Definition of White People

submitted by SoylentCapitalist from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I understand that the (10% max.) Mongoloid admixture in Finns makes you sceptical of them being part of the white race, but since when is continuous overlap a requirement for being part of the same race?

By that logic, wouldn't MENAs (and perhaps even MENA/Negroid mulattoes and quadroons) be white, given that there's a continuous overlap between them and white people due to all the mixed intermediate populations (in the south of North-Africa and the south of the Arab peninsula) that show overlap with both populations that are more purely white and populations with more Negroid admixture? Genetic proximity is clearly a much more legitimate measure of determining whether an ethnic group is white or not, than continuous overlap.

.

I think it's fair to say that the Nordic subrace forms the whitest group of white people, since they have both the least MENA as well as the least Mongoloid admixture, and have also been subjected to the evolutionary selection pressures that formed the white race (and by extension, the Caucasian race/subspecies) to the highest degree of any group of white people.

Since the Nordic subrace is the whitest subrace within the white race, this means that in order to determine which white ethnic groups are part of the white race and which aren't, you'd have to draw a circle on a PCA map of Europe with the most Nordic ethnic groups at the center of it.

According to you yourself, white can mean anything you want it to be as long as it's consistent, so if you want to create a definition of white that excludes Finns, you could do that but you'd at least have to also exclude all ethnic groups that are equally or more genetically distant (than Finns) from the whitest white groups, and likewise if your definition of white includes groups like most Italians, most Iberians and most Greeks (like mine does), it'd also have to include Finns. Here's a visualization of what I mean, which hopefully makes it easier to understand: https://files.catbox.moe/h724bb.png (edit: bottom of the PCA map is more Negroid admixture, right of the PCA map is more Mongoloid admixture)

[–][deleted]  (6 children)

[deleted]

    [–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    and just a small nitpick, your circle "Nordic" isn't actually accurate, you included basically everybody there, by Nordic I suppose you meant Germanic, which are definitely not the French, Hungarian, Czechs, Scotland, and others.

    To detirmine the center of the Nordic cluster I picked the ethnic groups that are usually regarded as most Nordic, and then to detirmine how large the cluster had to be I mostly went off phenotype (ethnic groups with large percentage of blond hair, blue eyes and a typical Nordic physiognomy), the same method late 19th and early 20th century racialists (like Madison Grant) used with astonishing accuracy (because genetic testing wasn't a thing yet).

    On second thoughts, I might've made the Nordic cluster a bit too broad, especially in the downward and rightward direction, but you have to take into consideration that Nordic features (especially blond hair and blue eyes) are quite common among northern French (Germanic in origin), Slavs (West-Slavs in particular), and especially Baltic people. This map shows what I'm talking about: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/10/c1/e4/10c1e45d6d921bf9cb1a559961bdfc32.jpg

    Nordic isn't a synonym for Germanic, after all, but instead a subrace the can be found in almost all European populations to varying degrees, with Germanic people having the highest amount of Nordic ancestry. Also note that the Nordic cluster, just like the white cluster, is a spectrum, with ethnic groups further from the center but still within the cluster being less Nordic than those at the center of it.

    [–][deleted]  (4 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      There's no such thing as Nordic subrace that is based on eyes and hair, I mean sure you can call anything a race, you can call a group of gingers the redhaired race but that's not really something meaningful

      Another strawman. No one is saying the Nordic subrace is defined just by eye color and hair color, it's also defined by physiognomy and brain structure, but that doesn't mean eye color and hair color aren't meaningful features to infer someone's ancestry. This argument is very similar to the leftist strawman that our definition of the white race is based on just skin color, and then conclude it's a meaningless category based on that strawman.

      the theorists from the 19th century were basically aiming half blindly on trying to define where were the descendents of the Germanic peoples, since they called it Nordic based on Scandinavia, or Teutonic which is literally a synonym for Germanic, they thought that all blue eyes and blonde hair were of Germanic origin so fringe groups of people that had blonde hair and blue eyes might have been result of Germanic migration on their minds, which was not accurate, now we have genetic understanding of those things.

      Accurate in some things, not very accurate in other things, when they actually looked at language and history, they were accurate, as such, Finns were considered to be of the mongoloid race because they didn't spoke an Indo-European language and had historically an Asian origin, as you can see on this map from Imperial Germany: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Meyers_b11_s0476a.jpg

      This is just semantics pilpul. The Nordic subrace isn't called Nordic to be used interchangeably with Germanic, they very well understood that there those aren't the same thing and that the Nordic subrace is far older than the Germanic language group, they used the term Nordic because Nordic features highly correlated with Germanic people.

      Your one cherry-picked example of an old racial map that conflates linguistic groups with (sub)races also doesn't disprove all race science from the same time period. The following maps from the same time period have a much higher correlation with modern-day genetic data, the first two maps clearly show the Nordic subrace transcending ethnic and linguistic boundaries and correlating with my earlier defined Nordic genetic cluster: Map by Madison Grant, map by Edwald Banse, and the following map, as well as the previous two maps, clearly show the Finns as white with Mongoloid admixture instead of Mongoloid: Map by Thomas Huxley.

      .

      English is a Germanic language, England was founded by Germanic Tribes, it means literally "The Land of the Angles", Angles were a Danish tribe from Jutland, the Anglo-Saxons were the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians, all Germanic tribes, therefore the English were Germanic, and so on.

      I'm well aware of this, hence why I consider the English to be part of the Germanic volk, and ideally want them included in a (decentralized) pan-Germanic empire/federation. I know they also have a substantial Celtic ancestral component, but those Celts are closely related to Germanic people and were already largely Nordic anyways.

