Indo-European = White Is Bad Theory

Earliest Whites in the world today are Berbers. In Europe, Estonians seem to have the most WHG DNA. Anatolian farmers and later PIE then flooded Europe. Sardinians are damn near pure Anatolian farmer. A lot of North Euros are high in PIE. I give Lithuanians the trophy but it’s a tight race.

Berbers or Lapps (Saami). Sardinians are also very ancient, as ancient as the Saami. Arabs are quite ancient too. Those Getstonedians (sp?) must have Saami blood. Saami go back 9,000 years. There’s a good argument that the Saami are the original White Europeans. You see any White Nationalists claiming the Saami, much less the Berbers. At best those are called off-Whites if they are polite, mongrels when they are not.

Actually though the first Europid types came out of the Arab World ~12,000 YBP. Notice how much White Nationalists hate Arabs? They can hate away, but Arabs are truly the original Europids or Whites.

Classic White features like blond and red hair and blue and green eyes go back to Finland 8,000 YBP.

If you are going to do the PIE = White thing, I think you are going to run into some problems. Everyone from Evola to Hitler to Hindufash want to do this, but I think it’s bad theory. Anyway, the first IE people were Anatolians. You hear any Mighty Whities claiming Ashkenazi Jews, Turks, and Kurds? Those are the remains of the  original Anatolians. Now those are some of the first real Whites!

LOL @ White nationalists when it comes out Jews are the remains of some of the original European Whites!

Alt Left: Why I Hate the Cultural Left

You are an idiotic moron who claims to be Left but is a blatant rightwing White Supremacist with ego issues who posts crap all the time about ‘races’ and other such shit. I hope your blog gets taken down permanently!

I had to edit this for style because this guy is apparently not capable of writing the English language properly.

I’ve been getting bonehead comments like this from Cultural Leftards for many years now.

There’s the old chestnut about me being a rightwinger. Ok, then why do I always vote for Democrats. I wouldn’t vote for a Republican if you paid me, and it’s been this way since I started voting long ago. How come I absolutely despise all Republicans and other rightwingers such as Libertarians? How come I don’t even like most Democrats because I consider them too rightwing?

Also, could someone please show me a rightwing group anywhere in the US that I could join, please? Because I’ve looked around at rightwing groups in the US and even at various formations on the Net and in other countries and I can’t see any rightwing ideologies that I am interested in at all. Except maybe Russian conservatism or Putinism but the problem with that is that Russian conservatism is to the left of the US Democratic Party.

If I despise all rightwing ideologies, how could I be a rightwinger? Am I part of some ideology that has only me as a member? I’ve had this standing offer out there for a while now, and none of these losers has ever taken me up on this offer.

Whatever. This is in reference to this article. The article is titled What Did Africans Look Like 40-45,000 YBP? I noticed that that article caused this shithead to blow a few blood vessels, so I went and checked it out to how racist and White Supremacist and rightwing and evil it was because it must be all those things if this dipshit says it is, right?

Well, I went over and read through the whole thing. It is a discussion of human races and ethnic groups from an anthropological sense from the point of view of what their skulls look like. Perfectly legitimate subject. It does refer to several large races called Caucasoids, Mongoloids, and Negroids. It also refers to races such as Negritos, Papuans, Khoisan, and Pygmies. All of these are absolutely human races.

The post makes no statements positive or negative about any of those groups. There is no White Supremacism, as nowhere do I try to imply that Whites or Caucasoids are superior to other groups.

I don’t even talk about superiority or inferiority. I just describe the races by looking at their skulls and comparing them. It also goes into how some ancient skulls looked. The post points out that all modern races, including Europids are modern, that is they all appeared in the last 15,000 years. It also talks about the Out of Africa movement of many of the Earth’s people.

First of all, White Supremacists as a rule all hate the Out of Africa theory because it basically states that White people came from niggers ha ha. Well, White folks just won’t have that. That’s just a bit too insulting, ok? A bridge too far.

Asians are a lot smarter. I pointed out once that all Asians came from Black people, and some Asian guy said, “So what? If you back far enough, we were all frogs.” I told my Mom and she said, “See? That shows you right there that Asians are smarter than White people.” She’s right.

Also White Supremacists really hate that model of an early Caucasian face because he doesn’t look White. Not to mention that he has a face that not even any mother could love. They claim that all Caucasian skulls look White for tens of thousands of years. White people be all ancient and shit! Not only that, but Whites wuz kangs! What’s next? We flew airplanes and developed nuclear power?

That article is about as utterly non-racist as an article about that subject can possibly be.

But you see, to the Cultural Left, if you write about race at all, especially if you suggest that there are different races of humans that have had different evolutionary trajectories, you are a vicious, evil, White Supremacist racist. Because apparently race doesn’t exist or some shit.

Well then, lets get rid of the hate crime laws then because if there’s no race, no one can be attacked on that basis, right?

While we are at it, let’s get rid of all civil rights and void all civil rights legal rulings. Since race doesn’t exist, no one needs to be protected against discrimination against something that doesn’t exist, right?

Let’s get rid of affirmative action and goals and all that crap because how can you have goals to fill X percent of positions in your company with this category or that of a nonexistent category?

Ready when you are, Cultural Left fucktards.

What Did Africans Look like 40-45,000 YBP?

Polar Bear: What’s your best guess on the 1/3 African? Khoisan maybe?

The commenter is referring to the genesis of the Caucasoid race in the Caucasus 40-45,000 YBP which was formed by an input of 2/3 Ancient “Chinese” and 1/3 Ancient Africans as per Stanford anthropologist Cavalli-Sforza’s groundbreaking research.

Incidentally, this great man is now being attacked by antiracist morons because he had the temerity to suggest that such things as human races either exist or used to exist. This scientific fact is now banned by anti-science Cultural Left obscurantist “fundamentalists” who resemble the religious fundamentalists they hate more than they care to note.

The commenter is asking what the Ancient African component looked like, and then asks whether they looked like a Khoisanid type.

No one really knows the answer to this question because the Khoisan as a race are new. The Khoisan people go back 53,000 YBP, but before 10-15,000 YBP, they looked a lot different. But yes, those people were the ancestors of the Khoisanids.

Have you ever seen the reconstruction of the earliest Caucasian 35,000 YBP? He’s insanely ugly and he looks nothing like any type of modern Caucasoid. He doesn’t look like any modern race, but if anything, he looks somewhat Khoisanid. However, modern Khoisanids are rather attractive people, and this ancient Caucasian looks awful. I think when God was handing out looks, this guy thought God said books, and  he said “I prefer horror.”

I haven’t seen any reconstructions of these ancient Africans, so no one quite knows what they might have looked like.

But only the Khoisan and the Pygmies remain of those ancient Africans. However, the ancestors of the Khoisan probably didn’t look Khoisan, and we don’t know what the ancestors of the Pygmies looked like because the jungle consumes and reduces everything to raw soil, including human bones.

And keep in mind that at the time we went out of Africa 70,000 YBP, there were 40 different groups in Africa, and they were all extremely different from one another. We don’t know what any of those people looked like. An ancient skull from South Africa 35,000 YBP looks “Caucasoid.”

But this is just yet another case of the parallel development that I discussed in this post in which “Caucasoid” is a frequent property of human skulls whether of the Caucasoid race or not simply because the phenotypes available to man are only a small subset of all possible phenotypes.

Hence, “Mongoloid,” “Caucasoid,” and “African” phenotypes pop up regularly outside of those groups. To give an example, many Australoids appear “African.” This includes Negritos, and other Melanesians. Some Africans such as the Khoisan appear “Asian.” And on and on. Therefore we can’t tell just by looking at a human which of the 3-4 large human races that they belong to.

Only two of those 40 groups present in Africa when we left are among those that left Africa, and at one point, those two groups out of Africa groups suffered a mass extinction event to where they were reduced to 1,500-2,000 people, possibly due to the Toba Volcano eruption in India 73,000 YBP.

What’s interesting is that there were already modern humans in India a the time of this eruption, and this is earlier than the usual 60,000 YBP date for humans leaving Africa. That there were people already in India before the Out of Africa date shows that some humans left Africa even before the given date.

This reduction of a large population to a very small number via mass death is known as a bottleneck, and it is known that we non-African humans definitely went through an evolutionary bottleneck. Other species can also go through bottlenecks in their evolutionary history.

These bottlenecks, while devastating in terms of mass death, are often good on an evolutionary basis in terms of fitness. Often only the fittest survive these events in other words, leaving a more robust and adaptive population after the bottleneck.

The Preposterous Altaic Controversy, or the Failure of Empiricism and Growth of Faith-Based Dogmatism in Modern Linguistics

Polar Bear: Interesting how North Chinese Mongol types made it down to Korea.

Yes, and keep in mind that that same group on the shores of Shandong Peninsula also became the Japanese. They were together as some sort of Proto-Japanese-Koreans as early as 8,000 YBP. That finding is controversial though because it is based on Altaic Theory and a paper by noted Altaicist Martine Robeets of the Max Plank Institute in Switzerland.

Although Altaic is as obvious a language family as Algonquian, for some reason, a group of fanatics have attacked the idea and have now turned it into the “crazy theory.”

However, I did a recent survey of Altaic linguists, and 73% of them support some form of Altaic Theory. The loudmouths are the 27% minority, and they are running the show.

General Linguistics despises Altaic Theory, it is now an ojbect of ridicule, and if you believe in Altaic you are regarded as a super-kook. I think most linguists are just going along with the fanatics due to peer pressure. Peer pressure is extreme in my field. It’s as bad an 8th grade playground, especially when they are under the cover of anonymity like the losers on the Bad Linguistics Reddit. They’re such cowards that they won’t even tell us their names.

I think the peer pressure and bullying of the erudite by the ignorant obscurantists has gotten so bad that if you said you believed in Altaic, you might have a hard time getting hired at a university nowadays.

Anti-Altaic fanaticism has come out of the US. This is unfortunate and it is because the US is the center of the linguistic scholarly universe. US linguists act as arrogant American exceptionalist “linguistic imperialists of the US hegemon” in the same way that US politics revolves around the arrogant American exceptionalist Deep State theorists promoting the US Empire and the US as the hegemon or dictator of the world.

