Currently many scientists believe that majority of Europeans descended from the same ``Indo-European`` stock. Nonethless there seem to be some differences between European nations.For example many Poles do not want even hear about Eastern Slavic people and with shame deny that they even could be somehow related with them.Instead they believe that their beloved brothers are Hungarians who do not even speak Indo-European language.Many Germans still believe that they and any Slavs belong to different races of people.If we assume point of view that European nations are so different, then how they become so different?Had they been genetically different originally?Or became different during evolution/selection?If yes,then why evolution followed different patterns in those countries?
If we assume point of view that European nations are so different, then how they become so different?Had they been genetically different originally?Or became different during evolution/selection?If yes,then why evolution followed different patterns in those countries?
Check the history of wars and invasions. It is obvious you couldn`t invade your kin. Before the invasion you had to turn your prospective victims into mortal enemies, alien to your race and culture, barbariansm, pagans, etc. Just for the sake of little peace of mind - slaughtering people and burning their settlements was so less stressful then. Simple.
If we assume point of view that European nations are so different, then how they become so different?Had they been genetically different originally?Or became different during evolution/selection?If yes,then why evolution followed different patterns in those countries?
As pawian pointed out it was important to disassociate with those whom you wished to conquer or who conquered you. Invasion and warfare have long been a part of European history. But there were also very long periods of peace. Unlike today most people had very limited contact with other cultures and populations globally were much smaller. Apart from earlier patterns of migrations into Europe (which literally took decades if not centuries) many people worked the land or plied their trades locally once they settled. Apart from armies and the wealthy most people did not travel very widely unless some catastrophe or social upheaval forced them to move. And during one period of time many were bound to the land due to serfdom or other obligations. Transportation was a very long, slow and often arduous undertaking too. The geographic dispersion and relative isolation allowed many more languages and cultures to evolve differently from a common heritage or be largely preserved from outside influences. I'm sure back then some rural people only found out they had a new king or were now in a new country once a taxman showed up at their door.
Education was very different ages ago and that's assuming it was even available. Although people spoke the languages of their community it often took many many years before these languages were even standardized regarding spelling and grammar. Many common people were illiterate or had a very basic education. But that is not to say there were stupid. They often had great manual skills, self-sufficiency and a profound understanding of their local environment which in turn contributed to the unique lexicons, customs, styles and architecture which developed over many generations. People may have been aware of other cultures from those they traded with or defended their land against or just from story telling. But people back then didn't have the store of knowledge about the world and resources to get and share it as we do today.
The occupation of Berlin from 1945 revealed an essential difference between France and the Soviet Union on the one hand and the UK and US on the other. The issue was fraternisation. Both French and Russians, from ancient experience, believed the conqueror would lessen the future threat from the conquered by implanting their own DNA in the wombs of the occupied peoples, thus the Russians were ordered to, and the French troops encouraged, to 'fraternise' with as many German women as possible. In contrast, the UK and US tried to impose strict penalties on any troops found in a relationship with a German woman.
The threat this racial mixing poses goes very deep, as witnessed by the dreadful penalties imposed in liberated France, Belgium and Russia on women who had slept with the German invader. Nor is this ancient history - in the recent Bosnian war, rape was again a sanctioned weapon against the occupied as the victors sought to implant their DNA in the wombs of the enemy's women.
It would be fascinating to see DNA research in present-day Prussia to see just how much Russian genes have diluted those of the native population over the years of occupation.
It would be fascinating to see DNA research in present-day Prussia to see just how much Russian genes have diluted those of the native population over the years of occupation.
Your claims are just rediculous.First of all haplogroups of Russians and Germans are somewhat related.For Germans one of the main haplogroup is R1b and for Russians R1a.What seems to be just slightly different variety of the same haplogroup.And approx. 25 % of East Germans already have R1a haplogroup which is associated with the Slavs (and other Indo-Europeans).
Eastern part of Germany was originally Slavic land which was conquered by Germanic tribes in 11-th century.For example such cites as Leipzig and Dresden derive their names form Slavic ``Lipsk`` and ``Drežïany``.
