View Single Post
Old March 6th, 2013 #34
N.M. Valdez
SMASH THE FASH
 
N.M. Valdez's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,382
Default

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.

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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
How can you give a sure opinion of a nations demographics, if you've never even been there?
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
Where? The neighborhoods? Wouldn't it skew a DNA sample if scientists took them from the Bronx, Manhattan, and Queens without accounting for self-description of race?
They did ask for participants' ethnic self-identification. Why don't you actually read these studies before commenting on them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
I wasn't talking about that study in particular.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
So is Argentina a mestizo country or is it one that has a 50-60% of mestizos and 40% of thorough bred whites?
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
If you were to take a nation-wide study of America, you'd probably get very similar results. Do you consider America a mestizo country?
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
So everyone in Argentina is exactly 78% European, 20% Amerindian, and 2% West African?
How do you derive "exactly" from "approximately"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
The overwhelmingly European Santa Fe has 3 times more people than Mendoza (the place where people are concentrated in Central Argetina, which is more similar racially and hence culturally, to Chile, they even speak differently than other Argentinians more similar to Chileans) , so why did they only use 3 samples from Santa Fe and 153 from Northern Argentina? And North-Eastern Argentina, which is very densely populated and culturally distant from most Argentinians (they are more similar to neighboring countries) has 61 samples?

To add more hilarious bias, the "North Eastern" provinces of Argentina, which are culturally and racially closer to Paraguay, Formosa and Santiago Del Estero (since Chaco has its own category, in this "study") have less than a million people in population when combined (out of 40 million people in Argentina), yet they used 61 (note the total of samples is 246 according to your study) from this region. Meanwhile, Rio Negro, which is the traditional Germanic stranglehold in Argentina, has an equal number of population to North Eastern Argentina and yet only used 31 samples from this region .
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
Yes a well known troll study. 2.2% is statistical static, "rounded up" to make some political point about how Argentina needs more niggers.
By all means, provide a detailed refutation of the methodology. I look forward to your analysis, Professor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
So everyone in Argentina is exactly these proportions?
Did you not learn about "mean, median, and mode" in fifth grade math class?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
Without asking people to identify their race this is irrelevant. Besides someone who is 82% European and the rest euro-asian (Amerindians of the southern cone are different from the squat block-heads in your home of Oaxaca, by the way, they were known in Argentina, Uruguay and Chile of being metrically reminding of Aryans like the cherokees in America, probably from mixing with the first whites that came before Siberians crossed the landbridge) is white by every colonial standard.
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."



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?

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."

Also, I have no relatives from Oaxaca. My maternal family is from Guatemala; my paternal family is from Chihuahua, New Mexico, and western Texas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
So Amerindian haplogroups were found in 20% of Uruguayans and that makes it a "mestizo country", yet you could probably find similar Abo or Asiatic results in Australia, New Zealand, or even areas of Hungary.
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."

You'll note that the other two studies that you failed to refute sampled populations outside of Montevideo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
What pure Amerindian community exists in Uruguay?
Try to pay attention. I mentioned Argentina, not Uruguay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
Easy, familiarize yourself to how the early colonists to the new world identified race. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casta

From what we know about Mendellian genetics, the principles were sound. The laws in North America, despite popular belief, were pretty similar to the spanish casta.
Mendelian genetics? Can you give the class a lesson on Newtonian physics too?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
A person that was 7/8 European and 1/8 Amerindian (who are Euro-Asian to begin with) was considered Aryan. Some who are 1/4 Amerindian can be considered Aryan as well, in my view, but it's not that important. The people who care most about that, are ironically antifa darkies like you, Jews with a multi-culti agenda ("there are some Argentinians who are 1/8 or 1/16 Amerindian, so let's let millions of low IQ indios from Peru in and make them citizens!"), or a Christian Identity tard here and there.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
Is Val Kilmer a white? He has about the same proportion of Amerindian heritage as above. Looks indistinguishable from millions of Northern Europeans. Ditto for Kevin Costner. You are just being facetious with that question, i'm frankly shocked when ANTIFA's manage to use this canned trick and it works on some of the dumber "white nationalists".
Do you have actual admixture mapping of these individuals that supports this, or are they people with "Cherokee princess great grandmothers"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
The key now is damage control for the whites whose ancestors committed an error at some undetectable point
Actually, admixture mapping can produce fairly reliable estimates of how many generations ago admixture occurred.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
and thankfully Mendel's laws means your weak indian blood gets bred out and disappears pretty fast. Also, some people, who may have an Amerindian ancestor, do not show up on various tests.

It's a complex topic , but I think the Nuremberg laws are the best model, refer to that if you'd like.
I'd rather refer to actual empirical research from the twenty-first century.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
How is it possible that the average Uruguayan looks like a normal white person from Italy, Spain or Germany when you visit Uruguay, while some of the "white" Mexicans look strange and non-European?
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."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
That's right, just change the rocks and the 80 IQ beaner becomes a rocket scientist.
Who are you to talk about beaners, sudaca?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
The problem is that they are political, not objective. See my explanation above.
Your "explanation" is itself the fascist political rant that involves no actual methodological criticism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
The european man indian woman thing is more common in countries that had few European women like Colombia.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
Did you know the Anarchist and Marxist theorists believed an economic event in the 18th and 19th century West (industrialization, which divided labor into proletarians vs bourgeoisie) is the pinnacle history and reason the world exists, and nothing that came before it or outside of it matters?

That's right, the Jewish philosophy you've internalized says your race and its culture is completely irrelevant. While you call us white supremacists for saying all races have a right to self-determination, the foundation of the hocus pocus leftism you espouse says your race would never have mattered were it not for your interaction with the white man. Of course the conclusion to the narrative, is that half-breeds like yourself must fight under the command of a anti-Western Jew like Trotsky or Luxembourg in order to vindicate your inferior race.
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."

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:

Quote:
The crux of this theory is a pair of propositions: (1) Prior to the 16th century, Europe had absolutely no advantage over Africa and Asia as to level and rate of development out of feudalism and toward capitalism, a process that was going on in many regions of the Eastern Hemisphere. The fact that Europeans reached the Western Hemisphere before Africans or Asians did so is a reflection only of location (accessibility), not level of development.

(2) The conquest of America and exploitation of Americans provided European protocapitalists (merchants, artisans, acquisitive land- lords, freehold peasants, and others) with massive capital accumulation which they used to dissolve feudal relations in Europe, destroy competing protocapitalist communities outside of Europe, and thus acquire the ability to gain political power in northwestern Europe.
It may be more accurate to say that the white man would not have mattered were it not for interaction with Native Americans.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
I don't know what the truth is, and have said as much.