• 📚 Admin Project Update: I've added a major feature to PictureBooks.io called Avatar Studio! You can now upload photos to instantly turn your kids (and pets! 🐶) into illustrated characters that star in their own stories. Give it a try and let me know what you think!

The Races of Europe

I'm kind of confused as to why the celtic peoples are classified as mediterranean...

Especially since they're genetically close to the English.
Nononono!
Irish people are like Negroes, didn't you know?

That is, according to the conventional wisdom of 19th c. Englishmen. Everyone knew Celts, the Irish in particular, were racially inferior.

The optimistic humanitarians assumed that Irshmen, like Negroes, with the right education, could be turned into the equals of Englishmen. Most rather laughed at the cartoons of the "Irish cousin coming to dinner, Mr. G. O'Rilla".
 
Actually there was a recent genetic survey done reported in the BBC a year or so ago that said most english people were genetically German.

And there were others than directly contradicted that...

WIKIOHNOZ said:
Geneticists have explored the relationship between Anglo-Saxons and Britons by studying the Y-chromosomes of men in present day English towns. In 2002, a study by Weale et al found a considerable genetic difference between test subjects from market towns in England and Wales, and that the English subjects were, on average closer genetically to the Frisians of the Netherlands than they were to their Welsh neighbours. This conclusion seemed to indicate that the Anglo-Saxons purged England of its previous inhabitants.[24] A 2006 study led by Mark Thomas used computer simulations to find a possible reason for the divergence between these finds and the archaeological record. They concluded that the likeliest explanation was that the Anglo-Saxons operated an apartheid-like system, preventing intermarriage between Britons and Anglo-Saxons and asserting political dominance.[25]

Other geneticists tell a different story. A follow-up study to Weale et al in 2003 by Christian Capelli et al complicated Weale's conclusions, indicating that different parts of England received different levels of intrusion from outsiders: while central and eastern England experienced a high level of intrusion from continental Europe (the study could not distinguish Germans from Danes and Frisians), southern England did not and the population there appears to be largely descended from the indigenous Britons (the scientists acknowledge that this conclusion is "startling"). The 2003 study also noted that the transition between England and Wales is more gradual than the earlier study suggested. [26] Stephen Oppenheimer has argued that the majority of English people, much like the other populations within the British Isles, have some genetic relationship to the original hunter-gatherers who settled Britain between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago, after the last Ice Age. [27]

That is because if you isolate a gene pool then you will only get variations amongst that Gene pool. You can generally tell differences between blacks from different countries. Blacks from America look slighly different from a black in South Africa for example. All we are talking abut is genetic variety, no more no less.
"slightly?" Do you have any idea how freaking huge the genetic variation in Africa is? If you were to classify a race as a particular level of genetic diversity and isolation, I'd bet you would get hundreds of races in Africa. :p
 
If I had to pick some classifications based on looks for Europeans I'd probably go with Nordic, Celtic, Slavic and Southern.
 
Meh, I just use the language groups.
 
Nononono!
Irish people are like Negroes, didn't you know?

That is, according to the conventional wisdom of 19th c. Englishmen. Everyone knew Celts, the Irish in particular, were racially inferior.

The optimistic humanitarians assumed that Irshmen, like Negroes, with the right education, could be turned into the equals of Englishmen. Most rather laughed at the cartoons of the "Irish cousin coming to dinner, Mr. G. O'Rilla".

Have you ever seen The Commitments? This made for a great part of the movie (Its about an Irish Soul band)

1 (While watching James Brown)...I dunno...don't you think we're not...you know, black enough to do this music?
2. Look. Everybody knows that the Irish are the blacks of Europe. And that Dubliners are the blacks of Ireland. And that northsiders are the blacks of Dublin. So say it loud, I'M BLACK AND I'M PROUD!
 
Yes it's true the Irish are actually black. An Anglo-Teutonic is in the center, while you can see the similarity between the African on the right and the Irishman on the left.
Scientific_racism_irish.gif
 
and even fewer care about you commies.

Okay, this is a pet peeve of mine: Communism is a specific form of government that is advocated by very few people these days. You can hate us all you want, but we are not Communists.