That most of these linguists are actually on the Left while spouting the worst conservatism and reaction is even more pathetic, but it makes sense if one sees the modern Cultural Left as actually a backwards, reactionary, throwback movement.

As an example, the Cultural Left is now the Sex-Hating Left, the Victorian Left, the Comstockian Left, the Prude Left. Conservatives are more sex-positive than your average dour, sour-faced, turd-in-the-punchbowl, party-pooping Cultural Leftist.

Problem with this is that like American foreign policy know-it-all dimwits, US linguist know-it-all dimwits leading the charge against Altaic overwhelmingly know absolutely nothing whatsoever about Altaic Theory. They’re just going along with crowd, and following the bully-boys, throwing rocks and calling names at the designated victims, the Altaicists. Like I said above, it’s 8th grade all over again.

It’s pathetic, especially if you realize that these are grown men and not pubescent children engaging in such theatrics and over the top histrionics.

As an example, the Wikipedia article on Altaic has been completely ruined by these fanatics, and it stands now more as a monument to know-nothingism in the social sciences than to any sort of actual empiricism. It’s a sad day when we linguists join the rest of the social “science” crowd in their war against facts and truth in favor of ideology being led by ideologues masquerading as scientists.

One doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry.

As a result of this “virus pandemic” of ignorant anti-Altaicism coming out of the land of the free, a large majority of linguists reject Altaic Theory. I might point out that this stupidity virus didn’t spread too far across the pond.

European linguists still generally believe in Altaic, though most don’t know it well. I have seen these poor sods wander into linguistic debates shaking their heads wondering why the Hell Altaic is even controversial at all, when it’s really about as easily proven as Uto-Aztecan. They’re dumbfounded.

So this ignorance epidemic is a lot less contagious than we first feared. The anti-Altaic virus is not particularly harmful for those who catch it. The coarse is mild but very long-lasting. The only notable symptom is being reduced to drooling, screeching, straitjacket cases whenever the word Altaic is mentioned. The prognosis is good, but some might be cooking a heart attack or stroke if they don’t calm down soon.

Please note though that my research has proven that among those who specialize in Altaic,  the overwhelming majority (73%) support Altaic. I have my research written up in notes, and I really need to put it into an article. Let me know if any of you readers want me to write this up.

Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, and Southern and Northern Chinese: How to Tell Them Apart

How the Hell would I know? They’re all just a bunch of gooks to me! J/k. Don’t report me to SJW  Central Control please!

SHI: One should just go with a Vietnamese or Northern Chinese girl if you’re craving a Korean. Can’t tell the difference anyway.

SHI is a connoisseur of women, and I am more like a common sewer when it comes to women, but I will respect his judgement nevertheless.

Northern Chinese look very much like Koreans, and I very much doubt if there is a good way to sort them out. Koreans do have very prominent high cheekbones. That’s their Mongolian heritage as they pretty much came from Mongolia long ago. They along with the Japanese settled on the northeast coast of China in the Shandong area 7-8,000 years ago (believe it or not) and stayed there for many years. See recent excellent work by Martine Robeets on this.

The Koreans may have moved in from there 3-5,000 YBP, and Japanese invaded Japan in a huge wave 2,300 YBP. These people were called the Yayoi. The Yayoi are actually thought to have moved first from Shandong to Korea and then south from Korea to Japan a couple thousand years ago. But Northern Chinese and Mongolians are more or less the same thing.

The Japanese came from this same Mongolian stock, but they bred in so deeply with the Ainu that they definitely look different from Koreans. But they both also look quite similar, and it’s not easy to tell them apart either. In addition, there are a lot of mixed Japanese-Koreans in Japan. They’re almost a cliche.

Viets definitely look different from either Japanese or Koreans. They are also full of Chinese, but they are full of Cantonese Southern Chinese (“the barbarians” as the Northern Chinese refer to them), and Southern Chinese look a lot different from Northern Chinese.

Viets are a mixture of a more Austroloid type exemplified by the Montagnard tribesmen (look at a photo of them sometime). Actually the Montagnards are more like Australoids transitioning to Mongoloids or early SE Asians. Completed modern SE Asians are Mongoloids with some lingering traces of their Australoid heritage.

2,300 years ago, a huge wave of Southern Chinese conquerors spread through Vietnam and thoroughly bred in with the population. Nevertheless there was a Chinese minority in Vietnam in recent who tended to run the businesses (as usual). They were quite persecuted after the Communists took over, and most of them fled as boat people.

Were the First Residents of America Caucasoids?

Jason: David Duke I think was putting forth some theory where Whites were the original inhabitants of the New World – HA HA. O.K., any credibility in this?

Nope. It’s based on a willful misinterpretation of the Kennewick Man from 9,000 YBP in Washington state.

His features were sometimes called Caucasoid but actually he plots closest to people called Moriori, a Maori subgroup exterminated by the Maori. They were sort of a more Melanesianized version of the Maori. Read up on the saga on the Moriori for a parable about the perils of pacifism.

Beyond that, he plots close to the Ainu, which is probably a better model. The Ainu have a notorious “Caucasoid” appearance and were long  thought to be Ancient Norwegians who got lost in Siberia when one of their dogsled races went off-course and ended up in Nippon and got stranded there with their palms up in the air not knowing where they were, how they got there, or what to do. Well, at least they still had access to salted fish!

The original Japanese were reportedly these little people who somewhat resembled some sort of Northeast Asian Negritos. As is usual for the Negritos, the Ainu who showed up 14,000 YBP promptly Holocausted them.

Ancient Negrito types also seem to be the ancient peoples of Southeast Asia, Southern China and the Philippines. This is where Black nationalist dipshits get their ideas that the original Chinese were Black people. Yeah, Chinese were niggas and shee-it! Right along with we wuz kangs. I don’t think so.

So ancient Negrito types may have been generalized across the southeastern part of Asia long ago. They persist today in the Andaman Islands, Thailand as the Orang Asli and to some extent the Senoi, Malaysia as the Mani, and the Philippines as the Agta. There are also said to be Negrito types in Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. Wherever they exist, the non-Negritos tend to turn into Nazis and Shoah the Negritos. The strong shall rule the weak, you know.

Ainu might be considered Paleoasians. There is a ready explanation for the Caucasoid appearance. In my opinion, some Australoids (such as the Ainu) and Australoid-Paleoasian mixes such as Polynesians definitely look Caucasoid. Polynesians are a mix of Paleoasian Taiwanese aborigines (who already look Caucasoid) and Melanesian, with an extra Melanesian dose in the case of the archaic Moriori above.

I have seen the same Australoid-Asian mix (really the basis for Paleoasians) in Timor and Cambodia. In both cases, the Caucasoid appearance was stark. This is probably just parallel development. Consider that of all the possible facial structures of man, probably only a small subset of those is available to us as humans.

Our small subset consists of “types” such as “African, “Asian,” “Caucasoid,” “Australoid,” and “Capoid.” Capoids are Hottentots, Bushmen, or the Khoisan. The Amerindians combine “Asian” and “Caucasoid” types. Polynesians, Micronesians, and Melanesians combine “Australoid” and “Asian” types, at times resulting coincidentally in an accidental “Caucasoid” type.

Since there only a small subset of types available to us, various combinations will result in  “Asian” or “Caucasoid” types, etc. purely by coincidence. You follow?

It’s also based on a theory called the Solutrean Theory that “Caucasoids” walked across the ice on the Atlantic Ocean to come to the US based on similarities between projectile points in France and the East Coast of the US ~14,000 YBP.

There was thought to be genetic evidence of the Solutrean Theory in the presence of an odd gene type in the Eastern US not found elsewhere. However, recent genetic studies concluded that this gene is now not thought to be related to the Ancient French, who probably already had good cooking even shortly after they walked out of their caves. A rundown of the matter is available on the Solutrean Theory article on Wikipedia.

The similarities in projectile points are now thought to be another case of parallel development, as perhaps projectile points like skulls also have only a subset of possible points available to humans.

Anyway, Europeans from 14,000 YBP may have looked more like Amerindians than modern Caucasoids. Modern Caucasoids are new, having sprung only in the last 15,000 years. I think the original models may have come out of Arab lands 12,000 YBP. So basically sand niggers were the first White people. Swallow that pill and choke on  it, Nordicists!

You can see some of what may be “ancient Caucasoids” in the South Indian Dravidians, the Mozabites (an odd-looking Berber group from Algeria), and the Suomi or Lapps (the oldest extant Caucasoids in Europe who date from 9,000 YBP and happen to have a somewhat Asian appearance).

White nationalist morons (all ethnic nationalists are morons – often dangerous morons) have taken up Kennewick Man as their own in addition  to the deprecated Solutrean Theory. This gives them their usual dose of solipsism, validation, and triumphalism which is the basis for all ethnic nationalism (and is also the raw material of the human ego not coincidentally).

It also enables them to play their beloved victim card where they were the original residents of the US until they got Shoahed by evil ancient Nazi Amerindians. Now they want their revenge and to take these lands as their own, except it’s a bit too late for that. They should have started on that 12 million illegal immigrants ago. By now it’s just another White Whale or doomed cause.

It also allows them to throw the Amerindians off their ill-deserved throne as First Americans and portrays them as vicious invaders, usurpers and of course Holocausters who probably murdered six gadzillion ancient American Caucasoids (who all looked just like David Duke) after they invaded over the Bering Strait and crashed down through the holes in the ice to reach our hallowed land.

What Race Are Latin American Mestizos?

Jason Muniz: Wouldn’t that include most mestizos since Native Americans have 1/3 West Eurasian ancestry? Mestizos basically have West Eurasian ancestry from both their European side as well as their Native American one. I guess it would depend on each individual mestizo.

Mestizos don’t have European ancestry from their Native American side. What do you mean? You mean that many Latin American Amerindians have some White in them? Well, ok, if that is what you are referring to, correct then

Well, down in Latin America, you are White if you are 75-85% White, so I would say that any Mestizos who are in that category would be White. Really, I would say that any mestizo with a mostly-White phenotype is pretty much White.

Most Argentines, Chileans, and Southern Brazilians are definitely White, that’s for sure. And a lot of the Latin American upper class is absolutely White.

