Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Winner, Dec 22, 2011.
Incorrect, there is also Libya
I am so not following. What? ^^
Because Russia Asia is mostly trees. And because it, I think is a relatively new development that the white people who are there are there to begin with.
Yes, trees, oils, diamonds, you name it. All there in Russian Aaaasiaa.
OK but apart from Russian Asia we have for example Turkey, and Turks are genetically very close to Europeans, especially to Greeks and other Balkanians.
As well as many other groups in Western Asia inhabited by people who are genetically close to Europeans and form one genetic cluster / segment.
Not white. Southern Italians are very lucky to be considered white if you ask me. Though Northern Italians seem to engage in ample discrimination regardless.
Do you understand "white" as a racial concept, a cultural concept, a political concept, or what?
Perhaps he simply means that, you know, the skin of the peoples isn't as white as the ones here in Europe?
Sorry but if we go by skin colour then for example the Japanese are more "white" than the Greeks or the Bulgarians.
I understand white as a cultural concept, but visuals are part of it, in a vague not entirely clear manner. Clear enough to exclude Japanese, though. Definitely not as a genetic one. I don't think any one does, at least not these days.
There is IMO no need to pretend that 'white' is based on some consistent concept. Turkish people are not white. That is it. It mostly is defined by use, I guess.
@Kyrk... ah I see
Scientists do, of course. Type for example "genetic distances between populations" in Google browser.
Most of Middle Eastern and large part of Central Asian and Indian populations form one genetic cluster with Europe.
But if you classify your "whites" just by skin colour then I don't understand why do you exclude for example the Japanese.
Modern Turks are genetically identical with Greeks, yet you claim that Greeks are white and Turks are not ???
Turkish people have not much to do with the original Turkic nomads who conquered that land, who looked more like Yakuts.
Modern Turks are descendants of local population (including Greeks, etc., etc.) conquered and ruled by a small band of Asiatic nomads.
If I would do that, then this in deed would be inconsistent.
I'm not sure anyone said that. It's especially confusing since Domen doesn't link the quote so we can see who said it.
Oh so Greeks are not "white" as well, according to Terxpahseyton.
Well, I prefer genetic distances to your arbitrary definitions.
Though in terms of genetic distances Greeks are roughly in the middle between the rest of Europeans and Middle Easterners, which is quite consistent with their geographic location (both modern and - especially - historical, before the 20th century population movements in the Balkans and Asia Minor).
Then why do we continue using the term ???
Even before DNA studies became available, scientists agreed that colour is not that important. At that time there were attempts to classify humans into races such as "Caucasoid", "Negroid" or "Mongoloid" - but those classifications were NOT based on skin colour, which was only of secondary importance.
BTW - native Europeans have the largest variety of skin colours out of all humans. It means that you can find both very pale and rather dark ones.
Okay, knock yourself out. It however is not my definition. It is how people in general use it.
Could we have more charts, and less chatter please.
I've always wondered why Big Pharma, all big and mighty, didn't already discover/exploit these "miracle cures".
Also, this 'chart' is pretty crappy, sorry.
Separate names with a comma.