If, specifically, you wish to insult me, the following invective would be more appropriate:
-leftist wing-nut
-tree-hugging hippie scum
-race traitor
-f@g-lover
-mudblood
-race-mixer
-k!ke
and so on. If you're going to spew bile at people, at least use the right bile, okay? I think Communism is an extraordinarily stupid idea, as do most people on this board.
 
You know, I was on a lark one day and decided to study the actual, historical Goths - and they're fascinating! The language, especially is pretty damned awesome. Who knew? :P
 
So-and-so is more likely to have brown/black/blonde hair and brown/blue/grey eyes? That is a mark for distinguishing races now again, is it?

I know you didn't mean it like that, but still. Take a batch of fruit flies, mate the ones who have red eyes with the ones who have red eyes. Eventually you will create offspring with mostly (or was it only) red eyes. Did you just breed a new race? Of course you didn't. You artificially created a sub-pool of a race with one distinctive mark.

Consider this theory about human evolution (I have spent too much time on the internet to label this as fact): approximately X thousand years ago (X can be any number you want it to be) homo sapiens emerged in Africa, spread across the globe, settled in certain areas, developed distinctive traits (pigmentation, bone structure) due to these areas being secluded. Take your initial batch of fruit flies, split them into, say, 30 different glasses, let them go nuts for a couple of years and then compare them. You might have 3 glasses with red-eyed fruit flies, 2 who can't fly anymore (but have a great sense of humour about it and are a blast at every fruit fly get-together), etc.

That, to me is what happened to the human race. Our differences in appearance (and I am of the strong opinion that it IS only skin deep) is a freak occurence. God's biology experiment left unattended. No different races, just different genetic backgrounds (all stemming from the same source, therefore of one race because we encounter only mild discrepancies in the grand scheme) due to being sequestered for an extended period of time.
 
My question to you; are there distinct native races to Europe, or is it just difference in one overall white race?

Please, keep this civil.
I honestly have no idea. I haven't spent enough time in Europe to determine whether his study has any merit or not. That said, I'm not offended by the delination of Caucasians into three distinct races. To be fair, "race" is not a scientific term in the first place, so the term could probably be used very loosely.
 
My list of races...


1. Whites/Europeans
2. Asians
3. Muslims
4. Blacks/Africans
5. Hispanics
 
Well, there is no such thing.

Are the Portugese members of the "white race"? Spanish? Italians? Greeks? Hungarians? Bulgarians?

Of course they are.

The main argument used by people who disregard races is that it is impossible to draw a clear and sharp line between them.

That's about as true as saying that there is no Black or White color, because between them there are many shades of grey.

White race, Black race and Asian race exist just as the broadest groups of people who share certain biological characteristics. There are many subgroups.
 
Yeah I guess all those Liberians who categorise Europeans and Americans including African-Americans as "red" as opposed to themselves as "black" should simply be told what the distribution of coulors really is. I'm sure they'll be gobsmacked at the realisation of the truth, if we only tell them. After all, aren't these things simply the way things are?

The only problem being, why has the way things "just are" changed in the last century and a half or so? Why are the Irish "white" now, but not a century ago?

The phenomenon has been referred to as the "anthropological war" over classification.

Anybody willing to pause for a minute and have a bit of a think about what classification means?
 
1. Whites/Europeans - Fair enough
2. Asians - Theres around 3bn of them, thats too brioad a definition
3. Muslims - :rolleyes:
4. Blacks/Africans - again, very broad definition, but a lot of people use it
5. Hispanics - outside america, Latin and hispanic people are classified as white and not differentiated, so I suppose thats a fair definition in the US, but outside its not a distinct one
 
Of course they are.

The main argument used by people who disregard races is that it is impossible to draw a clear and sharp line between them.

That's about as true as saying that there is no Black or White color, because between them there are many shades of grey.

White race, Black race and Asian race exist just as the broadest groups of people who share certain biological characteristics. There are many subgroups.

Are the Turks 'white'? How about the Persians? Kazakhstanis? Armenians? Hindus?
 
Back
Top Bottom