Anymore than that though and we are getting into mixed race people like you have in the Stans. They’re not really members of any race. There are some people like that up in the Urals too and over in Siberia. They’re so mixed that it’s hard to tell if they are White or Asian.

In the West (the Urals) they look a lot more White, but they are “funny Whites” – very Asiatic looking. Over towards Siberia, they are a lot more Asiatic, but you can still see a lot of White in them. Uyghurs and people like that would be judged on an individual basis. If they look mostly White, they’re White. If they look mostly Asian, they’re Asian. And if they’re totally mixed in, they are just mixed-race.

Are Native Americans Caucasoids or Asiatics?

Jason Muniz: Yeah, I’m from the old site. No, I’ve been here before but I just don’t come often. I came this time to read any race-related articles. What do you think about this idea by “Monfret” concerning Native Americans being genetically and phenotypically Caucasoids as opposed to Asiatics?

Just looking at that already, I can tell you it’s not true.

They are absolutely Asiatics. However, of all the Asiatics, they are probably the closest to Caucasoids. Siberians are similar in that respect. Some Native Americans have skulls that look rather Caucasoid though, mostly some in the US. I’d have to see them plotted on a skull chart to see how they plot out to whether they are Asiatic or Caucasoid.

A commenter further down on the page is correct. He says that Native Americans plot somewhere between Asiatics and Caucasoids, but they are closer to Asiatics.

But there’s overlap. For instance, the Chukchi actually plot Caucasian on charts. Take a look at them. They look like Asian Inuit types. They live in far eastern Siberia. For that matter, some Berber populations plot Black genetically. But if you look at them, they are clearly more Caucasoid. The fact that there are White and Black Berbers (say, in Morocco) confuses things even further.

The author is correct that ancient Caucasoids look Native American. A Caucasoid skull in Europe from 20,000 YBP plots closer to the Makah Indians of Washington state than to anything else. The Makah look Asiatic. So if you go back 20,000 years, Caucasoid skulls in Europe do look “Asiatic.’

But keep in mind that all human races are new. None go back further than 15,000 years. So before that, we are getting into races that just don’t exist anymore. Comparing nonexistent races to present ones is problematic to say the least.

Australoids: The Ainu and the Earliest Amerindians and Caucasians

Peindish: If the Jomon arrived 15KYA, who were the inhabitants of Japan stretching back 30-40KYA?

It’s said this older population had haplogroup D and the newer Jomon group at around 15KYA had haplogroup C, but haplogroup is not a good indicator of race, since you can have a haplogroup of another part of the world and be 99.99% not of the other race.

The Ainu have legends of “Koropokkur,” describing them as very short people who fished for food and lived under butterbur leaves. Either this is some Negrito-like population or it’s the Nivkhs who were pushed by the Jomonese further north into Sakhalin.

What do you think?

Yes, I always thought they were some strange sort of Northern Negritos.

I think the Jomon showed up 13-14,000 YBP.

I don’t know about the prehistory of the Nivkhi. Are they short?

There is some recent data connecting the Nivkhi with some of the earlier Native American populations. It’s thought that the early ones could have come by boat across the Alaska coast down the Western Canadian coast to the Western US coast. They have a petrified shit in a cave in Oregon that is older than 14,300 YBP. That’s older than Clovis, so that’s interesting right there. The Clovis barrier is gone. Let’s just hang it up.

Also, those early people who were in the Americas around 10-12,000 YBP looked something like Negritos or Australoids at least in facial features. There are some remnants in the far south of Chile – the Yaghnan – and there were also some extinct groups in Baja California that were very primitive.

Kennewick Man found in Washington State from 9,000 YBP looks like an Ainu or a Maori, or more specifically, a Moriori, the more archaic and Australoid or Melanesian people who were exterminated so cruelly by the Maori ~1830’s-1840’s.

The Ainu are also Australoid facially. They are sort of a Northern Australoid. Look closely at them. Look at how much they look like Aborigines. Kennewick Man was said to look “Caucasoid,” but that is an illusion, as some Aborigines can look vaguely like this.

In particular, a cross between an Australoid and an Asian can look remarkably “Caucasoid.” Check out some of the Taiwan Aborigines or the Ainu for that matter. The Ainu also were long thought to be Caucasoid, but their genes are Asian, and their faces are actually Australoid. If you go back 9,000 YBP, almost everyone in Asia appears Australoid.

I believe a skull from the Caucasus from 33,000 YBP looks somewhat Australoid. That’s the funny looking bald headed guy that everyone was laughing about, as people were calling him the first Caucasian.

But he was the first Caucasians, the Caucasians having arisen 40-45,000 YBP via crossbreeding between 1/3 African population settled in Asia and 2/3 very early Chinese population that may have been quite Australoid. So Caucasians were created by 1/3 Black person and 2/3 Asian person. Most White Supremacists probably don’t want to hear that though ha ha.

Alt Left: Who's White? A Caucasian Roundup, or Ultra-Pan-Aryanism

Thinking Mouse: I didn’t read the article and now see you disagree with me, but I’ll explain why I think this category is appropriate.
Since I’m largely anti-HBD (though the African non-African dichotomy might have some merit), especially to the traits affecting many types of social capital, I really just see race as the social constructs and their origin. So when people look different, that could have an affect on the perception people have, and it used to in the past.
I think its that you are raised in America with its diversity, and maybe your lack of racism has made you accept more swarthier people as fulfilling the roles of good citizens, and therefore get an pass to the all so important group. In my view, by your criteria for an race, we might as well say that an Frenchman with dark hair and large nostrils/bulgy nose is Chinese cause they don’t look “that different”. Blue eyes and pink nipples are almost unique to Whites, that’s like indispensable right there.

Of course Arabs are White, especially North Africans like Moroccans and Algerians. However, there are Black people in those countries and they don’t count. Most Libyans are White. So are most Tunisians and most Egyptians. There are non-White Egyptians in the South. I had an Egyptian girlfriend once who would be more properly characterized as a light skinned Black woman. Light Egyptians and Moroccans openly identify as White.
Most Saudis and Yemenis are White. The Yemenis we have here are all White and identify as White. All Syrians are White and the ones here also identify as White. Palestinians, Jordanians, Lebanese, Iraqis and Gulf types are mostly White. However there are a few Blacks among these people in Iraq and the Gulf. Prince Bandar is not a White man.
Of course Persians and most Afghans are White. Afghans even identify as White. The ones I know told me they are Aryans, the original Whites. But some Afghans are Asiatics, like the Hazara. Most Pakistanis are White, and some even identify as White. There are some non-Whites down in the South, but all the ones I have met are as White as I am.
Many but not all North Indians are White, especially Punjabis, many of whom are as White as I am. Quite a few Uighurs and Nepalis are White, but many are not. Groups like the Mansi are similar and you have to look at them on an individual basis.
Of course Chechens, Azeris, Georgians, Armenians and the rest of the people of the Caucasus are White. Also Azeris, Armenians and Chechens at least identify as White.
Most Turkmen, Kyrgyz, Kazakhs, and Uzbeks, etc. and many Siberians from around the Altai are best seen as mixed race. Many Tatars and Bashkirs are also mixed race. All of these groups are so mixed with Asiatics that they can’t really properly be called Whites.
I would look at facial and bone structure. Really all Caucasoids are simply Whites. Look at the face and if the face looks like a White person’s face, no matter the skin color, they are White.

Four Major African Racial Types

Thinking Mouse: Its all Contingent on Africans having more genetic variance (that probably have less to do with physical traits as they all look the same) but less phenotypic variance than non-Africans. But with the existence of Bantus, Pygmies and Khoisans maybe what i said is irrelevant, or not.

  • 1. Negroids (Bantus and many others including Nilotics)
  • 2. Pygmies
  • 3. Khoisan
  • 4. Horners (barely even Africans technically halfway between Africans and Caucasians)

Pygmies are very ancient. Their genetic line appears to go back as long as 40-60,000 YBP. The Khoisan genetic line goes back 53,000 years and some think traces of it go back 93,000 years. The Negroids with whom we are most familiar as almost all Blacks you meet in the West are Negroid are a recent race.
The genetic variance within Africans is incredible. Keep in mind that there were forty huge genetic groups in Africa when they Out of Africa people left 70,000 YBP. All of the rest of us are related to only those two groups. Within the 40 existing groups, the genetic variance was immense. The remaining 38 huge genetic groups went on to become modern Africans.
I have been told that there is more genetic difference between two Nigerian tribes 25 miles away than between an Englishman and an Aborigine. If that is true then that is pretty incredible.

Who's White? Who's Not White?

Zamfir: If we say Whites are basically people derived from indigenous European populations, or the Euro branch of the Caucasian race, then lots of Southern Italians are borderline cases. Same for many Jews, possibly Berbers, etc.

Whites

A few things.
Spaniards and Portuguese are very White. The most Southern Portuguese are 4-5% Black. That doesn’t count.
Sicilians are ~5% Black. That doesn’t count either.
White Berbers are very White.
Jews are some of the purest Whites of them all.
My position is that Arabs are Whites.
Everyone in Turkey, the Caucasus and most of European Russia is White.
All native Europeans including Samis are White.
Iranians, Afghans, Pakistanis, and Northern Indians are more or less White people.
Many Latin Americans are White. Latin Americans up to ~25% White are considered White in Latin America. The rest are mulattoes, mestizos or zambos, or maybe people more properly called mixed race people of some type.

White-non-White mixes too mixed to Be Considered Whites, Maybe Best Called Part-Whites

Some Arabs and Berbers might have so much Black in them that we can’t call them White anymore. It’s hard to call Prince Bandar a White man. Neither are Southern Egyptians or the Blacker Berbers White.
A lot of Indians have so much South Indian in them that they are not really White anymore.
Many people in Eastern India and Nepal are too Asiatic to be called White. Quite a few are pure East Asians.
The peoples of the Stans, Siberia, and East Turkestan are properly seen as mixed race people, but some are White enough to be seen as Whites.  Some people of the Urals are also too mixed to be White.
A lot of these people are more properly seen as mixed race people. Many are Asiatic-White mixes who might be more properly called Eurasians as a mix of Europoids and East Asians.
Many Indians are a different mix altogether, more of a White-Australoid mix for which there is no racial name.
Obviously many Black-White mixes are more properly seen as some form of mulatto.
Many White-Indian mixes in Latin America are best seen as mestizos.
With a lot of these folks, it boils down to more of a case by case basis to determine whether a given Kazakh, Saudi, Mari, Yemeni, Moroccan, Egyptian, Uighur, Egyptian or certainly Latin American is White or is too mixed to be considered properly White. Generally most people with up to 20% Black in them look and act White enough to be considered White. This is probably true for Asian mix. Once you start getting over 20%, things get a lot dicier.

