is 2007, sigh, maybe you should build a time machine, then you could live back when everyone was racist like you.

Marry a white person if you want, but the fact that you seem to be against interracial marriages makes you a racist.

[Rue]

O.k. so now that it is all clarified someone please gtell Higgly JP Ricciardi is not one of my people.

Edited August 1, 2007 by Rue

[Rue]

If you don't know the difference between an Iranian and a Scotsman, then I'm sorry for your affliction, but need you celebrate it so loudly?

I heard this routine before;

"What's the difference between an Iranian and a Scotsman.."

"Um I dunno"

"When they go out to dinner the Scotsman and finish their mail the Scotsman just won't pay while the Iranian accuses the Jewish guy at the next table of eating all his food and he insists the Jewish guy should pay."

or

" What's the difference between the Chinese and the Sieks"

" Um I dunno"

" The Chinese had to pay a head tax and died building the railroad, while the Sieks died building the railroad and had to pay head taxes"

or

'What's the difference between an Englishman and a Frenchman in Canada"

" Um I dunno"

"Neither does Justin Trudeau".

[ScottSA]

Then why are you expending all this energy in a ridiculous quest over semantics?

You say Caucasian, you mean white western European. Why are you so afraid to say what you really mean?

If that makes you happy, then I'm quite happy use that descriptor.

How many historical examples of racial harmony for any appreciable length of time can you supply? One? Two?

The US for the last umpteen decades......Brazil, Cuba, UK, Canada, France......there, that's 6 without even breaking into a sweat. There have been more wars by white europeans against white Europeans in the last 200 years than.....how many times in the last 200 have there been between Indians and Chinese.....? once? Twice?

Cute Momo, but I you're leaving out a few inconvenient truths, to borrow from Mr. Gore. I'm not sure the Indians and Blacks would agree with you in the Americas, and the UK and France have had minorities in appreciable quantities for all of 30 years, and even so they are at each other's throats on a regular basis. European wars are interesting but entirely irrelevant to the question, although as a side note it's worth noting that in all of them the method of demonizing the enemy was to accentuate "racial" differences, as with the "hun," etc.

[FascistLibertarian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_F._White

so you would just know he is a black man?

Cute Momo, but I you're leaving out a few inconvenient truths, to borrow from Mr. Gore. I'm not sure the Indians and Blacks would agree with you in the Americas, and the UK and France have had minorities in appreciable quantities for all of 30 years, and even so they are at each other's throats on a regular basis. European wars are interesting but entirely irrelevant to the question, although as a side note it's worth noting that in all of them the method of demonizing the enemy was to accentuate "racial" differences, as with the "hun," etc

So because there has been racial violence is the past different racial groups can not live togeather without there being violence today?

Why is it so hard to admit your a racist? You seem pretty proud of your views.

Shouldnt you be out telling people who have parents of 2 different races that they are doing something wrong?

How can you be concerned about a group of people that you cant define which have over 100 million members is beyond me, but then racists arent known for using logic.

[FascistLibertarian]

Would Walter White get special status under your race based system?

If you were in charge would you let him 'breed' with white women?

[ScottSA]

Go away sweal.

[FascistLibertarian]

my roomate in uni was 1/8th black. Would he get 7/8ths of the rights of other whites under your race based regime? What about my cousins that are 50% Chinese 50% Scottish? You clearly would consider my aunt a race traitor (because your a racist).

Your the person who cant even make the call if Walter White is white or black.....

And were just mocking people who couldnt ALWAYS tell the difference between a socttish person and a person from Iran.

So i think its time for you to either say specifically what are you so afriad of.

Because all you have done is give unlikely events and vague concerns that white people will be attacked when they make up under 50% of the country.

You confuse many different issues (violence against whites, whites being less than 50% of Canada's pop, genocide against whites, the extinction of the white race through interbreeding) that are not related.

Your trying to scare people.

Well Iv read enough of your posts. So why dont you take your racist views somewhere else?

[M.Dancer]

Cute Momo, but I you're leaving out a few inconvenient truths, to borrow from Mr. Gore. I'm not sure the Indians and Blacks would agree with you in the Americas, and the UK and France have had minorities in appreciable quantities for all of 30 years, and even so they are at each other's throats on a regular basis. European wars are interesting but entirely irrelevant to the question, although as a side note it's worth noting that in all of them the method of demonizing the enemy was to accentuate "racial" differences, as with the "hun," etc.

A couple of falsehoods, or as you might say literary conveyances.....

1) ....the UK and France have had minorities in appreciable quantities for all of 30 years, and even so they are at each other's throats on a regular basis.....

Um...no they are not.

1) ....although as a side note it's worth noting that in all of them the method of demonizing the enemy was to accentuate "racial" differences, as with the "hun," etc......

Okay, so then all whites are different races then? So perhaps you need to redefine exactly who out there doesn't make you widdle your pants.

So you really think that as a minority, our lives are in danger?

Edited August 2, 2007 by M.Dancer