      They thought Northern France could have been Germanic as well as part of Italy because of Vikings.

      The northern French are indeed largely Germanic in origin, coming from the same stock as the Flemish Dutch (hence its name France, literally meaning "land of the Franks). Italians? Not even close. Viking admixture is very minimal in Italy. The Italians with the most Germanic admixture can be found in northern Italy (hence why northern Italians look the whitest), whereas Vikings settled in southern Italy and Sardinia (in numbers too small to meaningfully alter the populations).

      .

      So no, blonde hair and blue eyes aren't innate Nordic/Germanic features, they're however, more common among them, but a blonde and blue-eyed Spanish guy doesn't have such features because he has some Germanic blood, nor does a Slav, or anyone else, we can't start calling peoples Nordic because they have blonde hair and blue eyes, they're Germanic if they're Germanic, and there's no such thing as Nordic race, only a Germanic race, blue eyed and blonde haired Spanish people will not cluster with blonde haired and blue eyed Danish people, or blue eyed and blonde haired Russian people, they're not genetically close.

      It's relatively easy to map races and subraces as they exist in their current state, based on genetic testing and phenotypical analysis, but what's actually much more murky is trying to find out how exactly the situation as it currently is came to be. For Slavs and Celts who are genetically/phenotypically Nordic, it probably mostly isn't because of Germanic migrations/invasions but something that pre-dates the existence of the Germanic linguistic group itself. For Spanish people who are phenotypically Nordic, it could really be either way, since several Germanic tribes (like the Suebi and the Visigoths) invaded Iberia and mixed with its native population during the collapse of the Roman Empire.

      Anyway to put it simple, what they were trying to do was identify all those who were members/descendents from Germanic people, that's where the words Nordic or Teotonic race comes from. With our current understanding of history and genetics we can easily point out who is Germanic and who isn't, a blue-eyed and blond haired Spanish guy isn't Germanic, Nordic, Teutonic or whatever you want to call him, but a brown haired and blue-eyed native Danish is, blonde hair and blue eyes are more common among the Germanic, but it isn't inherent to them, anyone can have those features without having any Germanic DNA and it shouldn't be relevant to us, a blue eyed and blonde haired Syrian is not Germanic/Nordic/Teutonic, or even white.

      Just because there are some anecdotical edge cases of white people who look like they're Nordic but genetically cluster more closely with the non-Nordic ethnic group they belong to, or vice versa, doesn't mean that Nordic is an illegitimate category. This is just the same continuum fallacy leftists use to deconstruct the white race as a legitimate category. Exceptions don't matter, averages do. And while highly unlikely, it's definitely possible for a Syrian to be white, if enough of his ancestry is white to the point that he even has blond hair and blue eyes. (Assad, for example, has blue eyes, so he clearly must have white admixture, but due to his physiognomy combined with his hair I'd consider him an edge case)

      [–][deleted]  (2 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        What genetic data? What correlation are you talking about? There's no genetic correletion at all, at best the first map serves as a blonde hair map, maybe, there's no genetic evidence to correlate any of that, or perhapes you can provide a study showing that some random Spanish, Italian, Russian, or whatever that "looks" "Nordic" has any genetic correlation with "similar looking" individuals from other countries? There isn't any, buddy, they are not correlated at all.

        Like I already pointed out earlier, you're focusing on exceptions and edge cases in an attempt to disprove me, which is a very disingenuous, leftist debate tactic. If you can find an anecdotical swarthy looking guy that clusters with other white people, or an anecdotical white-looking guy that clusters with non-white Caucasians, that doesn't dispove the existence of the white race either.

        What genetic data? What correlation are you talking about? There's no genetic correletion at all, at best the first map serves as a blonde hair map, maybe, there's no genetic evidence to correlate any of that, or perhapes you can provide a study showing that some random Spanish, Italian, Russian, or whatever that "looks" "Nordic" has any genetic correlation with "similar looking" individuals from other countries? There isn't any, buddy, they are not correlated at all.

        Then go ahead and show me any genetic evidence for the said Nordic race.

        So now you're just outright denying the evidence that's right in front of you. You're starting more and more to sound like a Jew or a leftist, to be honest. Jews, leftists (and Jewish leftists) deny the causality behind the phenotypical similarities between different groups of white people in exactly the same way as you do with Nordic people. Nordic people very clearly can be identified as a distinct genetic cluster within the white race, as shown on this visualization I sent ealier, and which people on it are Nordic very obviously strongly correlates with which people are Nordic on the map by Madison Grant and the map by Edwald Banse which I also showed earlier. You'd have to engage in some serious, Talmudic mental gymnastics to explain this away as just a coincidence.

        No, that's just reality, the white race exist, we can draw a line for it on genetic basis

        And we can do just the same for the Nordic subrace, as I've just shown you earlier in this reply.

        what doesn't exist is your Nordic race that consists of random blonde Spanish and blonde Russians that aren't genetically close to each other, but are close to their brown haired countryman just like any other average Spaniard and Russian, because they are members of the Iberian and Slav subraces respectively, not a nonexistent Nordic race.

        That's yet another strawman, no one is saying that every single person who looks sort of Nordic belongs to the Nordic subrace, or that there's no one who doesn't really look Nordic but belongs to the Nordic subrace. Of course you can always find exceptions, but exceptions don't matter, averages do. You keep bringing up these rare, anecdotal cases, but that doesn't prove anything since it's negligible in the greater scheme of things. There are even mulattoes who happen to have blond (but curly) hair and blue eyes, but brown skin and big lips, because the white admixture just so happened to express itself more prominently, yet we don't use edge cases like this to "deconstruct" the white race like you're doing with the Nordic subrace.