The origin of the name Berlin is unknown, but it may have its roots in the language of West Slavic inhabitants of the area of today's Berlin, and be related to the Old Polabian stem berl-/birl- ("swamp").[22] Folk etymology connects it to the German Bär, a bear, and a bear appears in the coat of arms of the city.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin#History
So in any case of intermixing there was not to much allien haplogroups brought in.This is at least in case of ethical Russians.But because in Soviet army there were people of different ethnicities,I cannot bet for all of them.
Ukrainians also have plenty of I haplogroup which is associated with early European cromagnoids.But in Northern Germans and Scandinavians this haplagroup is also common.
But maybe those were not ethnical Russians?For example this is how Russian soldiers are depicted by passional German painter HERBERT SMAGON.So maybe they will ultimately address their claims to...Kyrgiz???
And why events of 70 years due is so much concern?Soon Gemany will become a muslim country.Currently 1/3 if no more children in Germany are not Germans.At least Russians never persecuted Germans because they are Germans.And never bothered if they mix with Russians.In early 1990-th there were 2 millions of ethnical Germans in Russia.Ages ago they were welcomed to live in Russia.Lots of them intermixed.Nobody opressed them.Now they immigrate in Germany in large nubers.But in Germany they mostly treated like ``Russians``.So what should be you larger concern???
Your claims are just rediculous.First of all haplogroups of Russians and Germans are somewhat related.For Germans one of the main haplogroup is R1b and for Russians R1a.What seems to be just slightly different variety of the same haplogroup.And approx. 25 % of East Germans already have R1a haplogroup which is associated with the Slavs (and other Indo-Europeans).
I think you're confused about the science. R1b is common across Europe but particularly Western Europe - nearly all of it in the form R1b1a2. In contrast R1 and particularly R1a1a is prevalent in much of central and eastern Europe; there is a sharp increase in R1a1 and decrease in R1b1b2 as one goes east from Germany to Poland (Kayser et al 2005).
The authors write "We suggest here that the pronounced population differentiation between the two geographically neighbouring countries, Poland and Germany, is the consequence of very recent events in human population history, namely the forced human resettlement of many millions of Germans and Poles during and, especially, shortly after World War II" They found a resulting genetic border between Poland and Germany that closely resembles the course of the political border between both countries.
What we're lacking of course is Haplogroup samples pre-dating 1945 to make valid comparisons. So neither you nor I can assert with any certainty what is and what isn't the effect of occupation or of post war re-settlement. But I'm sure someone is working on it.
Ah! Now I've found data that really is interesting
Germans, speaking Germanic West IE language:
Germany generally:- R1b 50% R1a 6.2% Germany Berlin only - R1b 23% R1a 22%
Which is a substantial difference, and could support my first point. But as I say, since we don't know what Berlin's figures were before 1945 we'll never know.
Haha! No, it's not the prevalent Norwegian haplogroup at all - see
I'm not seriously concerned about it at all - just suggesting that the racial mingling between the Red Army and 2m German women may actually have produced a measurable result - but there's not even enough evidence to prove that, so it remains an open question.
From this map you could clearly see that 1Ra is associated with Northern Indo-Europeans,while 1Rb with North European eurASIANS.So 1Rb is closer to Asians in fact.
Yes - absolutely correct. We Western euros - particularly R1b1b2s - came originally from the Caspian Sea / Central Asia about 20,000 years ago, reaching the Caucasus about 10,000 years ago, whilst you R1as originated in Southern Russia about 21,000 years ago
So yes, despite the stereotypes about 'asiatic' Russians, we westerners are actually the asiatic ones and the Russins are actually Europeans .... haha I love genetics
Honesly I do not know what is my own haplogroup.It would be interesting to know. In Ukraine haplogroup ``I`` is also common which is associated with Southern Proto-Europeans how they are called on a map you provided.But few more haplogroups could be met too, though rarely.
Personally,I would be not against to be an East Asian. They have strong community values.They protect their cultures from invadors.
