Why do white people "we wuz" Romans? Don't they realize the alps acted as a geographic barrier

Have you been to contemporary Rome? It's full of white people there. I imagine it wouldn't be that different in ancient Rome genetically. Also, the one-drop-rule is retarded. Most people are mixed to some degree. Furthermore, they are also not descended from Sub-Saharan Africa ancestry. That's the important one.

O'rly

Modern Italians look mixed.

They are more white today than in the past because of the alps.

>The Mediterranean race (also Mediterranid race) is one of the sub-races into which the Caucasian race was categorised by most anthropologists in the late 19th to mid-20th centuries.
>the root term Caucasian has also often been used in a different, societal context as a synonym for "white" or "of European ancestry".

Doesn't matter, Schlomo. It's only like 1%. There's no way they can be considered Sub-Saharan Africans both ethnically and culturally, so they're whites. Blacks can't claim anything from them, while Whites certainly can for ethnic and cultural reason.
Bullshit. If there were a large scale migration like people often said happened in the aftermath of Gothic Wars, then the language should have been entirely replaced in some places, even with just a third of the previous population like the Anglo-Saxons or the Romano-Britons. Heck, even the Arabs succeeded to some degree just by having the elites migrating in North Africa. Why couldn't the Germans/Lombards?

Those are Egyptians though.

They are Roman immigrants to Egypt, they are not native Egyptians.

Roman immigrants? How would you even know?

It's just whitey holdin us down. Eventually people will wake up to the fact that the Romans were black

Romans were more closely related to North Africans than they were to Germans.

They weren't black, but they weren't white either, they were similar to North Africans.

No shit because they're a Med stock, a CAUCASIAN sub-race. Oh gods, did you even read my post, you stupid melanin-enrinched person? Why the fuck are you trying to argue they're not related when both Nordic and Mediterranean people are Caucasians? So they are Sub-Saharan or Asiatic then?

Notice their clothes. How would you know they're not?

Egypt was a province of the Roman empire, moron, of course the culture --fashion included-- would have become Romanized.

Caucasian =/= white.

North Africans are of a completely different genetic make up than white people.

So how do you know they are not Romans?

The Romans are genetically the same people as modern day Italians
The Egyptians are genetically the same as people as modern day Egyptians
Why is this so hard to accept? stop with the racial propaganda

Lived in Egypt, died in Egypt, buried in Egypt. The odds are in pro of their having been native Egyptians.

Modern day Italians are not monolithic, from north to south is like night and day, same thing with Egypt. So which side represents the indigenous peoples?

That's like saying idris Elba is English.

But he is English...

Not ethnically.

"English" is not an ethnicity, just as "Egyptian" is not either.

He is a Black (Sierra Leonean) English, a subset of the many ethnicity in England. Not a regular (Anglo-Saxon) English. If you ever met a Black English, you'd know that they have different accent, culture, etc.

>Caucasian =/= white.
Nice lie, Mr. Goldstein (CEO of Bioinfo Corps).

Really getting fed up with you people deconstructing our cultural identities.

Both, with the north having more Etruscan admixture, while the south have more greek admixture

The Fayum mummy portraits are made when Egyptians are already well Hellenised, it's the same reason the closest ethnic to ancient Egyptians who share similar language to them are now Coptic Christians instead of Egyptian pagan; their culture changes

Again, "English" is not an ethnicity, but a nationality. Differences in accent, and subculture, do not indicate ethnic difference, moron.

Southern Italians are dark because they are essentially North Africans.

Copts have almost nothing to do with ancient Egypt. Egyptians came from the south and are essentially the same ethnic group as Nubians and other East Africans and Nile people's.

>britain, france, germany, the netherlands, spain, italy and portugal were all part of the roman empire, in whole or in part, for centuries
>why are people from these countries interested in the romans

WEW LAD
E
W

L
A
D

infact the Coptic language itself was a result of Egyptian-Hellenic cultural transition

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_language

>Coptic or Coptic Egyptian (Bohairic: ϯⲙⲉⲧⲣⲉⲙⲛ̀ⲭⲏⲙⲓ ti.met.rem.ən.khēmi and Sahidic: ⲧⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲣⲙ̄ⲛ̄ⲕⲏⲙⲉ t.mənt.rəm.ən.kēme) is the latest stage of the Egyptian language, a northern Afroasiatic language spoken in Egypt until at least the 17th century.[2] Egyptian began to be written in the Coptic alphabet, an adaptation of the Greek alphabet with the addition of six or seven signs from demotic to represent Egyptian sounds the Greek language did not have, in the first century AD.[3]

>Several distinct Coptic dialects are identified, the most prominent of which are Sahidic, originating in parts of Upper Egypt, and Bohairic, originally from the western Nile Delta in Lower Egypt.