Repost: The Classification of the Vietnamese Language

This ran first a long time ago, but I just sold an ad on this post, so I decided to repost it. Rereading it, it’s a great Historical Linguistics post.
One of the reasons that I am doing this post is that one of my commenters asked me a while back to do a post on the theories of long-range comparison like Joseph Greenberg’s and how well they hold up. That will have to wait for another day, but for now, I can  at least show you how some principles of Historical Linguistics, a subfield that I know a thing or two about. I will keep this post pretty non-technical, so most of you ought to be able to figure out what is going on.
Let us begin by looking at some proposals about the classification of Vietnamese.
The Vietnamese language has been subject to a great deal of speculation regarding its classification. At the moment, it is in the Mon-Khmer or Austroasiatic family with Khmer, Mon, Muong, Wa, Palaung, Nicobarese, Khmu, Munda, Santali, Pnar, Khasi, Temiar, and some others. The family ranges through Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Malaysia, Burma, China, and over into Northeastern India.
It is traditionally divided into Mon-Khmer and Munda branches. Here is Ethnologue’s split, and here are some other ways of dividing up the family.
The homeland of the Austroasiatics was probably in China, in Yunnan, Southwest China. They moved down from China probably around 5,000 years ago. Some of the most ancient Austroasiatics are probably the Senoi people, who came down from China into Malaysia about 4,000 years ago. Others put the time frame at about 4-8,000 YBP (years before present).
A major fraud has been perpetrated lately based on Senoi Dream Therapy. I discussed it on the old blog, and you can Google it if you are interested. In Anthropology classes we learned all about these fascinating Senoi people, who based their lives around their dreams. Turns out most of the fieldwork was poor to fraudulent like Margaret Mead’s unfortunate sojourn in the South Pacific.
The Senoi resemble Veddas of India, so it is probably true that they are ancient people.  Also, their skulls have Australoid features. In hair, they mostly have wavy hair (like Veddoids), a few have straight hair (like Mongoloids) and a scattering have woolly hair (like Negritos). Bottom line is that ancient Austroasiatics were probably Australoid types who resembled what the Senoi look like today.
There has long been a line arguing that the Vietnamese language is related to Sino-Tibetan (the family that Chinese is a part of). Even those who deny this acknowledge that there is a tremendous amount of borrowing from Chinese (especially Cantonese) to Vietnamese. This level of borrowing so long ago makes historical linguistics a difficult field.
Here is an excellent piece by a man who has done a tremendous amount of work detailing his case for Vietnamese as a Sino-Tibetan language. It’s not for the amateur, but if you want to dip into it, go ahead. I spent some time there, and after a while, I was convinced that Vietnamese was indeed a Sino-Tibetan language. One of the things that convinced me is that if borrowing was involved, seldom have I seen such a case for such a huge amount of borrowing, in particular of basic vocabulary. I figured the  case was sealed.
Not so fast now.
Looking again, and reading some of Joseph Greenberg’s work on the subject, I am now convinced otherwise. There is a serious problem with the cognates between Vietnamese and Chinese, of which there are a tremendous number.
This problem is somewhat complex, but I will try to simplify it. Briefly, if Vietnamese is indeed related to Sino-Tibetan, its cognates should be not only with Chinese, but with other members of Sino-Tibetan also. In other words, we should find cognates with Tibetan, Naga, Naxi, Tujia, Karen, Lolo, Kuki, Nung, Jingpho, Chin, Lepcha, etc. We should also find cognates with those languages, where we do not find them in Chinese. That’s a little complicated, so I will let you think about it a bit.
Further, the comparisons between Chinese and Vietnamese should be variable. Some should look quite close, while others should look much more distant.
So there’s a problem with the Vietnamese as ST theory.
The cognates look like Chinese.
Problem is, they look too much like Chinese. They look more like Chinese than they should in a genetic relationship. Further, they look like Chinese and only Chinese. Looking for relationships in S-T outside of Chinese, and we find few if any.
That’s a dead ringer for borrowing from Chinese to Vietnamese. If it’s not clear to you how that is, think about it a bit.
Looking at Mon-Khmer, the case is not so open and shut. There seem to be more cognates with Chinese than with Mon-Khmer. So many more that the case for Vietnamese as AA looks almost silly, and you wonder how anyone came up with it.
But let us look again. The cognates with AA and Vietnamese are not just with its immediate neighbors like Cambodian and Khmu but with languages far off in far Eastern India like Munda and Santali. There are words that are found only in the Munda branch in one or two obscure languages that somehow show up again as cognates in Vietnamese.
Now tell me how Vietnamese borrowed ancient basic vocabulary from some obscure Munda tongue way over in Northeast India? It did not. How did those words end up in some unheard of NE Indian tongue and also in Vietnamese? Simple. They both descended long ago from a common ancestor. This is Historical Linguistics.
The concepts I have dealt with here are not easy for the non-specialist to figure out, but most smart people can probably get a grasp on them.
A different subject is the deep relationships of AA. Is AA related to any other languages? I leave that as an open question now,  though there does appear to be a good case for AA being related to Austronesian.
One good piece of evidence is the obscure AA languages found in the Nicobar Islands off the coast of Thailand. Somehow, we see quite a few cognates in Nicobarese with Austronesian. We do not see them in any other branches of AA, only in Nicobarese. This seems odd,  and it’s hard to make a case for borrowing. On the other hand, why cognates in Nicobarese and only in Nicobarese?
Truth is there are some cognates outside of Nicobarese but not a whole lot. In historical linguistics, one thing we look at is morphology. Those are parts of words, like the -s plural ending in English.
In both AA and Austronesian, we have funny particles called infixes. Those are what in English we might call prefixes or suffixes, except they are stuck in the middle of the word instead of at the end or the beginning. So, in English, we have pre- as a prefix meaning “before” and -er meaning “object that does X verb”. So pre-destination means that our lives are figured out before we are even born.  Comput-er and print-er are two objects, one that computes and the other that prints.
If we had infixes instead, pre-destination would look something like destin-pre-ation and comput-er and print-er would look something like com-er-pute and prin-er-t.
Anyway, there are some fairly obscure infixes that show up not only in some isolated languages in AA but also in far-flung Austronesian languages in, say, the Philippines. Ever heard of the borrowing of an infix? Neither have I? So were those infixes borrowed,  and what are they doing in languages as far away as Thailand and the Philippines, and none in between? Because they  got borrowed? When? How? Forget it.
Bottom line is that said borrowing did not happen. So what are those infix cognates doing there? Probably ancient particles left over from a common language that derived both Austronesian and AA, probably spoken somewhere in SW China maybe 9,000 years ago or more.
Why is this sort of long-range comparison so hard? For one thing, because after 9,000 years or more, there are hardly any cognates left anymore, due to the fact of language change. Languages change and tend to change at a certain rate.
After 1000X years, so much change has taken place that even if two languages were once “sprung from a common source,” in the famous words of Sir William Jones in his epochal lecture to the Asiatic Society in Calcutta on February 2, 1786, there is almost nothing, or actually nothing, left to show of that relationship. Any common words have become so mangled by time that they don’t look much or anything alike anymore.
So are AA and Austronesian related? I think so, but I suppose it’s best to say that it has not been proven yet. This thesis is part of a larger long-range concept known as “Austric.” Paul Benedict, a great scholar, was one of the champions of this. Austric is normally made up of AA, Austronesian, Tai-Kadai (the Thai language and its relatives) and Hmong-Mien (the Hmong and Mien languages). Based on genetics, the depth of Austric may be as deep as 30,000 years, so proving it is going to be a tall order indeed.
What do I think?
I think Tai-Kadai and Austronesian are proven to be related (more on that later). AA and Austronesian seem to be related also, with a lesser depth of proof. Hmong-Mien seems to be related to Sino-Tibetan, not Austric.
The case for Vietnamese being related to S-T is still very interesting, and I still have an open mind about it.
All of these discussions are hotly controversial, and mentioning it in linguistics circles is likely to set tempers flaring.

References

Author and date unknown, What Makes Vietnamese So Chinese? An Introduction to Sinitic-Vietnamese Studies.

IQ and Racial Background of Latin American Indians

Granted, they are primitive Austronesian Asian people with an IQ of 70 and it takes all sorts of social programs to keep them fed and clothed and away from the alcohol but you Gallegos Basque do not even pretend to give a single rat’s ass.