Carleton Stevens Coon is the foremost authority on the anthropology of the various European races. Much of his work can still be found used on Amazon. This site offers a basic introduction to Coon's classifications:
Unfortunately, for an analysis of the psychological differences of the various races (which is the real interesting part of racialism), very little material ever made it into english. The only available source on the net which makes use of the most advanced racial theories is Hans F.K. Günther. Alas, his work, while accurate in a general sense, is colored by bias, not in the sense his analysis is misleading, but in how he omits certain important details (particularly when partaining to the Alpine race). Still, his psychological profiles are dead accurate, you just have to maneuver around his obvious disdain for some of the "lesser" races:
white-history.com/earlson/hfk/reoehcover.htm
Much of the information i posses i gathered here and there through out the years, and tracing the source is an impossibility. There's a lot of people at Skadi who have access to most of the original material, all of it in german, and you can get a lot of information by asking around, assuming the right people still post there:
forums.skadi.net
A lot of people today will tell you that genetics have made the work of Coon obsolete. It isn't true of course, since phenomorphic anthropology is still a valid discipline (and its still used profusely among animal breeders), its just that in their zeal to push genetics over the study of phenotypes, and in their urge to distance themselves from an old science associated with the Nazi regime, they like to think the work of Coon and others like him is a discredited field. Its a mistake of course, and genetics should be use to augment anthropological disciplines, not try to supplant them.
genetics should be use to augment anthropological disciplines, not try to supplant them.
Tosh. Methods of classification based on physical characteristics of race can only be crude and imprecise. I've still got my 1965 edition of the British Museum's 'Races of Man' and use it mainly these days to demonstrate to students the absurdity of the old skull-measurers. Here's what Cole has to say about 'East Baltic Caucasoids' - "round headed very blond people of countries east of the Baltic who originated in Asia and speak Finno-Ugrian languages, including many of the Balts, Finns, Poles and Russians. The type is also common in Scandinavia and North East Germany where the term 'square heads' was used to characterise the Junkers type. The East Baltics differ from the Alpines in having a flatter occipital region, flatter and squarer face, a more concave nose and a rounded chin."
Just read the thread above to see how silly those phenotypic generalisations are.
Not really, no. Dispute their obvious personal bias, much of the work done by German scientists was surprisingly accurate (to this day i still find Hans Guenther's psychological profile of the various European races to be spot on), and American anthropologists like Carleton Stevens Coon had impeccable academic standards. Bias is one thing, rewriting reality from the ground up in another.
Science is sometimes doing precisely that because of the amount of blind trust people put into it. It took one Franz Boas to steer the entire scientific community away from the reality of race (the facts of which are so banally obvious to be almost painful) straight into more than half a century of contorted double think and self denial, where thousands upon thousands of scientists have been peer-pressured into believing that 2+2 = 5 and that the sky is actually red. Even renowned geneticists such like James Watson didn't have the guts to stand up for the truth until he became old enough not to fear a reprisal against his career, and even then he had to eat a lot a sh*t for simply stating the obvious. The implications here are simply staggering.
Here's a brief summary of phrenology as understood by Coon:
ems.net76.net/index.htm
This site used to have a lot more examples (for instance, they took out the Phalian section), i'm not sure why they were removed.
Well, most forums dealing with the subject seems diseapeared. I used to browse classification threads in addition to reading theory, is was particularly useful in providing samples. I found it engaging not so much because it can grant some insight into history, but because I am interested in how humans perceive each other. The only one still there from my old links
Apricity anthropology section - probably the most active with regards to user classification theapricity.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=21
Here are a few articles on race classification, but it's generally simpler to look for links at the forums. In general, people are classified using a mixture of Coon and Lundman, with some Gunther and Bunak mixed in. Most of the authors held fairly strong views on race. The most neutral major ones would probably be Coon, Baker, and Bunak.
Coon's Races of Europe theapricity.com/snpa/racesofeurope.htm - see theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-VIII6.htm for particular European types theapricity.com/snpa/rg-main.htm - North European types according to SNPA - a mixture of theories with somewhat faulty illustrations, but clear and concise
theapricity.com/snpa/glossary.htm - A glossary of physical anthropology terms - not very precise, but extensive; covers even obscure terms wiki.majorityrights.com/race - Majority Rights on race - a broader article on race arguing for the validity of racial division en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_definitions_of_race - Wikipedia section on the history of race - see the template in the lower part for a decent collection of personalities and theories.