>Coptic and Demotic are grammatically closely related to Late Egyptian, which was written with Egyptian hieroglyphs. Coptic flourished as a literary language from the second to thirteenth centuries, and its Bohairic dialect continues to be the liturgical language of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria.

South Italians are as dark as a Greek/Thracian Turk, not north Africans, the only place with significant arabic admixture in Italy is Sicily and its more due to mixing happened during Emirate of Palermo/Norman Sicily rule in medieval era
The ancient pre roman Italians are a mixture of various Indo european people like Etruscans, ancient latins, Sabines, which was later hellenised and mixed with Greek colony settlers in Italy:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Graecia

Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, were all part of the Egyptian empire, doesn't make them Egyptian.

>Modern day Italians are not monolithic, from north to south is like night and day

The difference between northern and southern Italians is smaller than the difference between northern and southern Germans, genetically speaking.

>the only place with significant arabic admixture in Italy is Sicily

There is no significant Arab admixture in Sicily. The only migration that left a notable genetic impact on Sicily is the Greek one.

Africans speak French, so that must mean they are French.

The Coptic language is derived from Hellenic Egypt not ancient Egypt.

"roman" was never a fucking race
read their history from the beginning, that's a stupid notion

>"English" is not an ethnicity

wot.

Greeks are also largely North African.

They're more related to Levants and Anatolia than north Africa

Why are you in this board and spreading lies, Mr. Goldberg?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people
>Historically, the English population is descended from several peoples — the earlier Britons (or Brythons) and the Germanic tribes that settled in Britain following the withdrawal of the Romans, including Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians. Collectively known as the Anglo-Saxons, they founded what was to become England (from the Old English Englaland) along with the later Danes, Normans and other groups. In the Acts of Union 1707, the Kingdom of England was succeeded by the Kingdom of Great Britain.[7] Over the years, English customs and identity have become fairly closely aligned with British customs and identity in general.
It was formed gradually during the Middle Ages. Were Sierra Leonese Blacks there since the Middle Ages? You might fit more with tumblrinas with your Cultural Marxist indoctrination there.

Thanks for making acceptance of English ethnicity synonymous with /pol/. No nuance here.

They are legit Cultural Marxists. These people view nationalities and ethnicity as modern social phenomena and therefore social constructs. They try to pretend to be politically neutral by adopting terms such as 'modernism' or 'constructivism' when in fact most of them are Commies, and some who don't are at least pinko sympathizers. They are cancer in the academia.

I know. And your ideology isn't the most important thing at any given time either.

Besides, it seems like it's mostly a semantic issue with "ethnicity" more than anything. But I guess that's enough to make him your strawman for everything you think is wrong.

I bet you often daydream and play imaginary "arguments" in your head with the worst progressive cuck imaginable, then project that onto anyone who appears to line up with that image at all so you can make use of your practice.

>The Coptic language is derived from Hellenic Egypt not ancient Egypt.
What do you mean? Hellenic Egypt is the continuation of ancient Egypt, the culture transition and overlap, infact ancient form of Egyptian language and hieroglyphs are still well used during Greek Ptolemaic era, they're not two completely separate entities, does the fact that Germanics replace runes with alphabet means they're two completely different people? culture changes, Coptic language are the direct descendant of ancient Egyptian language

Nope, as said, they're closer to modern day western Turks, which at the time was known as Ionian Greek, considered traditional part of Greek hemisphere

I'll use myself as an example of why it occurs. I'm probably of a primarily northern European descent (Britannia, Gaul, Belgica, etc.), so it's more likely than not that I would be of mixed Roman/Germanic/Celtic/Scandinavian descent, though the degrees to which I am any of those things vary widely between individual circumstances based upon my ancestors' choices and the amount of cultural transference that occurred when these various cultures moved into each of these areas. I would never claim to be "Roman", though I'm sure I have at least one Roman ancestor given the odds.

The USA literally "We Wuz Romans".

>Etruscans
>Indo-european

Considering that US is the hegemony power in Western, Being US President is equivalent with being Roman Emperor.

>Shit posting the same image in countless threads

Now post Augustus, Nero, Caligula painted statues.

South Italians are swarthy because of Greek mixture. (Yes stormfags , Greeks were just as swarthy back then)

To weigh on this, I live in the suburbs of Amsterdam. My family tree goes back to ~1700 well documented in the city archives. It's mostly Dutch, but strong Mediterranean features.

I have very prominent Roman features. Aquiline nose, slightly round recessed chin with under lips behind the upper lips in profile. Essentially a clone of pic related. I am not a purebred Roman descendant, but it heavily influenced one side of the family that share my physical traits. I am not wewuzzing and never even mention influence of Mediterranean ancestry, but there is more of a grey area to it. Especially considering that South of the Netherlands was also Roman empire for a long time.

You're delusional

/pol/, you've been BTFO by Veeky Forums numerous times.

