[N.M. Valdez]

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

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.

And the reason that you futilely try to make that denial is because you actually do believe that such admixture matters, despite your assurances to the contrary. You say it doesn't matter, because deep inside, you probably know that your moronic attempts to dismiss this genetic research just looks stupid.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

Northern Mexico does not have similar racial demographics to Argentina and Uruguay.

Indian admixture averages are less than 15% higher in northern Mexico than in Argentina and Uruguay. I thought you said that Indian admixture proportions less than 25% weren't relevant?

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

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.

That's true in part (though you've still not explained the narco violence, because you have no explanation), yet why are there southern Mexican states with higher HDI scores than northern Mexican states?



Have you considered how population differences and government policies factor into these averages or have you once again stupidly jumped to a predetermined conclusion?

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

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.

I never made that comparison. What I actually asked you was why "white" immigrants should be a social underclass that caused crime problems while the "mestizo" population was the middle and upper classes. That's the opposite of what your genetic determinism predicts.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

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.

That's a complete lie, as evidenced by the HDI scores that I referenced. I referred to HDI, not GDP or GNP, so moronically referring to "wealth concentrated in the hands of multinational corporations" doesn't work.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

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.

The European admixture component is higher in Buenos Aires because the capital was an entry point for Spanish and Italian immigrants, who, as previously mentioned, disproportionately contributed to crime and poverty.



It is shown in Bobillo et al.'s Amerindian mitochondrial DNA haplogroups predominate in the population of Argentina: towards a first nationwide forensic mitochondrial DNA sequence database, International Journal of Legal Medicine, July 2010, Volume 124, Issue 4, pp 263-268: "The study presents South American mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) data from selected north (N = 98), central (N = 193) and south (N = 47) Argentinean populations. Sequence analysis of the complete mtDNA control region (CR, 16024–576) resulted in 288 unique haplotypes ignoring C-insertions around positions 16193, 309, and 573; the additional analysis of coding region single nucleotide polymorphisms enabled a fine classification of the described lineages. The Amerindian haplogroups were most frequent in the north and south representing more than 60% of the sequences. A slightly different situation was observed in central Argentina where the Amerindian haplogroups represented less than 50%, and the European contribution was more relevant."

We can also consider Garcia and Demarchi's Incidence and Distribution of Native American mtDNA Haplogroups in Central Argentina, Human Biology Volume 81, Number 1, February 2009 pp. 59-69: "We report the incidence and distribution of Native American mtDNA haplogroups in nine villages across the Sierras Centrales archeological area, located in central Argentina. The aims of the study were (1) to investigate the relative incidence of native maternal lineages, (2) to determine whether or not the homogeneous pattern observed in a previous study persists at this larger scale, and (3) to ascertain the genetic affinities between the studied population and other native populations of the Southern Cone of South America. Of the 310 individuals from whom DNA was extracted, 249 (80.3%) were assigned to one of the founding native American haplogroups. This finding confirms the persistence at high prevalence of native maternal lineages in the rural populations of central Argentina. The haplogroup distribution is homogeneous in the population samples from Córdoba province, with haplogroups C and D always found at the highest frequencies. The sample from San Luis province, Tilisarao, presents a different genetic pattern, with haplogroups A and B being the most frequent. Principal components analysis and SAMOVA at the regional level show that the Córdoba, Patagonia, and Tierra del Fuego populations cluster together, which suggests a common origin."

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

Show me where it said that?

"The samples are composed of individuals from the following native American groups: (1) Humahuaquen˜o and Quechua from the province of Jujuy in northwestern Argentina; (2) Tehuelche from Pampa de Chalõ´a and Loma Redonda, province of Neuque´n; (3) Mapuche, from the province of Rõ´o Negro; (4) Mataco-Mataguayo from the village of Santa Victoria, northwest of the province of Salta; (5) Chorote and (6) Toba from the village of Santa Victoria, in the northwest province of Salta; and (7) Ayoreo and (8) Lengua from southern Paraguay."

Maybe you should try actually reading these studies.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

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?

As evidenced by quoted authors, people referred to Spanish and Italian immigration as a cancer in its day too.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

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,

In the technical sense of the word, they would be "mestizos."

