you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 5 fun1 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 5 fun -  (4 children)

Why so hostile?

Anyhow, seems you missed this day in school:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Horde

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire

Most Europeans are mixed.

[–]outrageousboote 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Socks is back? Yes perhaps there is minute contribution from Mongol invasions in Eastern Europe like there is minute non-native ancestry everywhere around the world, but this doesn't mean that Europeans are some indistinct mongrels, let alone compared to other populations.

You are obviously trying to push a narrative, you are the same person who claimed that Mexicans were akin to Iberians and that admixture with natives was limited ignoring their obvious and phenotypically evident Amerindian ancestry, you never emphasize non-native or "mixed" ancestry in non-European groups.

Or maybe you are getting the Mongols confused with another people?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

To understand European mixed ethnicity, we need to appreciate the extent of human trafficking, rape, conquest, migration, &c especially between 150,000 BCE and 1700 around the Mediterranean and further north. Mixed race groups on the Iberian peninsula are an easy topic, as they were a combination of Arab, Berber, and other groups between the early eighth century and the late 15th century. Note also the mixing of groups that occurred during the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period . Mexicans are 70% - 90% mixed-race, many of whom have Iberian ancestry: https://www.quora.com/How-many-Mexicans-have-at-least-some-degree-of-Iberian-ancestry . An interesting part of Ukranian and Polish ancestry is the Khanate contribution in the 12th - 18th centuries. Scandinavians who traded (&c) along the Volga river and in the Mediterranean in the 8th-12th centuries also had Arab slaves and partners. Turkic groups spread throughout Eurasia, as conquerors and as slaves. There were Africans in Europe, for various reasons. Here's one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_degli_Sposi#/media/File:Andrea_Mantegna_-_Ceiling_Oculus_-_WGA14023.jpg

[–]outrageousboote 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I debunked this mixed claim weeks ago, and now you are reneging on the lack of admixture between natives and Iberian conquerors that you claimed originally and are yet again implying Europeans are heavily mixed while not making similar claims about any other group (with the exception of opportunistically reneging your Mexican claim).

I gave links which crush the conception of high levels of admixture with non-European groups to the point of being "mixed" among Europeans, using things like the migration period is irrelevant as the mixing was between the same continental racial group (a German-Swede mix is different from a Nigerian-German mix, a Korean-Chinese mix is different form a hapa).

Even after all the invasions, interactions etc. from non-European peoples Europe has faced admixture has stayed minor and Europeans distinct, so bringing this up does not prove anything.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

yet again implying Europeans are heavily mixed

I didn't say this. It seems your arguments (before and now) focus mainly on predominantly white vs predominantly non-white genes in Europeans. I'm not really addressing this. My main argument is that there is a mixture of ethnicities, albeit less in some and more in others, but naturally Europeans are predominantly white-skinned, and regarding the Semitic or Hebrew groups, one would have great difficulty showing that these people are any different from Medeterranean white-skinned groups, even while appreciating that some Semitic groups try to marry ONLY Semitic people.