How much do historians actually know about the shift in the genetic base of the mediterranean region? Literature clearly depicts romans as whites without any distinguishing 'arab' characteristics like the dorsal hump or pendant tip. Fast forward to today and it's clear that the population is changing.
What happened?
>Literature clearly depicts
Explain Phillip the Arab
>i ain't bullshitting ya Cletus we were ancient Roman 'tricianz and zeezers and such
>Fast forward to today and it's clear that the population is changing.
>it's clear
???
WE
I think what Op is trying to ask is how did all the white romans turn into dirty arabs
user, just because the statues are made out of marble doesn't mean their skin looked like marble.
>Romans
>White
You are literally no worse than the people who claim that the Egyptians were black. They were of tanned complexion. Clearly not white as there was enough of a distinction between the Roman people and the Germanic tribes to the north.
They didn't.
I think that's is too complicated for them to understand.
There was the same level of distinction as between germans and celts. Are celts not white either?
Just because they weren't nordcucks doesn't mean they weren't White.
Roman=/=Race
Most upper class and northern Italians still look like this.
"White' is American thing
keep thinking that buddy
Most central italians and center-southerners also look like that, and those who don't (mainly in Sicily and Calabria) have been there since before roman times anyway.
Quick, someone post Cavalli-Sforza's studies on Italy's genetic history.
"White" doesn't mean shit. The Romans were originally a mix between three tribes: The Latins, the Sabines and the Etruscans. Etruscans particularly were known to be rather swarthy people to begin with.
Naturally, as they expanded and Rome became capital of the world, they came into contact with many different tribes, most of which were Gaulish and Germanic.
If anything, modern Italians have *more* Northern European DNA than ancient Romans, since they have been intermarrying other Europeans for centuries.
Nero was a blonde with blue eyes.
Explain that.
user, that's a painting made hundreds of years after his death, not a photo.
...
The problem with this is that mediterranean means fucking nothing. Italics and iberians are both closer to celts than each other and much closer to each other than to greeks, nevermind peoples of the eastern and southern Mediterranean coasts.
And the curliness is more of an aesthetic detail than anything. Just look at how the realistic roman statues almost never have that level of curls, and it only starts in the imperial period when statues start being idealized in the hellenic fashion.
Italians have more blond and blue eye alleles today actually.
What exactly is the point of these threads?
I always feel it's Americans who make them to prove something.
le white meme
>What exactly is the point of these threads?
Enforcing the white/nonwhite dichotomy. Like there aren't better ways to foster group mentality.
Everything revolves around race for sjw.
How is stealing history fostering group mentality?
You mean through propaganda?
No, it was a genuine question. Romans and traditional greeks are always depicted as white people be it in hollywood or history books. So naturally most people assume that these guys were white but that isn't the point. Skin color completely aside, the better question is what kind of cultural changes led to a seemingly successful and powerful group of people to the modern day muslims?
I meant that forcing the white/non-white dichotomy is a way to foster group mentality among westerners, or at least germanics, against asians and africans and natives.
Stealing history is just a way to validate the dichotomy ("look how grand we are/look how shit they are"). I'm not sure it classifies as propaganda tho, feels more like a matter of content rather than form? Well the aim is the same anyway.
Italians are white, they were just as white before, so they are depicted like that.
They're just not nords. I know, it's weird.
I'm not sure modern day Muslims are descendants of Italians.
>what kind of cultural changes led to a seemingly successful and powerful group of people to the modern day muslims?
>modern day muslims were ancient romans
What the actual fuck am I reading?
Keked by a gothic bull
Italians were neither germanics nor asians/africans/native though.
The modern day Arab is characterized by their nose which contains something called a dorsal hump (elevated ridge in the middle) and a pendant tip, the latter being less distinguishing. Romans did not have this but modern Mediterranean do which is what sparks the controversy.
>modern Mediterranean do
You do realize that "mediterranean" means fucking nothing whatsoever from a scientific point of view right? It's an even more meaningless and ill-defined term than white, and that's saying something.
Not to mention that identifying arabs by one single physical characteristic that if anything is generally associated with jews is absolutey idiotic.
Asians/africans/native was meant as the "everything else" group.
Does anyone know why evolutionary some people have that "dorsal hump"? Is it just harmless variation, or did it actually serve some purpose?
Sand particle filtration from desert climate. Similar to why asians have slants
Sounds like a load of old shite m8.
I doubt they were living in the desert long enough to evolve different noses to deal with the sand when you could just wear a covering.
Romans weren't "white" as in Nordic white. They were largely olive skinned and swarthy, much like the current population of Italy.
No more than Ancient Egyptians were sub saharan black.
The eternal Nordcuck strikes again
The Romans weren't Nordic whites. They were predominantly what you call today 'Mediterraneans' - still considered 'white', but largely of a tanned skin tone and brown hair. Of course, features considered classically "white" such as fair hair and blue eyes and even fair skin can certainly arise from this stock of people.
Anyways, this is a stupid thread.
Mediterraneans who do have a dorsal hump are much more likely to have jewish blood than any other Arab/Middle Eastern blood, even if they don't come from a jewish family.
Italy and Iberia in particular were jewish havens for hundreds of years, many of whom were converted to christianity (forcibly or not) and absorbed into the local populations.
...
But Italians are white
>the differences between north and south italy have been exaggerated for political reasons
The guy forgot that terroni and polentoni see each other as culturally rather than racially different, and it's pretty unarguably true or at least it was before unification and the amalgamation efforts that followed it.
There isnt any ``shift``. They were Mediterranean. Just like current Italian. However one can say with expansion of the empire and increasing ease of travel different races could mingle together. There isnt any huge difference between julius ceaser compared to mario. And Honestly you dont want some people fucking only each other all the time. Otherwise they can end up like brits.
>2% genetic difference
but 2% is a huge number in genetics
Humans share 99% of our genetic material with chimps
So romans were more different than humans chimps
what the fuck
It has probably something to with the raping baboons.
It probably means that the mtDNA and Y-chromosome are 98% the same as ancient romans, not that the whole italian dna is just 98% the same as the roman dna.
>genetic admixture between two human group is the same thing as DNA
You're a literal retard
You made the thread just so you can post that, didn't you OP?
>humans are closer to chimps than italians are to romans
mind=blown
Any infographics about the anatomical characteristics of arabs and mediterraneans ?
Are you american?
Would also like to see if any are available