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

then turn around and say mestizo is an archaic term, then say the Average white American is a mestizo?

That's why it's an archaic term, idiot!

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

You smoke much peyote, medicine man JewVez

Are you calling a member of this forum a Jew without proof? That's a bannable offense.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

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.

That's not true. Catelli et al., for example, mentioned the "important genetic heterogeneity of the country." Of course there are variances in admixture proportions, but many of these admixture events occurred many generations ago. That's why the comparison with the USA and Canada is disingenuous and misleading; there weren't the same admixture events, and the average level of Indian admixture in the people of those countries, though still present, is far lower.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

Some white man voodoo for you, Chief JewDez

That's the second time that you've referred to a member of this forum as a Jew without proof.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

-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.

Hey, idiot, I referred to mtDNA distribution, which could only exist in the pattern it does if there was admixture between Indian females and European males. I also referred to studies that distinguished between different regions and found clear variances in admixture proportions as a result of different immigration pressures. So while you may be so stupid as to believe that there's people that are "100% European" in these studies, there is a minimum level of admixture in every individual sampled, and you already claimed that 1% is too low.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

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.

Not at all. Numerous studies that sampled numerous populations and individuals have reached a consensus.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

I already did.

LMAO, no you didn't. You just proved that you didn't actually read them.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

Did you learn averages?

Those are forms of averages, you idiot.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

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.

LMAO, you are a fucking idiot. I guess you misses Wang's comment that, "The Native American populations have lower genetic diversity and greater differentiation than populations from other continental regions."

If you're confused about the genetic affinities between geographically and linguistically dispersed South American populations, you can always read Paleogenetical Study of Pre-Columbian Samples From Pampa Grande (Salta, Argentina), AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 141:452–462 (2010): "Successful ancient DNA extraction and amplification of various complementary genetic markers allowed us to characterize from a biological point of view individuals from the ancient population of PG. The PG samples present genetic similarities to other Andean populations, in particular when considering the frequencies of mitochondrial haplogroups. In spite of the Candelaria culture of PG being local and specific, we can hypothesize that gene flow between Andean populations, facilitated by an important cultural network, allowed the genetic similarity between populations of the region to be maintained. We can also hypothesize a common starting gene pool for all the populations of the Andean region."



You can supplement that with Saint-Pierre et al.'s An Alternative Model for the Early Peopling of Southern South America Revealed by Analyses of Three Mitochondrial DNA Haplogroups: "The distribution of the major clades in the Southern Cone did not show large differences among the populations; we did not find clusters linked to a specific population. The principal difference encountered was the high proportion of clade D4h3a5 in southern Patagonia. This clade was originally defined by Perego et al. (2009) [21] but is redefined here (see nomenclature), and is signposted by the presence of 16051 in the control region. D4h3a5 was found exclusively in southern Patagonia-Tierra del Fuego, with the sole exception of one Huilliche. The limited distribution of this lineage reinforces our hypothesis of the continuity of the current Patagonian populations with the initial founders."

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

Judging from anthropological evidence, Mesoamerican Indians were at some point in contact with Europeans before colombus

Really? By all means, post this "anthropological evidence" that you refer to.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

Oh and did I mention, the Aztecs et al no longer exist, while the inferior indians now compose the majority?

You didn't, because I would have mocked your stupidity if you had. Nahuatl is still a widely spoken language in Mesoamerica.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

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.

Most population geneticists believe in the non-existence of "race," actually, since they're informed enough to realize that there's greater genetic diversity within so-called "racial" populations than between them.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

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.

According to certain Spanish explorers, they sighted mermaids in the Atlantic Ocean. Your point?

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

The Araucanos, for example, are known for their fair features.

I'm sure that some Mapuche might be known for their "fair features" now that their population has experienced admixture with Europeans, but pre-Columbian Mapuche were descended from the same stock as other Indians.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

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

LMAO! Do you really think that this pathetic whining constitutes a refutation of the study that I posted? Try posting an actual primary source, idiot.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

There is strong evidence for the Clovis theory.

The problem is that you have no idea what you're talking about. It's not called "the Clovis theory." It's the "Solutrean hypothesis." The Clovis-first theory is an entirely separate theory of settlement of the Americas that has also been debunked.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

If you only buy system academics, look up Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian to see the archaeological finds regarding this.