First of all, Amerindians are not Austronesians. Austronesians are Malays, Filipinos, Indonesians and Taiwanese Aborigines. Other people  speaking Austronesian languages such as Polynesians, Melanesians and Micronesians are only part Austronesian.
Polynesians are 1/2 Melanesian and 1/2 Austronesian.
Melanesians vary, but the some of the Austronesian speakers in the Papuan coast and eastern Indonesia are 20% Austronesian and 80% Papuan. Austronesians only settled the coast of Papua, so the interior remained Papuan. The Austronesians brought language but few genes.
I believe Micronesians are 1/2 Polynesian and 1/2 Papuan.
Amerindians are simply Northeast Asians, the same folks as Chinese, Japanese, Mongolians and Siberians, but they are closest to Siberians. The main difference is that the Amerindians are from a more primitive and archaic type of Northeast Asian that may not have gone though the high IQ mutations. I would call them Paleomongoloids, whereas the others are generally Neomongoloids. So Amerindians are just an early version of the highly functional Northeast Asians.
Some relation to the Northeast Asians can be seen in their features and sparse, Northeast Asian like body hair. The hair on their heads looks very Northeast Asian too. Whereas a Northeast Asian baby is calm, cool and collected, an Amerindian baby is silent but very aware and watchful, like an Indian hunter hiding in the woods waiting for a deer. They are so deathly quiet that observers often wonder if they are dead. On the other hand, Black babies are precocious physically, very fast in development and tend to be very active physically and even boisterous. They are quite extroverted.
These racial differences in babies are present from the very earliest stages of life and I am convinced that they are biological in nature. I also believe that this shows that there are obvious differences between the races at least in personality. If those differences are showing up that  early and that uniformly, they cannot possibly be due to culture. Babies are not effected tremendously by culture anyway.
Amerindian IQ is absolutely not 70. They are not that dumb. Scores vary, but a figure of 87 for the whole continent seems pretty good. Some are lower. I believe that Indians in Mexico are 83 and in Guatemala is the same.
87 IQ is not a bad score. Your average human has an IQ of 89. Certainly 87 IQ folks or even 83 IQ folks do not need all sorts of social programs to keep them clothed and fed. Keeping them away from the booze is much easier. These people lived life without social programs for 12,000 years. They did just fine. They don’t need welfare to survive.
Although the 87 IQ is close to the 85 US Black IQ, Amerindians have only 2X the White crime rate, whereas for Blacks it is 7-8X the White crime rate. This shows that attempt to put White-Black crime differences all down to IQ is a fool’s errand, but that is what so many HBD types, usually racists, do. There is more driving Black aggression, crime, violence and antisocial behavior than just IQ.
I am thinking that extroversion and associated problems with impulse control and delayed gratification along with higher testosterone in both males and females may have something to do with it. Also some genetic mutations that elevate the risk of violence and criminality in Whites are present at much higher levels in Blacks. It is seen in only .1% of White men, but I believe the rate is  ~5% in Black men.
We need to stop IQ fetishization and trying to reduce all racial issues to IQ. There’s a hell of a lot more going on with humans than just IQ, and it doesn’t take a genius IQ to figure that out.

Where Is Telegu Spoken?

Jason Voorhees: Mr. Lindsey
Telugu meaning Tamil of Southeast India. I was there once, many moons ago.

Telegu and Tamil are two different groups and languages. Tamils are indeed in SE India, but Telegu is spoken to the northwest quite a bit in a region of Andhra Pradesh called Telegana. Telegana is the far southern portion of Andhra Pradesh. It is heavily forested. There was a movement among them to break away and form their own state a while back I think. There was also quite a bit of armed Maoist activity there, but I think most of it was wiped out.
With 85 million speakers, Telegu is one of the largest world languages, but no doubt most folks have not heard of it. It has more speakers than Italian! I am not sure how far apart the Dravidian languages are from each other, but they can’t understand each other, that’s for sure.
I met two Telegus in a nearby town and I have seen photos of others, including one of the leaders of the Telegana Movement, also a Maoist, after he was released from prison. These three Telegus had quite prominent Australoid features, at least as Australoid as Tamils.

A Bit about the Sasquatches

Paul C.: Also, what other secret information do you have?

I know this sounds absolutely insane, but I was selling the directions on how to get to one of the hottest Sasquatch Habituation Sites in North America. That would be the Alberta Habituation Site. It was a closely guarded secret and the information was almost impossible to come by, but a lot of people wanted to go out there and see if they could find the Sasquatches.
If you wanted directions to that site, I sold the directions for $100. And I had a number of buyers too.
It’s amazing all the ways you can make money if you just put your mind to it.
There are those of us who are absolutely certain that these things are real, and there are lots of us out there working on this. If we ever prove these things are real, it’s the story of the century. The are definitely shot and killed from time to time, and I know of a few cases. In fact, a good friend of mine shot and killed two of the damn things! And I believe him too. There’s no way he is lying about this. I know people who knew him before he shot these things and they said he never believed in them and laughed at and ridiculed people who believed in them. Do you have any idea how many stories like this I have of people who thought Bigfoot was the stupidest thing in the whole world right up until the day when the 9 foot tall thing ran across the highway in Oregon? Or whatever your story is. I cannot even count how many stories like this I have heard.
I believe they are real because my good friends told me that they saw these things. They told me with a straight face and there’s no way they are lying. They told they saw them as clear as air just like you were standing in this room next to me right now. The people I know who have seen them were nurses, university biology and anatomy professors, college professors, schoolteachers, authors, you name it.
They can ridicule us all they want to. We know these damn things are real. I just hope I do not die before we unveil these damned things.
I have heard of three shootings in recent years. A body was almost surely recovered in one of them as I know an impeccable source who saw a photo of it. In the other case, I am not sure if they got a body or not. The problem is that when you kill one of these things, you go over to look at it and it looks like an 8 foot tall Paul C. covered with hair. Everyone completely flips and thinks they have killed a person. Every single person who kills one is afraid of going down on homicide. Hence the bodies are left there or buried. Some seem to be retained but those have a very nasty habit of disappearing. The last I heard about the most recent is that the government was in possession of it for a while.
Even if you can keep the government from stealing it, these bodies have a way of disappearing. God knows where they go. They’re red hot dangerous to hold onto, so I suspect people dispose of them. Dump them in the ocean, set them on fire, who knows?
One more problem: if it ever gets out that you have a body, the government usually comes out and steals it. They come in black vans or helicopters and they are dressed in all black and they carry automatic weapons that they point at you. Seriously. The “men in black” come out and steal them. We have since learned that US military intelligence dresses in all black. We think these people are maybe with DARPA.
You are thinking cover-up. Yes there has been a longstanding government cover-up of these things since the Patterson film at least. The Smithsonian is very deep into this and has been covering this up for over a century. It all goes back to Powell Doctrine.
You are asking me where the bones are. We have them. They are in university collections, but they are all labeled “Indian.” Sasquatch bones look like human bones except they are much larger. Any strange ancient bones found in the US are automatically labeled “Indian.”
If you are wondering what they are, they are not apes. They are actually human beings. Sasquatches are people. Thing is they are not human beings like you and I. We are Homo sapiens sapiens. They are something else, perhaps something like Neandertalis or Heidelbergensis. You know those subhumans like Neandertal, Denisova, Flores Man, Sulu Man, Red Deer Cave Man? Well, guess what? They never went extinct! A few of them survived and that is exactly what these Sasquatches are. They are simply prehistoric men. It’s not as insane as it sounds if you think about it.
Just imagine if Neandertal or some of those other subhumans never went extinct. Well, this is the remains of them, the Sasquatches. Yetis and the other similar things are all the same creature, and Yetis exist too, just like Sasquatches. And those Orang Pendeks in Indonesia absolutely exist. I know people who search for them almost full-time and they swore up and down that these things are real. And a quite famous US journalist and environmentalist saw one in 1995. I think they may be related to Flores Man. Orang Pendeks are like the Flores Men that did not die out.
If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

The Race of the Original Turks

I won’t be able to do that as I sit on the peer review board of a journal of Turkic linguistics out of Turkey. I also have a chapter coming out in a new book about Turkic linguistics. In the chapter, I mostly talk about language, but I did talk a lot about history and origins too.
It’s pretty clear the original Turks from Northern Kazakhstan/the Altai were probably not White people, though that is probably in dispute. The later homelands, around the Altai where China, Mongolia, Russia and Turkey all come together were probably much more Asiatic. If you look at the Siberian Turkic speakers like Siberian Tatars, the Altai, the Chulym, the Shor and the Khakas, those are probably a good bet for what the original Turkics looked like. A good way of describing these people is half-Asiatic (Mongolic) and half-Caucasian.
This group also was apparently the base for the Amerindian populations as well. The Amerindians are fully Asiatic. So the people who birthed the Asiatics later birthed the Turks. However, there was some Caucasoid mixing in between with groups such as the Caucasian Tocharians. Later, Iranic groups mixed heavily with Turkics in the Stans.
The Tuvans also look like a very early Turkic group, and they are very Asiatic (Mongolic). The real pure Turkics from the Turkic homeland appear to be at least 50% Asiatic. The only reason they look Whiter as the get further west is that the Turkic Muslims conquered many of these people in Islamic jihads. These conquered Caucasians were then converted to Islam in the usual manner.
 

Why "Rape Culture" Is Simply Normal Human Culture As It Has Always Existed

Tulio writes:

Logical fallacy. “Normal” does not equal good or acceptable. I’m not just talking rape, I mean anything. Slavery was also once normal too. Just sayin’.

Tulio: Let’s look at their definition of Rape Culture. Once we look at it, this Rape Culture thing is simply the way that all or nearly all human societies have functioned all through time. In other words, it’s normal. It’s not even pathological. It’s just the way people are.
In rape culture:

  • Men act masculine and practice obligatory masculinity. Normal.
  • Women act feminine and practice obligatory femininity. Normal.
  • Women are sexually objectified by men. Normal.
  • Women experience high levels of “sexual harassment” by men in the workplace and elsewhere. Normal.
  • “Sexual harassment” is seen by women as “just men being men.” Normal but possibly not even true in the West anymore.
  • Society is dominated by men. Normal or at least typical and de facto among humans. Possibly not even true in the West anymore.
  • Rape is an ever-present fear for women. Normal.
  • Rape is seen as something which can never be eradicated. Normal.
  • Men are expected to prove their manliness via masculinity. Normal.
  • Men prove their competence via masculinity. Normal.
  • Men are expected to suppress their feminine sides. Normal.
  • Women are expected to suppress their masculine sides. Normal.
  • Rape has an evolutionary basis, and males have an inborn tendency towards rape. Normal.
  • The onus is on women to avoid being raped. Normal.
  • The onus is not on men to control themselves and stop raping. Sadly normal in much of the world, but not the case in the West anymore.
  • Women take all sorts of extra precautions to avoid being raped. Sadly normal.
  • Women must treat every man they meet as a potential rapist. Sadly normal.
  • Patriarchy dominates society. Normal but not the case in the West anymore.
  • Men are supposed to be the protectors of women. Normal.
  • Although men are supposed to be the protectors of women, they do a rather lousy job of it. Sadly normal.

