Originally posted by Surtur
Leftists last week: conservatives boycotting nike over a shoe, such snowflakesLeftists this week: the co-founder of Home Depot has said he's going to give a lot of money to Trump, time to boycott Home Depot.
Lol triggered
Not comparable situations.
One is a private company not releasing a shoe. The other is political contributions that will affects people's lives if a sitting President wins/loses.
Originally posted by Robtard
There's a new classification on MENA "Middle Eastern and North African", removing Arabs from the Caucasian status. edit: Seems it's on the fences though. Either way, ancient Assyrians were not pale-skinned and red headed like Disney's Princess Ariel.
And they were white people, not black people. Meaning, even if you try to stretch it inappropriately to the Sumerians, it's still not anywhere even remotely close to appearing like Sub-Saharan Africans. Not even in the same geography.
Originally posted by Robtard
You tried using mythical figures as proof that the Greeks of old were blonde haired and blue/green eyed and fair skinned.
I did not. You're confused. Both the people and the mythical beings had fair-skinned, bright-eyed members. Each for separate reasons. They are two separate issues. Regardless of your attempt to troll, Triton is still not black. Some portrayals have his hair as bright red, my friend. 😄
Originally posted by Robtard
Anyhow, if you want to go with your pigment traces on statues and mythical figures as proof that the ancient Greeks were largely fair skinned, blonde haired and blue/green eyed, go ahead. I'll stick with actual science and DNA evidence. But the notion that the ancient Greeks being more like Scandinavians is romanticized racism of old.
This feels an awful lot like a red herring mixed with a strawman. It's also another racist path to black-wash the Mediterranean people like you're trying to do.
Tell me more about modern Greek's DNA vs. Ancient Greeks DNA. Wait, you're not? You're arguing a red herring? Gotcha. 🙂
Originally posted by dadudemonThis feels an awful lot like a red herring mixed with a strawman. It's also another racist path to black-wash the Mediterranean people like you're trying to do.
Tell me more about modern Greek's DNA vs. Ancient Greeks DNA. Wait, you're not? You're arguing a red herring? Gotcha. 🙂
HYG again, from the article:
The results showed that not only do modern Greeks share strong ties with Mycenaeans, but that three quarters of the DNA belonging to the Mycenaean and Minoan samples closely correlated with ancient farmers from Turkey—making them genetic siblings. -snip
The team’s DNA testing also revealed that ancient Mycenaeans and Minoans contained DNA traits shared with people from eastern Caucasus (Iran), which may have been the result of migration from the east. The two groups shared similar features, including brown hair and eyes, however the Mycenaean DNA samples did contain shared markers with people from Eastern Europe and Siberia which the Minoans did not, according to Science. -snip
Stamatoyannopoulos told Science that the genetic similarities between modern Greeks and their ancient relatives are “particularly striking given that the Aegean has been a crossroads of civilizations for thousands of years.” -snip
tl;dr version: The ancient Greeks looked a lot like the current Greeks.
Originally posted by RobtardYeah, it's useful parrucularly in Social Scienves to show prejudice.
Agreed there, but I think it's still safe to use unofficially.
This article from Harvard is lovely.
In the Stanford study, over 92% of alleles were found in two or more regions, and almost half of the alleles studied were present in all seven major geographical regions. The observation that the vast majority of the alleles were shared over multiple regions, or even throughout the entire world, points to the fundamental similarity of all people around the world—an idea that has been supported by many other studies (Figure 1B).
If separate racial or ethnic groups actually existed, we would expect to find “trademark†alleles and other genetic features that are characteristic of a single group but not present in any others. However, the 2002 Stanford study found that only 7.4% of over 4000 alleles were specific to one geographical region. Furthermore, even when region-specific alleles did appear, they only occurred in about 1% of the people from that region—hardly enough to be any kind of trademark. Thus, there is no evidence that the groups we commonly call “races†have distinct, unifying genetic identities. In fact, there is ample variation within races (Figure 1B).
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/
But, you know, Racist *****.
Originally posted by Putinbot1
Yeah, it's useful parrucularly in Social Scienves to show prejudice.This article from Harvard is lovely.
In the Stanford study, over 92% of alleles were found in two or more regions, and almost half of the alleles studied were present in all seven major geographical regions. The observation that the vast majority of the alleles were shared over multiple regions, or even throughout the entire world, points to the fundamental similarity of all people around the world—an idea that has been supported by many other studies (Figure 1B).
If separate racial or ethnic groups actually existed, we would expect to find “trademark†alleles and other genetic features that are characteristic of a single group but not present in any others. However, the 2002 Stanford study found that only 7.4% of over 4000 alleles were specific to one geographical region. Furthermore, even when region-specific alleles did appear, they only occurred in about 1% of the people from that region—hardly enough to be any kind of trademark. Thus, there is no evidence that the groups we commonly call “races†have distinct, unifying genetic identities. In fact, there is ample variation within races (Figure 1B).
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/
But, you know, Racist *****.
This here:
Ultimately, there is so much ambiguity between the races, and so much variation within them, that two people of European descent may be more genetically similar to an Asian person than they are to each other -snip
So what the old "science" behind race is little more than differentiating out superficial factors like skin tone and eye color?
Originally posted by RobtardYup, that's all it is tbh. You are statistically more likely to carry certain genes with a specific ancestry, but it's no guarantee at all. Despite what rightists loons will tell you.
This here:Ultimately, there is so much ambiguity between the races, and so much variation within them, that two people of European descent may be more genetically similar to an Asian person than they are to each other -snip
So what the old "science" behind race is little more than differentiating out superficial factors like skin tone and eye color?
Originally posted by Surtur
Leftists last week: conservatives boycotting nike over a shoe, such snowflakesLeftists this week: the co-founder of Home Depot has said he's going to give a lot of money to Trump, time to boycott Home Depot.
Lol triggered
I boycott Nike on account of their stuff being cheaply made, overpriced crap and I boycott Home Depot on account of living in a country where they don't exist.