P.S. When arguing about nations and not individuals, it makes more sense to use population genetics. Specifically, you would be interested in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroups]haplogroups As I said, one can use it in fusion with physical anthropology. It allows one to discard the more exotic claims of the latter (e.g., brahmins are largely European) and exclude cultural bias (e.g., Slavs are Asiatic).
[vdare.com/sailer/100328_ravitch.htm] - An example of how acceptance of racial inequalities could have improved the US public education system
Or at least kept it from becoming even more supremely fu*ked. A large number of the changes made in the US public educational system in the past few decades have stemmed from trying to close the performance gap between non-Asian minorities and whites/Asians. If the educational elites had accepted what most studies have suggested--that the performance gap comes from a genetic difference in IQ--more efforts would have been directed to pushing lower-IQ students into technical jobs they could manage rather than forcing them through useless algebra II classes, because, you know, everyone can get into Harvard.
ah well if we had accepted genetic differences those poles would never have had the chance of a good education remember they were considered dumb too scientifically back in the day
I don't think so, and furthermore, i have no idea why does it matter whether racialism would lead to negative outcomes when at the end of the day all it matters is whether it is scientifically tenable. Arguing about the potential social consequences of racialism (and by extension arguing for the suppression of such theories) is precisely the type of ideological fraud that characterizes modern science has a whole. Truth must take a backseat to being nice to people.
For example many Poles do not want even hear about Eastern Slavic people and with shame deny that they even could be somehow related with them
That's not true. There is a wide spread sense of Slavic identity amongst Poles. We do feel a part of the Slavic family, even more so now when the borders are open and so many of us have experienced the West and understood the difference. Even though the Russians say "Poles and not Slavs, they are Catholic" ;)
I'm fascinated by the world beyond our eastern border, I even watch Russian movies and Ukrainian XFactor ;)
But man, you drink vodka without a chaser, that's harsh..
But man, you drink vodka without a chaser, that's harsh..
Well that`s a widely known stereotype.When Westerners hear that I`m Ukrainian they asume I`m Russian and ask me if I like to drink vodka.Only thing I could respond that I never drink vodka.They probably do not believe.But personally me, is ``intelligent`` in a third generation and my ancestors almost never drunk alcohool. Neither I saw that intelligent Ukrainians such as engineers or programmers would misuse alcogool.
Well according to statistics,consumption of pure alcohool by Poles per year - 13.25 L is comparable to that of Ukraine 15.60 L and Russia 15.76 L. I saw before similar statistics according to which Ukrainian consumption of alcohool is lower than Polish.
In my opinion, the europe is not so different in their mentality or way of thinking, maybe you can divide it in 4 areas, the more Mediterranean countries (Portugal, Spain, Italy and probably Greece), central Europe (France, Germany, Switz., maybe U.K.), the eastern europe and scandinav europe. I think between this 4 main areas/groups you can feel sometimes the differences in the way of living, in the priorities, but again nothing huge, not like the difference europe/USA or europe/south america, for instance...
Of course you can find on or another exception that doenst fit in any of this group...
But more related with DNA I was, by curiosity checking the origin of portuguese people (since Im one), because everyone describe portuguese people as a latin, when its completely wrong. I read some studies, about that, and the conclusion was, that is very rare and difficult to find a "pure" DNA anywhere in the world, because of constant wars and occupations, or just the simple mixed of races in the marriage. But anyway this study intend to check the origin of portuguese DNA. The conclude that the "pure" portuguese DNA (lusitano) only can be founded in small villages in some mountains in the center of the country. And this still pure DNA (i.e. without any other DNA mixed) was only found in all europe there and in basque area of spain (Im sorry if its not the correct english word for that). And why was that, because its a mountain area its more difficult to be conquer by war, or its at least easier to people leaving there to hide them self, more lately because both areas don't accept so well a relation with a foreign. I have some family from that area and still 50/60 years ago was quite common cousins get married. In this Basque area, for example Atlhetic Bilbau, only recently they can have even spanish players, because before only people form that area could play in the club, the first foreign playing for the team receive dead treats because of that...
