Are Europeans mutts?

>Swarthy whites

It’s time to stop posting, mutt

That's modern Siberians you tard, the EHG were gracile and blonde. And if NAF are white, then so are the WHG and CHG, because those are all branches of the same group.

Not yet :)

>swarthy whites
>this level of denial

>if its not an albino, it can't be white!
Is this the power of being a dimwit?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

AHAHAHAHAHAH

LOL

YOU FUCKING RETARDO

bbc.com/news/science-environment-25885519
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4105016/
nature.com/articles/nature12736
adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Natur.505...87R
shinku.nichibun.ac.jp/jpub/pdf/jr/IJ1507.pdf
m.pnas.org/content/111/13/4832
biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/10/10/016477

Brown, brown, brown

You retarded homo

Retard

>this man isn't white!

tl;dr

>Brown hair
>Brown eyes

Subhuman

>four types of white people
>none of them have blue eyes except for a few Western Hunters
>none of them have light hair except for a few Eastern Hunters
>none of them have rosy pink skin except for a few Neolithic farmers

So? None of those defines "white".

What does white mean then?

Anyone primarily descended from these four ancestral groups is "white"

>literally not answering the question

Are you blind or just illiterate? What part of my direct and very clear answer didn't you understand?

So Native Americans are white?

The ones that are mostly white are. The handful of more or less pureblooded ones, obviously not.

What do you mean? Most native Americans have the same siberian ancestors as PIE

So they’re white

>Most native Americans have the same siberian ancestors as PIE
No they don't.
>HURR EHG came from Siberia so ALL Siberians are EHG!
>t.moron

arguably anyone from those distinct core groups is white.
White :descended from these distinct groups
>North East Eurasian/Caucasian Hunter Gatherers
>Western Hunter Gatherers
>Neolithic farmers who went West, defined by their Urn culture
descending from these groups makes you white.
>what percentage is white
100%
>what if someone is mixed
then they are mixed.
>what if they take a DNA test and have north African
those are not apart of the group.
>one drop rule?
Yes.
>my genetic test says less than 1%
That means 0%.
1% is too much, less than 1% is non-detectable and can chalked up to static.

Retard alert

Siberian DNA is different from EHG

Siberian is ANE

>arguably anyone from those distinct core groups is white.
That's what I said. NAF, WHG, CHG, EHG, all these are "white".

native Americans do not have Siberian/Caucasian in them, only an offshoot of the Siberians.
just like the Arabs are descended from early Neolithics who did NOT go west.

>Brown people are white

Wow

>HURR Americans aren't British you moron lmao

>one drop rule
>1% is too much
>Having 3 north african great great great great great great grandparents and 253 European ones means you're not white, but just have 2 and you're in
How autistic would I have to become to honestly care about this shit?

>Race is only skin deep

wew lad
>theres a blurry line therefore there's no solid definition of white
Well there are blurry lines between colors, does this mean red does not exist? nor yellow nor blue nor green?
Certainly not, there are simply core colors. With whites there are core races who via inbreeding and then interbreeding became genetically distinct.
>le autism meme
Can you actually argue the point instead of an ad-hominem appeal to popularity?
I guess you're just angry you're not white.
>inb4 IM WHITE I SWEAR

Wrong

You don’t know what you’re talking about

>theres a blurry line therefore there's no solid definition of white
That's an oxymoron. You can't have a blurry line and a solid definition.
>Well there are blurry lines between colors, does this mean red does not exist? nor yellow nor blue nor green?
>Implying I'm applying the Continuum fallacy
I'm not denying the existence of a general white race. I'm saying that drawing some uber specific, yet ultimately impractical, line in the sand like "muh 1% and not a 10th of a percent more" is retarded. Don't admit the line is blurry and then try and come up with some extreme rules like it isn't.
>le autism meme
What else would you call it? If you saw some guy in the paint section of some interior design store raving about how "Ruskin Room Green" was actually a shade of brown according to this super precise tone defining process he designed, what would you honestly think?

