You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
5
devotech2 on scored.co
1 year ago5 points(+0/-0/+5Score on mirror)1 child
I understand, however
Dravidians are Caucasians. So are white people. Yet they have been removed from each other for 10s of thousands of years. Not counting the vedic aryans, they did not change the dravidians into something different by existing in India.
Whites (as in 100% European caucasian whites) share very ancient, but geologically very recent ancestry with native Americans and siberian natives via ancient north eurasians. We also share some of that ancestry with the rest of the northeast asians, just less of it. Furthermore, several of these groups are mixed with whites more recently in history. The turkic people have heavy white admixture. The Mongolians have some. The Chinese of Xinjiang have a lot too.
This isn't even bringing up the Sami, who are fully mongoloid and also fully european, being closer to nordic whites by far than any Asian race, but having the same epicanthic fold eyes, black straight hair, and flat faces as an Asian. I'd bet my bottom dollar I'm closer to a Sami by genetics than with rajpeet from telangana
So caucasian whites have a shared ancestor with multiple mongoloid races that's much more recent than the split of the dravidians from whites.
I fully support the idea that there the different races are different species, but I think there is a lot of nuance to it. The caucasoid group could be split itself between whites/semites, Somali (yup, those niggers have caucasoid skulls too), and dravidian types, because we share very little with some of the caucasoid races. We even have more paternal haologroups in common with some mongoloid groups than with Dravidians, who are haplogroup H, which is not present in Europe at all, present or stone age.
Same skull type? Yes, undoubted. Should we be considered the same race though? No. Somalis also have caucasoid skulls. Are Somalis the same race as Europeans? No, they're retarded niggers that just avoided bantu absorption.
My theory: the caucasoid skull type is just the "primitive" skull type of all eurasian peoples. Even various primitive east Asian strains have caucasian skulls. The mongoloid physiognomy was an adaptation to extreme cold weather that spread among east asians, but it also spread to one European group, the Sami, as well. The mongoloid type is also a lot closer to caucasoid than the negroid type just by analysis.
Well ultimately I'm just the messenger here but here's what we know.
We know that social categories of race (White, nigger, asian, etc) are real.
We know that different ethnicities are real as well: https://archive.ph/DffNo, https://archive.ph/oh35g
We know that skulls have a racial identity: https://archive.is/upIdp
Based on everything I've come across, you can define races broadly as has been done in the study above but being more discriminatory you can gather further information about one's specific ancestry.
I hope that somewhat answers your question. I don't claim to be an anthropologist. I'm simply basing my views on the plain English excerpts that I've read.
Dravidians are Caucasians. So are white people. Yet they have been removed from each other for 10s of thousands of years. Not counting the vedic aryans, they did not change the dravidians into something different by existing in India.
Whites (as in 100% European caucasian whites) share very ancient, but geologically very recent ancestry with native Americans and siberian natives via ancient north eurasians. We also share some of that ancestry with the rest of the northeast asians, just less of it. Furthermore, several of these groups are mixed with whites more recently in history. The turkic people have heavy white admixture. The Mongolians have some. The Chinese of Xinjiang have a lot too.
This isn't even bringing up the Sami, who are fully mongoloid and also fully european, being closer to nordic whites by far than any Asian race, but having the same epicanthic fold eyes, black straight hair, and flat faces as an Asian. I'd bet my bottom dollar I'm closer to a Sami by genetics than with rajpeet from telangana
So caucasian whites have a shared ancestor with multiple mongoloid races that's much more recent than the split of the dravidians from whites.
I fully support the idea that there the different races are different species, but I think there is a lot of nuance to it. The caucasoid group could be split itself between whites/semites, Somali (yup, those niggers have caucasoid skulls too), and dravidian types, because we share very little with some of the caucasoid races. We even have more paternal haologroups in common with some mongoloid groups than with Dravidians, who are haplogroup H, which is not present in Europe at all, present or stone age.
Same skull type? Yes, undoubted. Should we be considered the same race though? No. Somalis also have caucasoid skulls. Are Somalis the same race as Europeans? No, they're retarded niggers that just avoided bantu absorption.
My theory: the caucasoid skull type is just the "primitive" skull type of all eurasian peoples. Even various primitive east Asian strains have caucasian skulls. The mongoloid physiognomy was an adaptation to extreme cold weather that spread among east asians, but it also spread to one European group, the Sami, as well. The mongoloid type is also a lot closer to caucasoid than the negroid type just by analysis.
We know that social categories of race (White, nigger, asian, etc) are real.
We know that different ethnicities are real as well: https://archive.ph/DffNo, https://archive.ph/oh35g
We know that skulls have a racial identity: https://archive.is/upIdp
Based on everything I've come across, you can define races broadly as has been done in the study above but being more discriminatory you can gather further information about one's specific ancestry.
I hope that somewhat answers your question. I don't claim to be an anthropologist. I'm simply basing my views on the plain English excerpts that I've read.