Do you see what these nutcases are doing? This horrible thing that they call rape culture that we are all supposed to be freaked out and upset and wringing our hands about is simply the natural, normal, probably biologically driven way that the vast majority of human societies on Earth have functioned as far back as we can tell.
In fact, societies used to be far worse with regard to this normal human rape culture. Human society at least in the West has gotten far less rapey in the modern era than it used to be. In fact, there are suggestions that among Pleistocene humans, rape may have been nearly continuous and the violent abuse of women was so common as to be typical. Look at the skeletons of humans from 12,000 years ago that have been found in Mexico. The people appear rude, crude and robust in terms of features, were very strong in terms of bone size, and most of the women were found to have suffered many injuries. Even teenage girls had suffered quite a few injuries.
The thinking is that these early Amerindians were an exceptionally brutal people for whom violence was the norm, the females of the society experienced a lot of serious violence from the men, and rape was probably the norm. To say that life was short, nasty and brutish was an understatement.
Worse, the feminuts say that unless we unravel the way human societies have always been, we will always have this Rape Culture bullshit. Well, I guess we will always have Rape Culture then because it doesn’t look like any of this is going away anytime soon.
Nor should it, I would argue.
Look, the feminists have already told us what their idea of a Nonrape Culture is. And it’s not a culture you would even want to live in unless you were a Cultural Left nut.
A Nonrape Culture is one in which:

  • Men do not act particularly masculine and women do not act particularly feminine. Granted we are already getting there, but is that a good thing? You want this? What sort of freakazoid society is that?
  • Men do not attempt to prove their masuclinity. Maybe not a bad idea, but it will probably never happen, one reason being that women themselves will not tolerate this as it is often women who try to force men to prove their masuclinity.
  • Men do not attempt to prove their competence by acting masculine. Ok, that sounds like a very bad idea and a recipe for mass incompetence.
  • Women are not sexually objectified by men. Granted we are already headed that way, but is that a good thing? Do you want to live in a society where you where if you try to be sexual in any way with a woman in public, even by looking at her, it is nearly illegal? Sucks or what?
  • “Sexual harassment” is removed from work and other public spaces. To feminists, sexual harassment means men looking at women, men flirting with women, men making sexual remarks to women, men acting seductively towards women, men asking women out, men asking women for their phone numbers, etc. Feminists apparently think this is evil or something, and they want to remove the ability of men to act sexual towards women in most public spaces. I agree that they might grant us active heterosexual scum special “pickup zones” that might look like bars, nightclubs, or special cafes, but they would resign this activity to those areas only and proscribe it everywhere else. Granted we are already halfway there, and it’s just about a firing offense to ask out any woman at your work, but is that a good thing? You want this?
  • The onus on women to avoid being raped is removed. This would be nice, but logically that would just result in women doing a lot of stupid and heedless things and probably a lot more women getting raped.
  • Rape is seen as something that could be wiped out if we only tried hard enough. It would be nice if we could have a society where rape was seen as something that could be wiped out, but logically that is probably not even possible, and it would just result in the sort of thing we are already experiencing: endless, vitriolic, pointless, irrational and poisonous “wars on rape” which would boil down to “wars on men,” more women hating men, more women turning into lesbian idiots, more insipid laws and rules like consent agreements on college campuses, and more men responding via reactionary movements. Sort of like the society we have now.
  • Men no longer feel that they have to protect women. Fine! We won’t protect you ingrate bitches anymore! See how you like it! Tell you what, men resign from protecting women, and the rates of violence and rape against women are going to go way up. That’s because contrary to Mary Edwards Walker (probably a dyke no man would protect anyway), men protect women from violence, rape and other harm every single day, possibly hundreds of times a day or more, often with considerable risk to themselves. But they want us to stop risking our asses for women? No problem! See how they like being even more defenseless!

Race and Phenotype of the Early Aryans

Devrat writes:

So called Aryans were not white. The most elevated of all gods, Lord Krishna, is described as the black one in the Vedas, and in the Upanishads, he’s known as “Shyam,” meaning the dark one. Aryan is not even a race or group of people. The word Arya is more of an adjective than a noun. So called Dravidians – in the Ramayana the King of Lanka, that is Southern India, Dravida is addressed as Arya by his wife. Arya means noble, wise, Lord, a sign of respect like the Japanese use -san at the end of name while addressing a person. Get over it White people. Everything’s not White created.

30-40% of the Aryans had blond hair and blue or green eyes. We know this because this is what Indo European speakers in Russia looked like 5,500 years ago before they moved down into India 3,500 years ago. So 5,500 years ago, Aryans indeed often were blond and blue/green. The question is whether and how much they changed moving down from Southern Russia through Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan (where they formed a huge civilization), Iran, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Northern Pakistan and Northern India.
Did they suddenly get much darker in the ensuing 2,000 years? I tend to doubt it. And actually the caste system they set up was very much race-based with the lightest folks at the top descending to the darkest Shudras and Dalits at the very bottom. It very nearly resembled other colorist systems such as the Jim Crow South, Apartheid South Africa, and Casta in New Spain. The Aryans were practically proto-Nazis and proto-crackers.

Repost: The Whites of Asia – The Uighurs

This is an older post that is getting posted around a lot now. You guys are very interested in race, ethnicity and the anthropology that goes along with it, so I thought you might like this.
The Uighurs are a mixed Caucasian-Asian Muslim group that live in Xinjiang, China. They have been agitating for independence for some time now. China has responded to these calls by flooding Xinjiang with Han Chinese immigrant invaders who have taken most of the good jobs. In addition, China has downplayed the Uighur language in schools and has forced Uighurs into a pure Mandarin education system. The Uighurs are strangers in their own homeland which is being colonized by imperialist, racist Han Chinese. The Hans go on periodic Nazi-like Kristallnacht style pogroms against the Uighurs, burning down their businesses, beating them, murdering them. The police join in and the Uighurs have nowhere to hide.
Some Uighurs look very White. Some White Uighurs are below:
First, a red haired Uighur.

A very White looking, in fact, red-haired, Uighur child, who could easily be an Irish kid.
A very White looking, in fact, red-haired, Uighur child, who could easily be an Irish kid.

Next, we have a Slavic appearing Uighur.
A very White looking Uighur boy. To me, he looks somewhat Russian or East Slavic, does he not?
A very White looking Uighur boy. To me, he looks somewhat Russian or East Slavic, does he not?

Next, a very White looking Uighur woman. The phenotype is very exotic, and the only thing I have seen close to this is from the Kalash of northwest Pakistan.
This is a very White looking Uighur woman. Note the tall, angular, thin nose. I am not sure what European type she resembles. Any guesses?
This is a very White looking Uighur woman. Note the tall, angular, thin nose. I am not sure what European type she resembles. Any guesses?

Most Uighur women look more Asiatic like these women, although the woman on the far right looks rather exotic and somewhat resembles the beauty above in phenotype. Note the tall, thin angular nose on both women.
More typical Asian Uighur women are seen here.
More typical Asian Uighur women are seen here.

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

McWorld Is Here; What about McRace?

Cranial studies show that Black skulls became much Whiter-looking after the Civil War. Some of this change was environmental, but most of it was genetic. Not all can be chalked up to ingress with Whites. Apparently Blacks were preferentially selecting Blacks with more progressive features, as these features are more attractive.
White skulls have also gotten much more progressive since the Revolution. In fact, modern White and Black skulls look more like each other than either does to their own ancestors! In other words, modern White skulls look more like modern Blacks than they resemble our own pre-Revolutionary White ancestors! And modern Black skulls look more like modern Whites than they resemble their own pre-Revolutionary Black ancestors.
Both races seem to be converging into a more progressive, less archaic phenotype at the same time as Black and White phenotypes appear to be converging. It is as moderns are merging into sort of a common race in the same way that we are merging into one global culture.
Life is always interesting.
#oneracecomingsoon

What Race Were the Windover People?

Sam writes:

Oh, so we’re going to go the old, “They were here first” trick huh? Ok. Here’s a story on the 8,000 year old Windover Skeletons and these people were Caucasians. That’s right White people. The Indians came from Siberia and murdered my ancestors. So they need to get the fuck out (if we’re going by the “I got here fist rule”).
Windover Skeletons
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/964408/posts
http://greaterancestors.com/the-windover-pond-giants/
If you think I’m kidding or trolling about them being Europeans, I’m not. Europeans have a very distinct facial structure and are totally different from other races. A decent anthropologist can easily tell what race a person is from looking at their skull.

The DNA of the Windover People is Asian. The Caucasian appearance may be similar to Kennowick Man who comes from about that same time frame (Kennowick Man  9,000 YBP Windover People 7,500 YBP), however Kennowick Man only appears Caucasoid because he is sort of an Ainuid.
Kennowick Man’s skull plots most closely with the Ainu and the Moiriori, an extinct Melanesianized Polynesian people from the Chatham Islands. The Ainu are Australoid and the Moriori were a heavily Australoid Polynesian type.
Hence the Windover People are probably Australoids.
When you cross an Australoid with a Mongoloid, sometimes you end up with a pseudo “Caucasoid” phenotype. These people are not really Caucasoids; they just look like them. This is possibly because the number of possible endpoints for human phenotypes is small, and “Caucasoid is one of the few possible endpoints.

The Whites of East Asia

Ultra Cool writes:

There was a White tribe in China called Yuezhi, I think.

Turks. Almost Proto-Turkics. I think their descendants today would be best described as the Uighur people, who are ~1/2 White and 1/2 East Asian. However, a number of Uighur people, especially the women, look quite Caucasian. So I suppose these would be the farthest east of the Caucasians.
I have an 80 page paper on Turkic languages that is in line to be published in a book whenever they get around to publishing it. I believe that I discuss the Yuehzi in there, and if I am not mistaken, they were precursors of the the Uighurs or even better yet the Tocharians. If you want a truly White tribe in East Asia, the Tocharians would be your best bet. They have Tocharian mummies that have blue and green eyes and blond hair. They were found in China!
The Yuezhi were around ~2,000 YBP I believe. Most of the references we have to groups like that are from the Chinese. The Chinese were very helpful in that they developed a writing system early.
As a comparison, the earliest written Turkic we can find is the Orkhon Inscriptions (also very near China) which are these hard-to-decipher runic-type characters inscribed on stone pillars. I believe they have deciphered these inscriptions. So our attested Turkic only goes back to ~400 AD. Mongolic is even worse with earliest transcriptions ~1400 with Middle Mongolian. Tungusic is catastrophic with nothing at all written down other than transcriptions of the languages from early Russian settlers.
The Yukaghir have some odd Orkhon like inscriptions, but they are not Altaic. They are said speak an isolated language, but I think Yukaghir is related to Uralic.
With the lack of early attestations, you can see why Altaic is so hard to reconstruct and prove.