So explain what white is then

not an argument
Find me one native american sample pre-colombian that has a Caucasian gene.
>you can't have a blurry line and a solid definition
proofs?
It seems that numbers refute you as there is an infinite number of fractions between whole numbers, this does not diminish the whole number despite being able to divide in between them infinitely.
the same for color, you can have a potentially infinite mix on the color spectrum as well as having true colors.
They follow metaphysical ideals
>whoah whoa hold up there Plato
Read Kant, then Aristotle, then Plato, then I will take you seriously.
Otherwise you can not possibly understand because no one is born with a metaphysical understanding of super-geometry.
>geometry?? what??
it's the only way to understand metaphysical exactness.
>uber specific but ultimately impractical
So a grey range? 5% non-white.
>w-what 5% is in but 6% isn't wtf so autistic
I don't care. If you want to me find the genetic markers which determine the white race non-arbitrarily I could. It would be like finding something via comparison, you can only find red because it is in between black and white.
>is retarded
I literally do not care about your appeal to popularity and ad-hominem attacks on my argument.
>what else would you call it
does it matter lmfao
>this color was actually another color
so be it.
you disliking it does not make it arbitrary.
>you have to prove it isn't arbitrary
If I have to prove non-arbitrarity then that would be self refuting because there would be no need to demonstrate it's significance if we can not establish a criteria for significance in the first place, if we assume that all things begin as arbitrary.
Already did.
The four core races.
see

>It seems that numbers refute you as there is an infinite number of fractions between whole numbers, this does not diminish the whole number despite being able to divide in between them infinitely.
And yet who would claim that 1.009 was 1 but 1.01 wasn't? The fact that 1 and 2 are not the same number does not justify that.
>the same for color, you can have a potentially infinite mix on the color spectrum as well as having true colors
Which I never denied. What I said is that it's impractical and increasingly unjustifiable to create an exact break on the spectrum of where one color ends and another begins. It's quite apparent what "is" i.e. true colors, but not at all what "isn't." Your problem is that you're going to hell and back to try and prove what "isn't" with percentages that aren't even significant enough for you to want to defend.
>w-what 5% is in but 6% isn't wtf so autistic
>I don't care
So you're admitting that these percentages you're coming up with don't have a logic to them beyond what you say?
>If you want to me find the genetic markers which determine the white race non-arbitrarily I could. It would be like finding something via comparison, you can only find red because it is in between black and white.
Then why the fuck aren't you? That's a completely different thing from just stating some hardline percentage that you pulled out your ass.

>The fact that 1 and 2 are not the same number does not justify that.
actually that's exactly what it does.
distinction despite divisibility.
>impractical
but it's not.
>unjustifiable
but it already is justified.
By your reasoning, there is no distinction between colors.
That is self refuting, thus I conclude you must be wrong.
>don't have a logic
Do they need to?
Why does logic take primacy?
>it's only logical
its actually not because that's tautological.
>then why the fuck aren't you
Everytime I say that whites are those who are not 'x' the niggers reply with "but what is white lmao"
What is anything?
How can we determine race at all if we can not even determine colors?
I mean if we can't determine colors than what about the abstract representation of numerical values which can be represented empirically? You would be disproving the entirety of mathematics.
just because you like niggers or something...?

Look again he has green eyes you mongoloid.

Everyone is a mutt. J2 is a master race, though.

>Quite a few ancient Mediterranean and Middle Eastern civilisations flourished in territories where J2 lineages were preponderant. This is the case of the Hattians, the Hurrians, the Etruscans, the Minoans, the Greeks, the Phoenicians (and their Carthaginian offshoot), the Israelites, and to a lower extent also the Romans, the Assyrians and the Persians.
Damn.

>The Rothschild family, who established an international banking business, acquired the largest fortune in modern world history and established a true dynasty in the 19th century, apparently belonged to haplogroup J2a1-Y23457 (under M67, Z467 and Y15238) based on the results from the Rothschild DNA Project and of the J2-M172 Haplogroup Research.