You should return to your respective board or /v/

The Fayoum mummy portraits are depicting an egyptian society that had been Hellenic since fucking Alexander. They didn't dress like ancient Egyptians and spoke Coptic. A language that was the result of Egyptian-Greek cultural exchange. Even the art by this point Greco-Roman.
I really really wish you were memeing but I know you aren't. You're way too active on this board to be joking.

>MUH one drop rule

Romans were white

>strong Mediterranean features
Your ancient ancestors were squeezing cow teets and shoveling pig shit, without speaking a lick of Latin, just like eveyone else here Jan.

But muh Western values

Have you ever come to Italy?

Modern Italians are whiter than "white" Americans.

They're Mediterraneans which are considered white Caucasians

You're assuming that European populations all sprung from the ground, within modern borders, around the time of Plato and Aristotle, and that possessing a feature more often found in another European ethnic group is evidence of 'admixture'. The people of Europe, Anatolia and West Asia, and to a lesser extent North Africa and South Asia, are of mostly the same stock. I.e. Descendants of the same few tribes, but in varying degrees.

The people of Iberia have ancient, historic ties with Northern and North-West Africa (that pre-date the Moorish conquest of Hispania), as evidenced by both genetics and archaeology.

Some Greeks have blonde hair and blue eyes. Others, with near-black hair and swarthy skin, look more akin to Persians or Afghans.

Of course, if what you're saying is that you think some of your ancestors lived in Ancient Rome, you're probably right. They founded colonies across Europe. Greeks, who often held high-ranking positions in the army or as doctors, went with them, with tombs as far away as the Anglo-Scottish borders bearing inscriptions in Greek language - ΩΚΕΑΝΟΙ ΚΑΙ ΤΗΘΥΙ ΔΕΜΗΤΡΙΟΣ

No they weren't. They were more similar to North Africans, and Caucasian doesn't equal white. There are blacks with "Caucasian" features.

>nuance
Fuck nuance.
These people are destroying our countries and we're not going to stop calling them out just because it offends your delicate sensibilities.

Pick a fucking side.

You sure his ancestors aren't 16th century Jewish refugees from Portugal or somesuch?

Fuck off nigger, Romans were white and no amount of meming will ever change that.

Romans are more related to Greeks are preexisting Indo-European people than they do with north Africa, as said

The only link they had was Phoenician, who are not even relevant on Italy,

Greeks are also heavily North African. Human migration went from south to north.

>why do whites whitewash everything?
>claims that the greeks and romans were black
Might as well claim also the chinese and the germans were black,no?

Spanish rape babies

>whie peepul

i think you're more retarded than you think you are.

Us central europeans were not romans, nor did we have any desire to be.

go fuck yourself, you ignorant, race bating fuckwit.

Those stats are bullshit. Stop uncritically believing every study.

Your pic is of an Arab, OP
Those are Egyptian-Greek Hybrid you driveling retard. Not Latins.

DNA is science. Is proof.

Show me some proof.

Romans were slavs

My pic is a Roman emperor. Roman.

Not only do we have no reason to believe ancient Italians had any sub-Saharan DNA, real studies prove Egyptians had no Sub-Saharan DNA and those that the slight amount they have now is due to modern admixture. Your pic isn't Italian, it's Greco-Egyptian.

He was literally Syrian/Arab you dumb nig

you don't know how dna sequencing is interpreted, do you?

>only germanics are white
Fuck off retard. You do realize even modern Hispanics are considered white right?

punic father and roman mother

Because we've been using roman and greeks text for hundreds of years as basis for education. Roman Empire covered western intellectual centres, and back before we even had any hope of genetic information to see how related we are (not that long ago) making that link is reasonable and very difficult to disprove

How do they know the subsaharan admixture is recent? If the study was scientific they would realize that inconsistency could be from a flawed base ancient sampling.

Also
See

>some clustering algorithm occasionally used by genetic anthropologists based on hardly reliable bayesian statistics assigned 0.2-1.7% of Italian DNA (most of which is probably non coding anyway) as being more likely pan sub-saharan than west Eurasian.
>clearly that's an absolute undeniable hard fact, you just don't get it man

See

It's funny how when the DNA supports whitewashing history it is "science" but when it t doesn't it is bullshit.

>It's funny how when the DNA supports whitewashing history it is "science" but when it t doesn't it is bullshit.
What's funny is how little you understand genetics. I don't what views you THINK I have, but strawmanning aside DNA has never been used to "Whitewash" anything. Anyone with a brain knew Egyptians weren't Sub-Sahahans. Which is what this butthurt thread is clearly about.

>0.2%
WE WUZ ITALIANS

They were not subsaharan, but would objectively be considered "black", like upper Egyptians, and no all blacks are not Congolese. One drop rule.

>One drop rule.
Are you the same person with the wewuz Egyptian thread?