Are Russians European or just Caucasian and how do we know the difference? Is there a line to draw there...

Are Russians European or just Caucasian and how do we know the difference? Is there a line to draw there? Armenians are considered Caucasian just not European but the looks drastically different from Caucasian Russians

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liao_civilization
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplotype
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Someone congratulate me on that great picture choice

It's history-related

get out

It's a good question and you know it. You just don't like the subject matter

Or you're laughing too hard at my picture choice

Caucasians are people from the Caucasus mountains, like Georgians, Armenians, Ossetians, etc.

The reason why all white people are called "Caucasians" was because 19th century germ scholars believed Georgians and Circassians to be the most superior race, and thought the Caucasus mountains were the origin of all white nations.

So we are not considered Caucasian? Are we a sub sub race being Europeans vs Caucasians?

Also, with that split, what does that make Russians?

You are mixing up race with ethnicity. The idea of humans having different races is a by-product of nineteen century social darwinistic suedo sciences and has no real base in biology. So you can throw that question out of the window. I know it is hard to do, especially because race is so integrated in English language, but they really should stop using the term, since it is bs. The term 'caucasian' nowadays means nothing more than 'white'. In that sense white americans or white canadians are caucasian as well. Geographically speaking Europe ends at the ural mountains in Russia. So Russia is both in Europe as Asia, but throughout history their (political) focus mostly was on Europe and in regard to European affairs.

There are biological differences among people based on race. There are medicines that work more effectively among some people than it does others. There are sicknesses that are mroe prevalent based on your race.

Race is a valid concept and it has never been disproven. Just judged unfair by modern (within the past 60 years) pop culture.

Brother, where to begin.

Sure, there are differences between people, but they are no biological in the sense that you mean. That for example sickness are more prevalent in a certain population has nothing to do with race, it has to do whether or not they were ever exposed to it. Maybe the most famous example is of the natives in the Americas. Being isolated for so long from contact with humans in other parts of the world, they cultivated other diseases in their communities. Only after being exposed to Europeans, they became sick with diseases that were new to their immune system therefor died because their immune system couldn't cope with that. The same way that syphillis enter Europe through sailors who came back from the new world.

For race never been disproven?

'Genetics has a blighted past with regards to race. Even today, important figures from its history – notably James Watson, co-discoverer of the double helix – express unsupportable racist views. The irony is that while Galton spawned a field with the intention of revealing essential racial differences between the peoples of the Earth, his legacy – human genetics – has shown he was wrong. Most modern geneticists are much less like Galton and more like Darwin. A dreadful book published last year by former New York Times science writer Nicholas Wade espoused views about racial differences seemingly backed by genetics. As with Watson, the reaction from geneticists was uniformly dismissive, that he had failed to understand the field, and misrepresented their work.'

And that is just one quote, from one article.

I hope you don't mean science with modern pop culture?

There really is no "Russian ethnicity".
There are people in Russia who speak Russian, have Russian names and generally Orthodox Christian ancestors but they are not an ethnicity any more than Americans are.

You see there wasn't a single Slav just about anywhere in European Russia 2000 years ago but only Finno-Ugric and Iranic people and slightly later Turkic. Modern day Russians are a mixture of all those groups and the Slavic settlers who came from parts of Belarus and Ukraine in the 6th century.

>sickness not being racially related
>not recognizing sickness includes skin cancers, mental disorders etc.

So are you assuming haplotypes don't exist? Or are you assuming haplotypes attributes don't actually exist?

Seriously where are you drawing the line at understanding this? Have you ever actually looked into race outside of modern reporting on the issue by Youtube videos?

I seriously have a lot of information on it

Finno-Ugric has very little influence on modern Russian genetics (inplaces like Moscow etc). It only has influence on the border with Finland and at the top in Siberia

I have some other pictures. So we're all a mix of Haplotypes but you can still see basic races coming out of mixes of Haplotypes.

This is the Aryan gene. You wouldn't argue Germans aren't a specific race

This map is misleading. Its overall frequency in Russia is still about 30%.

No response? I thought we were in conversation mode. I made some really good points, I'd like some insight into why you disagree with it. Do you not have good rebuttals to my points?

Yes, but that's probably concerning Russians in Siberia, as related on the map. Also a lot of Siberia isn't populated, so 30% is probably correct.

Those are not "Russians in Siberia" but marginal indigenous groups.

Well that's what the haplotype is showing up for. I said that Russians consist of a grouping of haplotypes but constituting a single race. Russians have a similar facial symmetry and whole-body build. I'm wondering how related that is to Caucasians and how related it is to Europeans and where the lines are drawn, in a racial manner and not a haplotypic one

How did Finns reach Vietnam without cars and airplanes?

That's most likely due to the Mongolians. I'd have to research into that

Haplogroup N1c is thought to have originated in North-Eastern China about 12000 years ago.