>actually that's exactly what it does
How? 1 and 2 are distinct numbers, that is a fact. I do not see how the statement: "1.009 is 1 but 1.01 is not," then follows said fact. How is that statement any more valid than the statement: "1.0098 is 1 but 1.009 is not?"
>but it's not
It very much is for the majority of situations that would not allow for the entire genetic background of an individual to be common knowledge to everyone in said situation. Most people will simply go off sight and nothing more.
>but it already is justified
How is a 5% gray area justified over a 6% gray area?
>By your reasoning, there is no distinction between colors.
That is not my reasoning. I have not denied the existence of colors. What I have denied is that one can arrive at a precise objective point at where one color ends and another begins. As you approach the fringes, arguing for one designation of color over another becomes more and more subjective to the point that it reaches pure opinion. That doesn't mean that the core is invalid, it means that the true extent of the core's reach will be forever debatable. i.e. I know when Red is absolutely not Blue, but I do not know when exactly Red becomes Blue. Therefore I do not make claims such as "Blue starts at exactly hexadecimal #6600FF, and not a point sooner."
>Do they need to? Why does logic take primacy?
Why are you even bothering to come up with numerically defined boundaries for something if you don't feel there must be a logic to them? Might as well just say "because I said so." It'd be an argument of the same caliber, and with far less faux rigor.
>Everytime I say that whites are those who are not 'x' the niggers reply with "but what is white lmao"
Cool. Doesn't address my point at all though. Making a case for what white is via comparison is far more reasonable than coming up with a percentages so meaningless that you can't even to manage a defense for their validity.

ITT: Insecure Amerimutts

>Eupedia

fuck off back to r*ddit.

>h-hundred percent of muh ancestors are white!!!
>except for my 1/16th which is Cherokee of course :)

>Not yet
user, I....

>Europeans are mutts
>White doesn't exist
>"swarthy white"
I wonder who could be behind this thread

can someone explain what the fuck this is in africa?

its an r1b map

i read its different to the european one... is haplogroups worthless?

>>none of them have blue eyes except for a few Western Hunters
EHG had blue eyes
>>none of them have rosy pink skin except for a few Neolithic farmers
Neolithic farmers had olive skin you fucktard, pale rosy skin came from EHG

>EHG had blue eyes
This. They were literally of the Nordic race.

In terms of facial morphology WHG did look very white indeed.

wh*Tes are mutted the fuck out which is why their women choose the superior more pure races of men

I can't believe that swedes and italians are related to eachother desu.
Besides europe is a geographical and social construct not a genetic one.
Without chirstianity nobody would think of themselves as europeans who were 'brother's with the guys down south which look like arabs.

This is me and I live in Europe. My beard doesn't come out that well though...

EHG were not Nordic, those are not "Nordic" skulls.
>le find me a non-Nord with this skull type
Find me a non-Nord with deep blue eyes and blond hair that isn't a genetic mutation independent of the ones in Scandinavia.
These people, the WHG were the first people to have blond hair and blue eyes.

>EHG were not Nordic, those are not "Nordic" skulls.
This is a Nordic skull, also the oldest skulls classified as "Nordic" belonged to EHG.

>"The earliest known morphologically Nordic types (characterized by long narrow skull and tall slim face) evolved in Northern Russia, perhaps in the Boreal Climatic Period (11,000 - 10,000 years ago), when climate in Northern Russia was warmer than today in the winter (-12°—8° C in January), but cooler than at present in the summer (6°-18° C in July). The 10,800 years old skull from Peschanitsa to the south of Lake Ladoga (in Lyubytinskiy Rayon, Novgorod Oblast) and a 10,300 years old skull from Popovo to the north east of Lake Onega (in Arkhangelsk Oblast) are among the oldest known specimens of Nordic type skulls. Around that time took place the first of prehistoric migrations to Scandinavia from Russia."

And Popovo (male) skull.

Whites unironically don't exist. It was a term for 'nationless idiot who rules over negros in the colonies'. Only a mutt would willingly identify as white.

My ancestors :)

The interesting part is "Around that time took place the first of prehistoric migrations to Scandinavia from Russia" is interesting, because it explains why we found blond hair allele in Sweden around that time. This is because they were EHG admixed.

