View Single Post
Old March 15th, 2013 #39
Joe_Smith
Senior Member
 
Joe_Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,778
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N.M. Valdez View Post
You know, if you take the very unique position (among white supremacists) that an individual with 25% Amerindian admixture can be considered as "white," then I don't see the point of you even trying to argue with me. It shouldn't even matter to you if these studies are accurate or not; even if they are, you've declared the admixed populations "white" anyway...unless you actually do believe that such significant Indian admixture is a problem, and want to try to deny the validity of this research on that basis.
What I was denying is how common it is. There is a percentage of whites in Argentina (smaller in Uruguay) who are 1/8th Amerindian or less, but it's by no means the majority of the whites as those studies suggest.

Quote:
That you continue to comment on this thread while claiming that I have "no more argument" is laughable, given that you neglected to offer any counter-arguments to my points that Argentina experienced a crime wave from Spanish and Italian immigrants that was blamed on their inferior genetic background, that the Mexican drug war is most severe in the regions with admixture proportions most similar to the "white" populations of South America rather than the most Indian regions, and that the black countries of Barbados and the Bahamas have higher HDI scores than Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay. Temporary amnesia there?
Northern Mexico does not have similar racial demographics to Argentina and Uruguay. While the drug war is indeed most severe in the North, it is still far more desirable to live in the north (where the wealth and development is concentrated) than it is to live in the low-IQ indian provinces.

The Mexican drug war is also not comparable to crime by Spanish and Italian immigrants to Argentina. The fact that you would compare what is essentially a civil war in Mexico to percentage of immigrants who were drunkards or thieves in the 19th century is petty legalism.

Barbados and Bahamas are cesspools outside of the resorts. Those countries have tiny populations, and the wealth is concentrated in the hands of multi-national corporations that profit from tourism. Put Barbadians in a place with more than a couple hundred thousand people, and you'll get Detroit or Johannesburg.

Quote:
What you seem to be implying is that your anecdotal experiences and perceptions are more accurate in determining the admixture proportions of millions of people than actual genetic research that uses large data sets.
Those studied a few hundred to a few thousand people, cherry picking a larger amount from low population indio parts. That's worse than anecdotal evidence, it's agenda-driven.


Quote:
They did ask for participants' ethnic self-identification. Why don't you actually read these studies before commenting on them?
Show me where it said that?

Quote:
Oh no, of course not. It's just a coincidence that you say that there's no analysis of populations in Buenos Aires when the first study in my post had the name "Buenos Aires" in the title.
I didn't say there was no analysis of Buenos Aires.


Quote:
There's almost no such thing as "thorough bred whites" when it comes to South America, because Europeans have been present there intermingling with the indigenous population for more than five centuries.
Depends on the region. Places like Argentina and Uruguay had few people in them until European immigration in the 19th and 20th century. Most who have been to Buenos Aires, at least until the cancer of Peruvian and bolivian immigration, used to call it the Paris of the South. Why don't they say that about the Machu Pichu? Is it a social construct, did it fall out of the sky like that?


Quote:
Strictly speaking, if the archaic and relatively useless term "mestizo" refers to anyone with both European and Amerindian admixture, the average "white" in the U.S. is a "mestizo." BTW, America is a continent, not a country.
So you refer to people who are 1% Amerindian (an impossibility your study presents knowing how recently Europeans and Amerindians had contact in Argentina) as mestizos, then turn around and say mestizo is an archaic term, then say the Average white American is a mestizo? You smoke much peyote, medicine man JewVez

Quote:
How do you derive "exactly" from "approximately"?
Because when you talk about the average racial admixture of country that was predominately European until the last 20-30 years of non-white immigration, you are being dishonest. Argentina is a multicultural country like the USA and Canada today, so taking a study under the assumption that today's "Argentinians" (including the millions of illegal paraguayans and peruvians who got amnesty over the years from the Jewish government) can be studied like you would a homogenous country, such as Poland, is a gaping hole in the study.

What they are suggesting is that the average Argentinian is 78% European, and the rest Amerindian, glossing over the fact that you find more people who are fully European and mostly Amerindian immigrants, with a sprinkle of colonial whites, concentrated in rural areas, that are 1/8 or 1/16 Amerindian.

Some white man voodoo for you, Chief JewDez -if you group together a person that is 100% Amerindian , with 1 person that is 100% European, you get an average of 50-50. That is the manipulation of your politicized, judaic, mercosur justifying studies.