LMAO! Are you really under the impression that I don't know who Dennis Stanford is? I schooled kinder on this subject long before your dumb ass came on the scene.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

LOL! Guat? The country with the IQ of 79? I'm surprised you can actually work a computer. I congratulate you.

Are you suggesting that everyone in Guatemala has an IQ of 79, after you just finished whining about the misleading nature of statistical averages? I mean, even if we accepted that IQ score average as correct (and there are reasons not to), there seem to be some problems with your insinuation that it's genetically determined.

Let's have a look at this:



How does Indian Peru best "mestizo" Mexico and Colombia? Why is there such a disparity between Indian Peru and Indian Guatemala (11 points) despite the similar genetic structure of their populations, and the historic technological superiority of Mesoamerican Indians to Andean Indians?

Come to think of it, how does the admixed Italian population come to hold an average IQ score identical to that of Austrian, German, and Dutch populations, and above various other euro populations? How does the Spanish population hold an average IQ score only one point above the Argentine population, when Argentina was settled by ethnic Castilians (already admixed) who proceeded to reproduce with the Indian population, producing a modern castizo population in Argentina, and on top of that, subject to waves of Italian immigrants in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? How do similarly admixed Uruguay and Portugal come to beat Ireland and Greece? (I've not mentioned former Soviet-bloc countries because I know you'll say something stupid about them being "Jew Bolshevik controlled.")

Solve this one for me, professor. As recorded in Genetic admixture, self-reported ethnicity, self-estimated admixture, and skin pigmentation among Hispanics and Native Americans, "Among self-identified Hispanics, the average NA admixture is 32.7%...(see Table 1), slightly lower than the 34.1% found by Bonilla et al. (2004a) in their southern Colorado sample. Among self-identified NAs, the average NA admixture is 71.8%..., a value significantly larger than observed in Hispanics (P \ 0.001)." Native Americans have more Amerindian admixture than the descendants of Mexicans, and far more than Puerto Ricans and Cubans, so how does it come to pass that their IQ scores are approximately equivalent, measured as slightly higher or lower in different assessments?





Enthralling questions, to which I'm sure you'll have equally enthralling answers.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

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

Ah, but that (incorrectly) assumes that Montevideo and Tacuarembo were the only areas sampled, idiot. Do you even bother to read the studies that you try to "refute"?

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

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

This is now the third time that you have accused another forum member of being a Jew without proof.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

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.

"Recessive, racially speaking" isn't any kind of description that has an actual meaning within population genetics. It's just something that white supremacists made up, playing with words that they don't understand.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

Proof they're lying about being partially Amerindian?

LOL, no. You see, in science, you search for proof to affirm positive statements, not to deny them. Unless you can produce admixture maps of these individuals, there is no proof that they are 12.5% or 25% Amerindian.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

I thought there was no genetic test for race?

Haha, no one said that it was a "genetic test for race," moron. What I said was admixture between distinct continental populations, not "races."

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

What does a study done in a well-known raceless place like Brazil have to do with Argentina and Uruguay?

The whole world is a well-known raceless place. It's well known to everyone except moronic white supremacists.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

So you are denying that there is no policy to "de-construct" and define European descended people around the world out of existence?

I'm a European-descended person myself.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

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.

Argentines in the 20's and part of the 30's were very angry and resistant about the flood of pink grub-eaters from Europe.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

Argentina and especially Uruguay had few people until European immigration to these countries.

Evidence for this statement?

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

I guess you're too thick to see that he is relating this to, yes, the industrial revolution.

Obviously, idiot.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

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.

LOL! Far from being "irrelevant," the historical events he described were integral to the foundations of the Industrial Revolution, which would not have occurred without the Columbian exchange, the Atlantic slave trade, etc.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

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.

I am not a Marxist...and I thought you fascists said that Jews were Middle Easterners.

Originally Posted by Joe_Smith

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.

A moronic statement. Sixteenth century Tenochtitlan was more heavily populated than London or Paris, with Mesoamerica boasting science, mathematics, and medicine more advanced than that of Europe.