>How
because they are not distinct when you can add .(x) behind them indefinitely
>How is a 5% gray area justified over a 6% gray area?
How is anything justified? How do we determine anything to be non-arbitrary when someone can perpetually ask "but why tho lmao"
To be justified I need only say it be. my reasoning is that 5% is closer to genetic noise than 6% and 6% is where phenotypic variation changes "but who cares if their nose is off a centimeter from an arbitrary ideal?" I do.
you can delegitimize an idea by questions ad-infinitum.
>most people
I'm not most people.
>that is not my reasoning
then how do we tell the difference between red and blue when there exist an infinite series of color combinations in between them? Of course for the purpose of explanation I refer to them as distinct, but what makes them distinct?

>What I have denied is that one can arrive at a precise objective point at where one color ends and another begins.
oh so you have no argument, just denying the antecedent.

Why don't we change it to only those who are 100% of the four races.
The whole point of percentages was to nullify genetic noise which takes place between 1-5%.
Clearly you do not understand genetic studies in the way I do so I will dumb things down for you.
>might as well just say because I said so
thus is logic
>faux rigor
Why don't you read Kant and then realize how stupid the field of logic is?

>white is defined by what is objectively relative
I already refuted this retarded point.
You have failed to address what I said was the metaphysical distinction for being white.
Let me elaborate more, whites have rituals and rites that only they do.
If you don't do them you aren't white.
No I don't care for your opinion on them.

>be 100% Polish going back generations
>think I'm a pure Slav
>DNA results come back like pic related
>tfw I'm a mutt

There is no such thing as a "Nordic skull" before 4,000 B.C. because Nordic people as they exist today did not exist as such back then.
That Russian Nordic type wasn't tall, light skinned, intelligent, or physically acclimatized to the Northern European environment.
Having a nordic feature doesn't make you a nord, having ALL the core nordic features makes you a nord.
Blonde hair, blue eyes, tall, ruddy skin.
Skull shape varies from Norway to Sweden with Swedes being more "Nordic" slimmer faces and longer foreheads, while Norwegians have broader faces and shorter foreheads, coincidentally, Swedes are less Indo-European that Norwegians.

These aDNA test are retarded anyway. What the fuck does "Baltic" is even supposed to mean? This is some made up meme-category... and these retards worshipping aDNA call racial classification "pseudo-science", LOL.

>There is no such thing as a "Nordic skull" before 4,000 B.C. because Nordic people as they exist today did not exist as such back then.
Of the Nordic type. These skulls have 100% Nordic features, this is why it was called "Nordic" by anthropologists.
>That Russian Nordic type wasn't tall, light skinned, intelligent, or physically acclimatized to the Northern European environment.
It literally was.
>Having a nordic feature doesn't make you a nord, having ALL the core nordic features makes you a nord.
These individuals had all these traits. That's a point.
>Skull shape varies from Norway to Sweden with Swedes being more "Nordic" slimmer faces and longer foreheads, while Norwegians have broader faces and shorter foreheads, coincidentally, Swedes are less Indo-European that Norwegians.
Scandinavia is really varied not even within "Norway-Denmark-Sweden", but also within certain provinces.

The north-west coast of Sweden is predominantly CRO-MAGNID (What Coon called "Borreby" and "Brunn"), also the most I1 not shockingly. The Gotaland region is predominantly Iron Age Nordic, and more R1b, just like Osterdal Valley of Norway. Tydal region has very un-Nordic Tydal type, which is probably the closest thing to the original Cro-Magnons and Europeans in general, et cetera, et cetera...

*catalans

Doesn't seem that weird considering the PLC borders and influence. Maybe there were also some settlers or traders from the Balkans somewhere in your lineage althought that "Balkans" is such a huge blob anyway.
But is more right about this.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

This is what qualifies as “white” now?

Schlomo pls

>saying someone is not white
"FUCK OFF SCHLOMO"
>saying someone is white
"FUCK OFF SCHLOMO"

the mindset of the /pol/ack

I can tell you're a Burger. Wanna know how?