Quote:
Can you refer to admixture mapping that demonstrates that these variances in European-Amerindian admixture between regions of Argentina are as significant as you claim? If disproportionate sampling is as great a problem as you allege, then it stands to reason that this study would have resulted in vastly different admixture estimates than the others, but it produced the same European proportion of 78%. That shouldn't matter to you, since you consider "castizos" to be "white" anyway, of course.
My problem isn't necessarily that I think it's a big deal if someone has an indian ancestor in the woodpile, my problem is that the study paints a dishonest of Argentinian and Uruguayan demographics.

Quote:
By all means, provide a detailed refutation of the methodology. I look forward to your analysis, Professor.
I already did.

Quote:
Did you not learn about "mean, median, and mode" in fifth grade math class?
Did you learn averages?

Quote:
Really? That fascinating piece of lore you picked up is certainly news for population geneticists.

It certainly conflicts rather sharply with Wang et al.'s Genetic Variation and Population Structure in Native Americans, PLoS Genet 3(11):e185. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.0030185: "We examined genetic diversity and population structure in the American landmass using 678 autosomal microsatellite markers genotyped in 422 individuals representing 24 Native American populations sampled from North, Central, and South America. These data were analyzed jointly with similar data available in 54 other indigenous populations worldwide, including an additional five Native American groups. The Native American populations have lower genetic diversity and greater differentiation than populations from other continental regions."


What groups? From that list in the image, there aren't any Indians such as Cherokees or some of the tribes from the Southern cone. Big difference between some gracile, pseudo-European featured Indians, and some pineapple headed cuac cuac like you.

Quote:
I don't even see why you'd go the route of trying to claim that the Southern Cone Indians had ancient European admixture that Mesoamerican Indians lacked, since the latter group was far more technologically and politically advanced. Isn't that the opposite of what your theory would predict?
Judging from anthropological evidence, Mesoamerican Indians were at some point in contact with Europeans before colombus. Oh and did I mention, the Aztecs et al no longer exist, while the inferior indians now compose the majority? Of course, little is studied regarding this, by Jews who do not want it to get it. Academia and science are not free institutions in the West, anonymous polls of scientists show this, where pre-packaged jew propaganda "science" proves race does not exist, yet more scientists believe there is a correlation between race and intelligence.

When it comes to the Southern cone, there were very few indians there to begin with. However, according to certain Spanish explorers, some of the indians in Argentina and Chile were close in appearance to white men, bearded, etc. The Araucanos, for example, are known for their fair features.

Quote:
Your lie about ancient European populations that "came before Siberians crossed the land bridge" has been refuted many times over on this forum, but I'll gladly point you back to Fagundes et al.'s Mitochondrial Population Genomics Supports a Single Pre-Clovis Origin with a Coastal Route for the Peopling of the Americas, The American Journal of Human Genetics 82, 583–592, March 2008:"Here we show, by using 86 complete mitochondrial genomes, that all Native American haplogroups, including haplogroup X, were part of a single founding population, thereby refuting multiple-migration models. A detailed demographic history of the mtDNA sequences estimated with a Bayesian coalescent method indicates a complex model for the peopling of the Americas, in which the initial differentiation from Asian populations ended with a moderate bottleneck in Beringia during the last glacial maximum (LGM), around ~23,000 to ~19,000 years ago. Toward the end of the LGM, a strong population expansion started ~18,000 and finished ~15,000 years ago. These results support a pre-Clovis occupation of the
New World, suggesting a rapid settlement of the continent along a Pacific coastal route."

The theory hasn't been debunked, you injuns just bury the evidence, to maintain your folklore and status as welfare queens.

There is strong evidence for the Clovis theory. If you only buy system academics, look up Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian to see the archaeological finds regarding this.


Quote:
Also, I have no relatives from Oaxaca. My maternal family is from Guatemala; my paternal family is from Chihuahua, New Mexico, and western Texas.
LOL! Guat? The country with the IQ of 79? I'm surprised you can actually work a computer. I congratulate you.

Quote:
No, those haplogroups were found in 20% of the sampled population of Montevideo. That's why the study's name is "Frequencies of the Four Major Amerindian mtDNA Haplogroups in the Population of Montevideo, Uruguay." See, it's just like "Characterization of Admixture in an Urban Sample from Buenos Aires, Argentina" was about Buenos Aires. You certainly have trouble paying attention to the titles of these studies.