What Race Is This Person (Singapore)?

13043717_1174597142564927_1383531800797081546_n
An interesting phenotype from Singapore.

This is the aunt of a friend of mine. The family is from Singapore. They are part of an ethnic group called the Pernakans, a Southern Chinese group that moved to Malaysia ~600 years ago for some reason, possibly due to overcrowding in Fujian or worse, the terrible wars that periodically raged through the region.
Chinese groups have been leaving from this part of Southern China for a very long time now, especially in the last 200 years. In the past couple of centuries, this part of China has become very crowded. Possibly as a result, wild and vicious wars periodically raged through the area, sometimes killing 100,000’s of people. If you study Chinese history, you will hear about these wars a lot. It is not uncommon to read that invaders conquered several large cities and exterminated the whole populations of perhaps 300,000 people, men, women and children. This is how the Chinese have often fought wars. Chinese wars are unbelievably vicious and savage.
The Pernakans moved to Malaysia, and over time, bred in with Dutch and Portuguese and to a lesser extent British Europeans. All three were colonists in the region. I believe that they were Min speakers, but their Hokkien has gotten so changed, in particular from massive borrowings from Malay, that these languages in general are no longer intelligible with Amoy or Taiwanese Hokkien Proper.
Most Pernakans now are somewhat Eurasian, Chinese crossed with Dutch, Portuguese and sometimes British. The Pernakans had their own patriarchal culture and were known as very hard workers, often at manual labor type jobs like farming, timber harvest are working on rubber plantations. They committed little crime and had very orderly societies. The European colonists marveled at their high level of civilization. They did keep slaves, but they probably treated their slaves better than any slaves have ever been treated, and in many cases, slaves were freed.
Over time, most Pernakans also bred in with Malays. Pernakans are now a Chinese/Malay/European race, but the Asiatic tends to be prominent over the European in the stock. The mixing of cultures over 600 years in Malaysia resulted in some very interesting fine cuisine.
Many of these Chinese migrated to Singapore, where they, along with Teochew speakers (another Min group) and a large group of Cantonese Chinese, form what is known as the Singaporean Chinese, one of the wealthiest and most economically advanced ethnic groups on Earth. There is still a division of labor in Singapore, with Chinese on top, Malays on the bottom, and Southern Indian Dravidian speakers in between. Nevertheless all three groups are substantially mixed by this point. Most Chinese have Malay blood, and a lot of Malays have some Chinese in them. Malays and Indians are now intermarrying quite a bit. There is some ethnic conflict but not a lot possibly due to the wealth and everyone being so mixed.
Although this woman has a somewhat archaic phenotype (note prognathism), these archaic types are fairly common in Southern China. Many can be seen in the mountains of Yunnan Province. The archaism may be due to incomplete transition from Australoid -> Mongoloid, as the transition happened much later in Southern China than in Northern China, and prominent Australoid types were common in the far south of China only 3-4,000 YBP.
I also believe that this woman may be admixed with Caucasian. And I think the Malay admixture is quite clear. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I think I see some Vedda influence here. That would not be unusual, as Malays were Veddoids only until quite recently, and the Senoi are Veddoids to this day. The Mani Negritos are also still extant.
The transition in Malaysia went from Australoid Negritos (Mani) and Orang Asli -> Australoid Veddas (Senoi) -> Paleomongoloid Southeast Asians (modern Malays). The Malays appear to be aware of this transition, as they state that the Mani and Orang Asli are their ancestors. The bloodline of the Orang Asli goes back 72,000 YBP, so this group has been present in Malaysia since the very first Out of Africa groups, and their archaism is about on a par with the Andaman Islanders, another Australoid group which is also the remains of some of the earliest OOA groups.

"Black Women and Beauty," by Phil

This article shall partake in an investigation of “attractive traits” with females of West African extraction in terms of their effects with regard to appearance, along with a discussion of their development. Such an endeavor is undertaken due to Satoshi Kanazawa’s controversial work in analyzing differences in perceived beauty among races.
Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?
In my honest opinion, this was something that I had trouble going through when thinking of women. I mean sure, I could think of attractive black women but typically they were mixed noticeably.
However, it wasn’t until I read and saw pictures of Native African women that I noticed four appealing physical aspects of African women.
Traits:
1. Eye Shape – Defining eye shape of Blacks is sort of weird, for there are various caricatures. The type encompasses the big “wide eyes”, “sad eyes” (almost like triangles, giving a sad look to them), small slits, etc. The big eyes I find to be more common in deeper jungle Blacks, I believe, sad eyes and slits to those that came from the desert. Medium/almond eyes, that are sometimes considered “pseudo Asian” eyes on black women, were among the one I found rather appealing.
2. Lips – While “Big lips” are sometimes seen as unattractive as opposed to small or lips that are just full, depending on the actually shape of the lips themselves they look nice as well. The thing is though is that they are less of a sexual appeal of beauty and just more of a comely feature when they are big but well shaped.
3. Contrast of features against skin – In the case of having attractive features they become more pronounced. Not a huge necessity for standard beauty, but a nice trait at least – though its effect depends on the presence of pre-existing features. The trend was present, although further examining led me to conclude it wasn’t that uncommon.
4. The fourth one has at first a bit of a dubious nature to it. Basically it deals with cases where typically discouraged traits like prognathism and prominent cheek bones look good when coupled with a slimmer face, prominent chin, and not as exaggerated. Basically what this does is further draw attention to these features in an organized and pleasing composition. The issue is that I was unsure of how significantly “common” this trend was, though further examining led me to conclude it wasn’t that uncommon.
Here. This would be a decent example of what I’m talking about.
However, it’s time to get to cons.
1. Head shape – From what I read, at least for the average African American female, they tend to get a wider face. Personally, a face that’s more pointed or oval – that is, having a thinner lower face – is more attractive on women. In the case of Black women this is caused by the larger Jaws of Blacks generally, more prominent cheek bones, and emphasized with a narrower forehead amongst blacks. However, I believe this is more of a male trait than female.
2. Nose – Basically more angular noses are preferred but I think it is more of its relative size and how much the nostrils flare.
3. Body – Reading info from Steve Sailor, while Black men in America have narrower hips than Whites or Latinos, Black women have the widest waists of women and even wider waists than Black men.
This is basically due to a combination of earlier development of female fat distribution in females and Blacks being on average more impulsive, in this case particularly with food. In some African cultures it’s a sign of beauty. Often before marriage ceremonies the women go through a fattening period.
Examination:
While many are probably familiar with European-mix progression, examples of African progression can be seen here amongst these Igbo women, an ethnic group of various looks.
Igbo Women
The two on the right and the second from the left are overall better looking than the one in the middle or on the left end (though the one in the middle is of course notably older). The causes are more noticeable in the one second from the left and the one on the far right, having less prominent cheek bones, more expressive eyes, and smaller lower lips. The eye traits are present in the one second from the right, though she has prominent cheekbones. This trait is complimented with a wider forehead and what I believed to be a more prominent chin.
More African women.
Compared to the one on the far left, the other two look more appealing due to having smaller jaws. But overall none look hideous, just more “ethnic looking” in which they have the traits to a noticeable but not to an exaggerated degree. All three, however, show the cheekbone trait (which I may add looks actually nice when coupled with a smaller jaw) but they seem to have “better” facial proportions where their faces don’t look unpleasingly wide. Their eye shapes seem to vary, too.
Ibo women.
The one on the far left shows African achievement of a face highly reduced of maxillary prognathism, while the one on the right shows one that is only partially reduced but is at a point that displays that unique “attractive” jutting I mentioned earlier. The one second from the right when compared to the one second from the left has wider (more almond) eyes and less prominent cheekbones, appearing more attractive due to a slimmer looking face and more expressive eyes. The one in the very middle is blurry but appears to resemble the type on the far right.
Young Ibo Women of Ibuza
Each of these girls, in my opinion, deviate a fair amount from typical vices due to the lower jaws with smaller lips and noses, though the one on the left seems to have a lower forehead (a vice that I forgot to add as well as possessing more slit eyes. The one on the right is quite the opposite, having quite a wider and higher forehead with bigger eyes.)
Igbo Women
This is a favorite of mine in which it shows a very good example of African progression that I speak of, being prognathism that is subtle and pronounces the fullness of the lips, not extending further than nose length, an overall smaller nose, what appear to be almond eyes, cheek bones that are showing but not overly prominent, with a forehead that is round.
The only concerning “flaw” it the forehead’s height but it’s not that big of a deal.
Biafrans.
The one on the right has the smallest jaw, thinnest lower face, intermediate nose and eyes size, and least exaggerated cheekbones. Still, all are rather pretty in my opinion anyway.
Though we’ve seen many examples of well-formed faces, actual specimens of body shapes yield little variation (from what I could find) to offer in forms of images. Most were slim, lanky forms that, while not truly unpleasing in my opinion, I must admit I would be biased in saying that it wouldn’t have limited appeal. Among African-American women these forms seems occasional but not that common, at least to me. Thus, it is likely due to nutritional factors if not wholly due to admixture, for native Africans were often recorded to be vegetarians, meat being held more commonly as a luxury rather than a given.
However, I’m fortunately in possession of positive commentary of European comments on Gold Coast women of both the Fanti and Ashanti tribes.
“The women when young are ugly in face and beautiful in form, when old they are in both.” (This is likely due to R/K breeding, causing faster maturation and possible loss in the retaining of younger traits).
“In general appearance the Ashanti much resemble the Fanti though they are not perhaps so strongly built. They are however quite as good looking and according to Mr Bowdieh the women are handsomer than those of the Fanti.”
The Uncivilized Races of Men in All Countries of the World Volume 1. by J. G. Wood
Discussion:
Now that we are familiar with the identification of African progression of attractive female traits, what possible mechanisms in Africa caused the common (without influence of modern opinions) stereotype type to prevail?
Well, Satoshi, after ruling out BMI and intellect differences, claims testosterone differences. The reasoning behind this is due to his findings that, net of intelligence, Black men were rated higher than men of other races. This led him to suggest that difference in testosterone, which produces masculine features and being recorded to being highest in blacks, resulted in Black males deemed more attractive and females not.
I’m unsure of this inference, but it does draw attention to the stronger association between “beauty” and intellect in Black males compared to females. The topic between his research of beauty and intellect can be accessed here for others to discuss in the comments, for now I’m going into some knowledge of why the results are the way they are.
Beautiful People Really Are More Intelligent
One possible reason for these results is social roles in regards to sexual selection. From reading Among the Ibos by George Thomas Basden:

“In the majority of cases young man makes his own choice. He happens to a girl who attracts his attention and he immediately inquiries as to her parents and whether she be engaged or not. If she is free he endeavors to through her friends information concerning her in cooking trading and other useful and profitable accomplishments. He also inquires about her whether she be of good temper quiet industrious and so forth. Should these investigations prove satisfactory he lays his case before his parents or his friend for he cannot make the first advances personally.”