You realize that's what a lot of white people look like if they are unwashed and not-groomed?

Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Compexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.

>Washing someone’s skin will turn them into a white person

The average /pol/tard can't see beyond those things, yes

What a cringey guy. USA deserves to be blacked and spiced, it is karmic justice.

>the "whiter than you, mohammed" meme is literally hundreds of years old

>Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion
lol what?

hahahahahahahaha, didn't know burgers had been always that mentally fucked

To be honest, white people were a mistake of evolution. They are a disgusting mix of three different populations making them smart as neolithic farmers, brutal like steppe riders and strong as European hunter gatherers. They are like the evil version of the Powerpuff Girls.

Why are you guys so obsessed with race/ethnicity?

Veeky Forums is an Anthroboard, you must be really new to not understand it :)

It's only few people and most of them are idiots.

Stupidity + Internet access + Dunning-Kruger Effect + Midguided Nationalism = Retarded genetic/anthropology arguments by people who don’t know what the fuck they’re even talking about

t. butthurt mutt

I’m Samoan, bro

So you are a mutt of abos and mongoloids.

Literally double untermensch.

So what about that Globular Amphora? Mallory writes in his Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture: "the physical type of the Globular Amphora population, at least those in the easternmost territories,has been seen to be similar to those of the steppe region"
And yet the most recent study shows that GAC had almost no steppe ancestry.

>The Gotaland region is predominantly Iron Age Nordic, and more R1b, just like Osterdal Valley of Norway. Tydal region has very un-Nordic Tydal type, which is probably the closest thing to the original Cro-Magnons and Europeans in general, et cetera, et cetera...
Gotland region is in majority l1 and R1a

the gene for white skin is around 10 thousand years old a long with the gene for blue eyes.

"the physical type of the Globular Amphora population, at least those in the easternmost territories,has been seen to be similar to those of the steppe region"
As you can read... the easternmost Globular Amphora was Nordic, the rest was not.
*GotAland, not Gotland

This sample came from Eastern Poland. They definitely had extensive contacts with CWC people by then.

>This sample
Just one? That's quite poor. Also Poland is not 1 square meter, you know. There is more western and more eastern Poland.

And all genes are from different populations. Blue eyes from WHG, light skin from WHG and farmers and blone hair from steppe guys.

>Just one
Six, but from the same place.

Light hair was a Baltic adaptation

PIE had dark hair & eyes

They are called Nordic because they would become the basis for the modern Nordic skull, not because the skulls belong to Nordic peoples.
Suppose we go back farther all the way to where we were still darkies before any Nordic features evolved, would you call an arm a Nordic arm simply because Nordic descendents of the owner of the arm had arms?
No, you wouldn't.
If a slav has a nordic skull and no other nordic features is he nordic or is he slavic?
Suppose a mixed Saami-Nordmann has a nordic skull, is he nordic?
no.
>it literally was
it literally was not. Mixing with the Paleo-Europeans is what developed the Nordic race, the Paleo-Europeans were the first people to be tall, strong, blond haired, and blue eyed in Europe, except their skulls were brachycephalic.
>all had these traits
That's funny because some of those traits didn't even exist yet.
Yes Scandinavia is varied, but they all constitute the Nordic race, skulls can not take primacy, it must be the quintessential Nordic features, Meds have that exact same skull type, but Meds aren't Nords.
>Coon meme
you mean the guy who flip flopped based upon what race was in power at the time?
You need to stop relying on anthropologists from the 19th century and look at the evidence yourself.
There is not much genetic variation in Scandinavia, but there is tremendous phenotypic variation.
We can not define Nords by one phenotype, it must all the features, or none of them and we go by genetic clustering,
Tydals are the original Nords my man, they were the first people or at least their close relations in Fenno-Scandia were the first to be tall, have blond hair, blue eyes, and develop beyond other indigenous Paleo-European groups.
WHG have been found with variants of R1b. R1b was in Europe alongside I1 and I2 for a long time.
before the Indo-Europeans even existed as a distinct people made up of CHG and EHG.