Liao civilization which was one of the oldest in the world tested positive for N1c and other types of N.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liao_civilization

It's not a large presence there

>he doesn't know about the hyper war

Haplogroups aren't the actual genetics and can't explain everything. As for facial symmetry and whole body build that might have more to do with the Corded Ware culture heritage which is strong in both Finnic and Slavic populations.

bump for interest

...

I've just recently given up traps so don't post that shit unless you're a girl

But you can differentiate the looks between Finns and Russians. For example, Putin looks characteristically Finn, not Russian.

Well I was reading into haplotypes. I don't use Youtube videos to get my information, suprise or not, I do actually read.

I guess we are talking about different definitions of race. The popular use of race has a connotation of value clinging to it. So I assumed you were talking about that. You are cleary not, so that was my mistake. I didn't expect a genetics discussion, and to be honest I am not equiped enough for such a discussion.

As I am not familiar with haplotypes, please enlighten me.

As I understand it now, is that haplotypes (or groups) indicated geographical heritage but still are subject to the same overal race (species) with Mitochondrial Eve as sort of 'starting point'

>There really is no "Russian ethnicity".
Yes there is. Novgorodians and Muscovites are Russians. Siberians and other asian peoples living in today's Russia are about as ethnically russian as the people living in French Guiana are french. Asian Russia is a colony just like Canada was a british colony.

so there still is one race? Homo Sapiens? With genetic differentials? so when you are talking about europeans as sub sub race, you mean actually the sub-branches of a macro haplogroup? You see the confuscion? It is not different races you are talking about it is differentials in genetics within one race.

At least that is my understanding of it.

No haplogroups don't strictly indicate geographical heritage but just a small part of it,
one ancestor 200 generations ago. Maybe this ancestor was a very powerful man but you still descend from the losers who managed to pass on their DNA but not their Y-DNA.

And if that is what you want to talk about, then (assuming you are the OP) the question is misleading (or at least vague in regards to the subject)

I got those vibes which is why I asked to make sure you were still on board. I mean when do you find an intellectually honest person. So god damned rare and if it's anywhere it's when we can pretend we're anonymous and not have to deal with the reality of pride.

I have very little information about haplotypes to be enough of a service over a good Youtube video, which I do recommend by the way, just not for final verdict.

I can tell you haplotypes are not indicative of race but do help define it. There are a lot of genes that define a race and haplotypes are a good trace that shows the traits of a race, and its history.

That being said, I was definitely implying a connotation of value should be talked about once the foundation was set as value is infinitely more important than anything in an objective sense. Some haplotypes procure a higher IQ, some procure less. It's definitely important to know, plus I'm interested in the diversity of European/Caucasian races. Let me take that back, I am solely interested in European/Caucasian race and how that applies to our live and to history as is.

No I'm OP

But they are still mutations within one species right? And calling it race, even though there can be a biological basis for that, is troublesome due to the connotation the word race has?

>haplotypes at all related to IQ
You're a literal brainlet

So Finns are Chinese? Haplogroups are weird

In this context haplogroups are a collection of mutations within Y-chromosomes(or in the case of mitochondrial DNA something similar to them but maternally inherited).

IQ can be trained, educated. I do not belief it is genetaically predispositioned. It is a poor indequator of intelligence at best. The social aspect of historical development in the world is a far better explanation for differences in knowledge that genetics are. By far. Still you are talking about race as if Europeans are inherently different from others (almost superior) in stead of neglible differences with regards to intelligence.The fact that you are solely interested in 'whites' indicates you have a strong tunnelvision. Maybe you choose the wrong wordings, maybe not. But for me it is not a sign that I am dealing with someone who has a broad view.

Are you telling me haplotypes of Africans don't imply lower IQ than haplotypes of Europeans?

I can't tell if you aren't making the jump willingly or not

Again you should look at what a haplotype is and the history of the Mongolians.

Stop using the words haplogroup and haplotype as a substitute for genes

>There are phenotypic differences among human beings

FTFY.

There are R1b Africans (specially in Chad, and the Hausa and Fulani).

Holy crap that is terrible. The typing and spelling was as well. I imagine you're in the middle of something and, thus, your brain is not properly active within that last reply.

I'll still reply because there is a reason you typed that, even at a lower attention level.

IQ is genetically predispositioned. It starts out at like 50% and goes towards 80% by young adulthood, aka when your brain finishes developing. As you get older the IQ stands out as singularly genetic in nature. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

I am interested in whites but I see that it's a subject that might not be fruitful with you. I'll make a final reply on it and depending on your response I'll just leave it.

The most objectively most important forms of humanity has arisen from whites. This is to include inventions, such as vaccines and the internet, architecture, philosophy etc etc. That all this diversity of thought comes from one single group of humans makes this the most likely candidate to study when it comes to interest in anything objectively positive, as I defined a sentence or two back.

I'm not and you know what I'm saying is true otherwise you would've engaged that fairly. I wasn't using it as a substitute and you know it, unless you don't know what a haplotype is. I could've replaced haplotype with genes and been just as right but keeping haplotype in there provides continuity to my point and is correct.

see

Haplogroup=uniparental lineage

Nothing to do with overall genetic structure.