According to this, while initial notice (likely attraction) starts courtship, it is actual character that causes union to follow. Some HBD’rs claim that populations in Eurasia had a more directed course of selection, often described as self-domestication. It’s possible that in cases like here with some African tribes different standards in selection caused for different measures of association of intellect – for example, a proxy of character – that caused the weaker association in black women. It is worth mentioning, however, that based on Satoshi’s research that the correlation between attractiveness and intellect is higher in men than women by about 2.4 IQ points. I believe the association becomes stronger as a society develops. The Ashanti have often been commented to have a higher culture than Fanti, and the women of the Ashanti were commented to be more beautiful as well, though the margin between men was regarded as relatively smaller, with the Fanti males having a better build but the Ashanti being superior in facial features.
Regardless, I’m an amateur at best with the topic and I urge anyone else knowledgeable on the topic to share in the comment section.

Where Did the Jomonese People Come from?

1gmakn
This East Timorese man looks more Aboriginal, or better yet, Papuan.

 

2dke141
A pseudo-Caucasoid or Ryukuyan type in East Timor.

 

3Atimor_t640

An Ainuid! What is this hairy Ainu man doing in East Timor?

Maricon Power writes:

Robert Lindsay, I do agree on many of your point. The only thing I don’t agree is that Jomons (ancestors of Ainu ) were descendants of the Jomonese Thailand in 16,000 YPB. You’re right that they descended from Southeast Asia but most likely that location is in southern Southeast Asia, maybe Timor.

”According to Hanihara, modern Japanese lineages began with Jomon people who moved into the Japanese archipelago during Paleolithic times from their homeland in southeast Asia.”

Ryukyuan
This map goes along with Maricon Power’s comment above. That pseudo-Caucasoid is, believe it or not a Ryukuyan Ainuid type.

 

681x454
Another pseudo-Caucasoid Ainuid type from East Timor. He’s even wearing a White man’s cowboy hat!

 

2705542765_bd4642eed1
Yet another pseudo-Caucasoid. That man simply looks like a White man, period. Amazing.
Asien Ost Timor Timor-Leste Maubisse Bergregion Minderheiten
An Ainu man in East Timor! Get a load of that getup, including the most amazing feather hast I have ever seen.

Hello, a study was done using many different Asian skulls. When plotted on a graph with all of the other skulls, Jomonese 13,000 was a perfect match for Thailand 16,000 (Proto-Thai). “Proto-Jomonese” types were probably widespread through SE Asia at the time. The types in Easts Timor and in Thailand are probably the same people.

cq5dam.web.460.306
Everyone who thinks that Australoids are all ugly needs to reconsider that view now. Look at this fellow. He’s an Australoid, sure. And he’s also quite exotic looking. But he’s incredibly handsome, at least to my eyes. Anyone agree?

 

maubisse-market06
Another Ainuid-looking fellow. Actually he looks more Aboriginal to me, but Ainu types also look Aboriginal.

 

timor-leste-PIC-4-man-in-costume-
There he is! An Ainu in East Timor. Does that garb resemble traditional Ainu clothing? I wonder.

Some Notes on the Ainu

Maricon Power writes:

Robert Lindsay, why do pure Ainu have lighter skinned than Japanese? Are Ainu Northern Australoids (cold adapted Australoids?) or are they pigmented? I’ve seen pigmented Tamils and Veddas that look almost European; even the Australian aborigines would.

Look at this map of glacier cover in Japan at the height of the last glaciation about 20,000 years ago.

It shows the Hokkaido (Ainu land) living in a climate different from every other Asian countries.

800px-Japan_glaciation
Glaciation in Japan at the height of the last Ice Age 20,000 YBP.

The Ainu are indeed cold adapted Australoids, and they are actually Vedda types. A comparison of Veddoids and Ainu will show that they match perfectly.

The map of Ainu land is not correct. 20,000 YBP there were no Ainu in Japan. The ancestors of the Ainu are the Jomon. Jomonese skulls line up perfectly with skulls from Thailand 16,000 YBP. The Jomonese show up in Japan 13,000 YBP. So the Jomon left Thailand sometime between 16,000 and 13,000 YBP and made their way eventually up to Japan. When they first arrived in Japan, the Jomonese ranged over the entire country. They were not in Hokkaido alone.

They only ended up in Hokkaido when the Yayoi came from Korea to Japan 2,300 YBP and slowly conquered their way up the island, defeating and displacing the Ainu along the way. The Ainu were eventually pushed up to Hokkaido where the Japanese no longer pursued them much. Hokkaido is where they were found when modern anthropology discovered them in the modern area, but they have not always been located only there.

How Do We Define a Race of Humans?

aircommodore writes:

Robert, you’ve probably done this already but can you please provide a definition for “race”?

Based on this post here, The Major and Minor Races of Man, where I divided humans up into four macro races, 11 major races and 115 minor races based on genetic distance. The questioner wants to know what my methodology is for determining what a race is and what it is not.

Here was my method and I must admit that my methodology was completely impressionistic in that I would just look at how far certain group[s were from each other to determine where they were racially. I didn’t have any strict figures that I was using (more sort of general ones) but I used the same basic distance for all groups.

At some certain X genetic distance, you a race. At some certain less than X distance, you have groups in the same race.

For instance, I created a South China Sea Race due to data showing that Filipinos, the Ami aborigines of Taiwan and the Guangdong or Hong Kong Han all formed a nice tight genetic race because they were so similar to each other. On the other hand, there is no Guangdong Han Race, Ami Race nor Filipino Race as they are all part of a larger group or actual race. I am not sure what you might call them – perhaps those three could be called ethnic groups.

On the other hand, the Puyuma Taiwan aborigines were far enough apart to even be in a separate race from the Ami.

The biggest races of all – the huge groups with the most genetic distance from each other, form Macro-Races such as Caucasians, Africans, Asians and Oceanians. Included within those groups are eleven Major Races the names of which elude me now as I forget what I called them. For instance, I believe I split Asians into Southeast Asians, Northeast Asians, and Amerindians because those three groups are so far apart that you really need to split them.

Within each Major Race, I split each one up in to a number of Minor Races. Within say Northeast Asians, I had the Japanese-Korean Race consisting of the Japanese, the Koreans and the Ainu because they are so close to each other genetically and they form a nice neat little cluster that is away from all other groups.

How Many Major Races?

Problem is that Pygmies and Capoids are not extremely far genetically from the rest of the Africans. That’s the major problem as I see it. I am wondering if there is some distance on some charts though.
Geovan wrote:

My main question at the moment is can you go ahead and expand the 4 major races to 6 by including Capoids, Congoids (I think that is better than “Africans”) and Pygmies??!!!

Africans, Caucasians, Asians and Oceanians (Papuans and Aborigines) are the four major races.

One thing you might be able to do is split the Horners. They are indeed about halfway between Africans and Arab/North African Caucasoids.

You could also split off the South Indians. They are about halfway between Caucasoids and Asians on some charts.

Thais and Vietnamese Compared Racially

Who are more archaic? Vietnamese or Thai?

Thai, I think. Thais transitioned to Neomongoloid probably only 900 YBP. Vietnamese transitioned to Neomongoloid 2,300 YBP. The more recent the transition, the more archaic features will be preserved. The older the transition, the more the archaic features will tend to have gone out. This is because generally humans sexually select for progressive features and against archaic features, at least nowadays anyway.

Southern Chinese – Most progressive Southern Neomongoloid with few if any archaic features. Transition to Neomongoloid probably 4-5,000 YBP.

Vietnamese – Moderately progressive Southern Neomongoloid with some archaic features. Transition to Neomongoloid 2,300 YBP.

Thai – Least progressive Southern Neomongoloid with more archaic features. Transition to Neomongoloid 900 YBP.

In all three cases, the previous stock that transitioned to Neomongoloid was probably an Australoid type, even in Southern China. This is why Afrocentrists go on and on about “Black Chinese” –  there were quite a few dark people with frizzy hair in Southern China 5,000 YBP.

Vietnamese certainly transitioned from a Melanesian type. The earliest Vietnamese skulls from 22,000 YBP are clearly Melanesian.

Thais probably transitioned from some sort of an Australoid type, but it’s not known which. It may have been a Veddoid type.

In the case of the Vietnamese and the Thai, the transition to Neomongoloid occurred as a consequence of a mass invasion or movement of Southern Chinese into their regions.

There was a huge invasion of Vietnam by Cantonese Chinese 2,300 YBP. That is why Vietnamese is full of Cantonese borrowings.

There was a very large movement o unknown character by Yunnanese Chinese into Thailand 900 YBP that appears to have significantly changed the Thai phenotype.

The case of Southern China is less clear, but as Northern Chinese transitioned to Neomongoloid 9,000 YBP, 4,500 years before the Southern Chinese, the Southern Chinese transition to Neomongoloid probably occurred due to a mass movement of Northern Chinese to the south. But that is only conjecture.

Also more progressive phenotypes tend to have higher IQ’s than more archaic phenotypes. I am not exactly sure why that is honestly.