About the rest of portugal its a big mix of different DNA mostly from north of africa (because of invasions hundreads of years ago) and from barbarians contracted by romans to destroy, rape and take the country (that wanst yet portugal in that time). So I guess, knowing a bit of the european history that the same happen everywhere, after so many wars, invasions or colonializations...
The history of racialism and nordicism in particular actually starts with Arthur de Gobineau. He was an old guard artistocrac who the despised the idea of a democratic mass culture, and when he first formulated his idea of race being the real building block of civilization, he couldn't help but infuse an healthy those of elitism in his thinking. Thus, he begun to separate all races based on their worth. Gobineau ancestry belonged to a Nordic elite which could be traced as far back as the viking invasion of France. Because of their position as noblemen and leaders, he believed Nordics to be among the higher races in Europe. By comparison, the people of southern France, mostly composed of a peasant underclass whom according to Gobineau resisted all efforts to educate and civilize them, belonged to a lower race who could never hope to achieve an higher status (Gobineau didn't know this but southern France is mostly Mediterranean / Alpine). To corroborate his theory, he traveled far and wide around the globe to observe the other races, and his findings spawned a large historical and philosophical work entitled An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, which spanned across many volumes, but alas, only the first has been made available in English, which is where he lays out his main theories, though he does not go into detail explain the differences between the various races. Gobineau was also a religious man who took the Bible very seriously, and its sort of amusing to watch his keen scientific mind and vast erudition going into conflict with his belief in the Bible as a real historical document. Curiously enough, Gobineau did not hate the Jews and barely mentions them except when he labels them among the higher races of the world. Also curious, or perhaps amusing, was his idea that the white race was already on an advanced state of racial degeneration and miscegenation, and that western civilization could no longer be saved. One important fact about Gobineau that he believe each civilization reflected the race that created it, so that the European races for instance, whom he considered superior for the type of civilization created by them, would not be superior for a civilization created by another race. This is important because it prefaces the concept of history and civilization as "destiny" developed later on by Yockey.
After Gobineau, we have Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who wrote one of the most interesting history books i ever read, The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, a throughout examination of the historical forces that led to the 19th century as well as a complete analysis of his time. He was a racialist, but more then that, he believed that each civilization was characterized by a special soul quality inherent to that civilization at the foundations of which lied race. His understanding of the real essence of the Greeks and the Romans was nothing short of brilliant. He believed for instance the Greeks were not the heroes that they were portrayed to be in his own time. That they lacked in patriotism and virtue. They were on the other hand a race of artists, and the defining element of their civilization was genius. Not so the Romans, who posses no true artistic or creative element. The Romans were guided by two defining principles: family, and law, and it was those two principles that guarantee their success. According to Chamberlain, when the roman citizen became a subject, that is when Roman civilization begun to collapse. He then goes on to explain that the aesthetic and creative essence of the Greeks were passed on to us along side Roman family (by means of the Church which was still seeped in Roman traditions) and law. This approach to history was far more enlightening then then the simple pragmatism of modern history books. Unlike Gobineau, Chamberlain saw the Jews as a threat to European civilization, based on their inability to assimilate and their incompatible cultural values.
After Chamberlain, we have Spengler, who defined civilization in terms of a living organism, which in turn defined the philosophy of Francis Parker Yockey, who saw race as the artificer of historical "destiny". Yockey extended the analogy of culture as organism by describing outsiders as foreign entities, and he saw the Nazi and similar groups as natural antibiotic responses.
In so far as race and the quality of race, one of the most influential writers during the Nazi regime was Hans F. K. Günther. His theories led him to create a view of race as different psychosocial entities, which he then went at great lengths to describe. Of course, the Nordic race was the most endowed, which bespeaks of personal bias, but his observation regarding the psychological differences of the races of Europe are still incredibly accurate, at least based on my own experience and observations.