You're the man. I assume you still agree it's biological, as phenotypes are biological.

I combination with the environment

Is this that one chart that was compiled by a guy who knows nothing about Asians persons again?

Which imply something about genetics, or implies when the center of Egyptian intelligence moved further toward the west, the intellects and upper class of Egypt married out some towards Europe and some towards Africa. You're not saying anything that dismantles my point.

To a smaller degree.

I believe it is cited in a textbook. I believe that textbook was citing a Japanese study (MTI??)

>intelligence

What? Haplogroup R1b was spread to Africa by pastoral people not "Egyptian intellectuals". Besides there is no correlation between Y-DNA and intelligence.

I can tell you're struggling with these concepts and aren't familiar with the terminology.

I'm done A haplotype (haploid genotype) is a group of genes in an organism that are inherited together from a single parent.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplotype

If y'all really are two separate people then I will repost this

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

>not kangs

Haplotype is not in any way a substitute for the word genes as autosomal haplotypes are shared by relatives not races.

So I was referring to genetically successful relatives', which implies overall success back then, genes. It is a substitute for genes in the example I used and I'm tired of reexplaining that

It is not predispositioned. Sure genes are involved and have an impact but (bad) parenting, education and availability of learning resources, and nutrition, among others, all contribute to intelligence. It is difficult to distuingish the two. Where one influence starts or ends or how they intertwine.

If you read the wiki page carefully, then you would see that it is not predespositoned at all.

'A common error is to assume that a heritability figure is necessarily unchangeable.'

Genes don't explain shit about this. You are treating people as if they live in a vaccuum, with influencing eachtother in behaviour and attitudes. You have no idea what you are talking about and you just what your views to be acknowledged in stead of being objective yourself. You read into stuff and ignoring the entirety of the text, with all its nuance in it.

The most destructive forms of humanity also have risen from 'whites'.

Architecture? So they mayans didn't building shit? Or are they white? The Yeha temple in Ethiopia isn't architecture?

You are looking soley at genes as explanation, but as to diversity it is so much more complex.

what = want

No, it's not a subsitute for the word genes since it refers to something very specific.
Autosomal haplotypes and uniparental haplogroups are also very different.

Uniparental haplogroups mutate but do not vanish to recombination unlike autosomal haplotypes.

Friend, race is human term for "sub-species" and only because sub-species is too dehumanizing to be adopted in general lingo. It's expressed both through phenotype and to a lesser extent genetics.

Phenotiypically, race is mainly locked by greographical limits. Any group of humans that lives in a certain community for a number of millenia will start to adapt to their enviroment and develop and develop their own unique look (which is noticeable by obersving the finer details of bone structure, musculature and cartilage, specialle on the face and head) based on the original members of the population. Compare the different sub-species of lions with humans and you will see what I mean. Much like germs, isolated human populations that grow will look alike.

The genetics of race are just being discovered through mtDNA genomics and it turns out they are a clusterfuck of unprecendented complexity and in fact do not always correspond to phenotypes. Basically the quantum physics of biology. Should we ever master genomics we will be able to pull some crazy shit in terms of medicine and biological warfare.

>That for example sickness are more prevalent in a certain population has nothing to do with race, it has to do whether or not they were ever exposed to it.

It has to do with both. Their DNA and their inmune system. Lactose intolerance is an example of a gene held by particular races, so is melanin and hair / eye colour composition.

Factually wrong. IQ is determined by brain stimulation. The more you stimulate your brain (aka go to school, try to think and generaly do problem solving stuff) the higher your IQ will be. All IQ data corresponds to the amount of education people are given. Sub-saharans have low IQ because they have negative education in africa, and american niggers together with hicks and rednecks have low iqs because americans don't think education is important and it reflext x2 among their poor.

Now this is a respons that makes sense. (I am the guy you first responded to)

I understand now better what is meant by race in this context, I even except the merrit of it.

In general discussion the term 'race' remains still a tricky one though, but I see the difference you mean

That theory was create by German anthropologist Johann Blumenbach in 1795 (no less) and has been thoroughly debunked, and isn't even entertained in any serious way by any scientific discipline. Evidence from more modern perspectives shows that Caucasians from Northern Europe were forced down into the Mediterranean region during the last ice age and while some took refuge in the regions around Anatolia (Caucasus Mts) others took refuge in other temperate regions, even so far South as North Africa. The reason Blumenbach thought this was the case, was because the earliest remains from European humans at that time were from caves there… this has subsequently changed. Remains of Caucasians have been found dating back 25,000-40,000 yrs now in other parts of Europe, the Caucasian etymological misnomer remains with us however.

>ALL IQ CORRESPONDS TO THE AMOUNT OF EDUCATION PEOPLE ARE GIVEN

HOLY FUCK, I literally linked to a citation of an article of the American Psychological Association.

How about you actually read the post instead of skimming the first two lines

Caucasus still works as the ultimate urheimat for the non-Middle Eastern(who are Basal Eurasian), West Eurasian clade ~40k years ago.