But anyway, allow me to quote from that particular study: "The frequency of Amerindian polymorphisms in Montevideo differed significantly from that observed in Tacuarembo, a city about 400 km away, indicating the high level of variation within Uruguay...On the basis of historical records, Tacuarembo is expected to have the greatest amount of Amerindian admixture in Uruguay (Zum Felde 1967)...When we compared the frequencies of the genetic markers for Montevideo and Tacuarembo, we found statistically significant differences between the two populations."
I'll try to explain my point in a way a Guat fresh-out of Jew taught brown self-esteem class can understand:

Population of Uruguay: 3,368,595

Population of Montevideo: 1,319,108

Population of Tacuarembo: 90,053

Which one is more representative of the population of Uruguay, Marrano Valdez?



Quote:
You could be a tap dancer with the way you keep going around the question, so I'll ask again. If 25% is good with you, and 50% is not, at what point between 25 and 50 do you draw the line.
There aren't that many people in Argentina or Uruguay who are 25% Amerindian, and the ones who are generally are indistinguishable from whites since Amerindians are very recessive, racially speaking. I'm not some Christian Identity tard, there are bigger fish to fry.

The Nuremberg laws work in my opinion, as they realistically limit racial damage while retaining a populist dynamic against the enemy. That is precisely why people like you hate it so much.

Quote:
Do you have actual admixture mapping of these individuals that supports this, or are they people with "Cherokee princess great grandmothers"?
Proof they're lying about being partially Amerindian?

Quote:
Actually, admixture mapping can produce fairly reliable estimates of how many generations ago admixture occurred.
I thought there was no genetic test for race?


Quote:
I'd rather refer to actual empirical research from the twenty-first century.
What is this in reference to, Mendel's laws?

Quote:
Consider Suarez-Kurtz et al.'s Self-reported skin color, genomic ancestry and the distribution of GST polymorphisms, Pharmacogenetics and Genomics, 2007, 17:765–771: "Interethnic admixture is a source of cryptic population structure that may lead to spurious genotype– phenotype associations in pharmacogenetic/-genomic studies. Logistic regression modeling of GST polymorphisms shows that admixture must be dealt with as a continuous variable, rather than proportioned in arbitrary subcategories for the convenience of data quantification and analysis."
What does a study done in a well-known raceless place like Brazil have to do with Argentina and Uruguay?

Quote:
Who are you to talk about beaners, sudaca?
The son of those who civilized you


Quote:
Your "explanation" is itself the fascist political rant that involves no actual methodological criticism.
So you are denying that there is no policy to "de-construct" and define European descended people around the world out of existence?

I know, in the back of your head, you know these studies are politically motivated. Argentinians in the 80's and part of the 90's were very angry and resistant about the flood of brown grub-eaters from neighboring countries, and they still are. However, the Jews of Argentina have been on a campaign to de-Westerize Argentina and Uruguay and turn them into typical South American nations like Peru, with a thin layer of wealthy Jews ruling over teeming hordes of Amerindian/mestizo servants. You break a people by destroying their culture, via demographic bombs, critical theory, and "We're all Latinos (term made up by Nixon)" baloney.


Quote:
During initial colonization, when these admixture events occurred, all of South America "had few European women." That's why mtDNA haplotypes are far more Indian than Y-DNA haplotypes throughout the continent.
Argentina and especially Uruguay had few people until European immigration to these countries.

Quote:
Is that right? Marx wrote in The Communist Manifesto that, "discovery of gold and silver in america, the extirpation, enslavement, and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalized the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production."
I guess you're too thick to see that he is relating this to, yes, the industrial revolution. All of the world's history is irrelevant to Marx, everything everywhere was simply leading up to a Western European phenomenon in the 18th century, that is the beginning and end of history until the Proletarians overtake the bourgeoisie.

Quote:
The late Marxist scholar J.M. Blaut elaborates further in Colonialism and the Rise of Capitalism, Science & Society, Vol. 53, No. 3 (Fall, 1989), pp. 260-296:
There have been probably millions of college kikes that get paid to sit around and write new ways to spin Marx. It doesn't debunk the fact that Marxism is Euro-centric, and for an Amerindian like you to take it up is assuming "white"(Jewish) supremacy.

Quote:
It may be more accurate to say that the white man would not have mattered were it not for interaction with Native Americans.
Even the most advanced amerindians were thousands of years behind whites. Aztecs and Incas were interesting and advanced races, but they were still light years behind even Rome and Ancient Greece.
__________________
"The favorite slogan of the reds is: 'No Pasarán!: Yes we have passed! And we tell them...and we tell them, we will pass again!'"
― Benito Mussolini after the Communist capitulation in Barcelona