A Few Observations About Race

Repost from the old site.

Although we Leftists are bizarrely banned from discussing race, as if it either does not even exist (this is the theory that race is merely some mental construct and does not actually exist in the real world) or that all discussion of race is automatically “racist”, I am going to risk the wrath of the PC Leftist Kooks, bite the bullet, and write a post on race.

When I was getting my Master’s Degree in Linguistics at Cal State Fresno in Fresno, California in the 1990’s, I used to spend lots of time in the library. I wasn’t working, my social life wasn’t the greatest, my GPA was 3.8 in my grad-level courses anyway, and the library was a treasure trove of delightful information.

I’m sure most folks can’t relate, but to people like me, hours and hours, even 8-10 hours, in a university library is like going on an exotic vacation. Just think, you can go anywhere in the whole world, and never even leave the library. You see, folks like us regard learning as virtually a sensual activity in and of itself, like sports or sex or a party or a good meal. If you think that’s weird, that’s ok.

But I thought I would present another view of the scholar – to rehabilitate him.

Instead of seeing him as a bookish nerd, let us see him as a daring traveler to all sorts of universes that the mere sensualist of the body can only probe on the edges, as one who has refined his emotional palette to the point where the fleshly pleasures of the world of real people, places and things can be experienced in full Technicolor excitement and sensation, purely in the mind.

Anyway, I used to read a lot about race while I was there (along with countless other subjects).

One of my favorite journals was one called The Journal of Physical Anthropology (JPA) – which, despite what PC idiots say, is not a racist journal at all – it is pure science. Another was The Mankind Quarterly, which was unfortunately run by racists (in particular a brilliant fellow named Richard Lynn), but still had tons of fascinating and often factual data.

Of course, the racialists, racial realists, nationalists, and out-and-out racists on the web love to write about race all the time, and while their sites are often disgusting, there is a treasure trove of information to be found there, too, if one is willing to toss the mountains of chaff aside to get at the kernels.

Anyway, on to the data.

Perhaps you are wondering about the racial characteristics of American Blacks. American Blacks, on average, are 17.5% Caucasian. A number of African-Americans have even more Caucasian than that, and quite a few could logically be called mulattoes if we were sane enough to use such a classification system. Why is a person who is 25% Black, or 50% Black, automatically considered Black in our culture?

Most US Blacks were brought here as slaves, of course, mostly before 1820 or so. There was a lot of interbreeding between Blacks and Whites, mostly a case of slave owners having sex with favored Black slaves. Black radicals like to scream that this was all a case of rape, but the reality is probably more complex than that.

Probably many female slaves wanted to have sex with slaveowners as a ticket to better treatment, or perhaps they genuinely cared about their owners. The case of Thomas Jefferson and his slave-mistress was much more common than most realize. And I am sure there was a fair amount of rape going on too. Almost all of these matings were Caucasian male -> Black female.

Many US Blacks also have American Indian in them, and they are often very proud of this heritage. Most of these matings occurred during the slavery era and probably not too many occurred afterwards. If you spend a lot of time around US Blacks, many will talk about the American Indian component in either themselves or in Blacks they know.

During slavery, many Black slaves escaped and ran away. They were not welcome in southern White society, so many Blacks drifted into the American Indian communities that were still widespread in the US at this time. Typically, the Indians took the Blacks in and made them honorary members of the tribe. Mating and children inevitably resulted in a number of cases – hence, the Amerindian component of US Blacks.

The articles I read did not discuss to what extent the average US Black has Amerindian blood.

Note that African Blacks, with the exception of South African Coloreds (generally Caucasian-Black, Caucasian-East Indian and East Indian-Black mixed race people), the Blacks of the Sahel and North Africa, and the notable exception of the Blacks on the island of Sao Tome off the coast of West Africa (who are 35% Caucasian) generally have no Caucasian ancestry.

Now, onto the Hispanics. JPA had a fascinating article where they attempted to discern the genetic makeup of the average US Mexican-American. The average Chicano, it turns out, is 68% Caucasian, 30% Amerindian, and a surprising 2% Black. The Black component was somewhat mysterious, but a number were brought to Mexico as slaves, and there is a Black population on the Mexican East Coast near Veracruz.

The article felt that there was a tremendous amount of Caucasian-Amerindian interbreeding (almost all Caucasian male -> Amerindian female) in the first few generations after the conquistadors landed, but that there had been little ever since.

What sort of persons were those Spaniard invaders anyway? The typical strutting, arrogant, disdainful, super-racist, extremely rightwing Latin American White, so proud of his Spanish ancestry, would be dismayed to learn that many of his ancestors, like the early Caucasian settler-colonists in Australia, were the dregs of society, as we see below.

The excerpts below also point out that the early Caucasian-Amerindian matings, at least in Mexico, were not necessarily passionate love affairs, but instead, in many cases, were instances of mass rape. So the Mexican mestizo race, so glorified in Mexican popular culture, was in truth partially forged in the brutal crucible of the nightmare of mass rape, as part of a genocidal project – a sobering thought.

From “Triumphs and Tragedy, a History of the Mexican People“, by Ramon Eduardo Ruiz, 1992, page 56:

Only by exploiting the land, which required Indian labor, could the Spanish colony flourish. Thus began the rape of the Indian, especially brutal between 1521 and 1550. The pillage of the Indian community included the taking of women, “the most beautiful and the virgins,” according to the natives of Santo Tomas Ajusco; the Spaniards “were never satisfied.”

From “Great Conquerors of South and Central America“, by A. Hyatt Verrill, 1929, page 2:

It was natural that the men selected by leaders of such expeditions as set sail for the New World were a far from desirable type as colonists or settlers. The hazards of the voyages and explorations called for men of a reckless, daring, unprincipled type. Later on Spain sent some of her best citizens to guide the development of colonial life, but it must be admitted that in the first stages of the venture the participants, in considerable number, were actual or potential criminals, smugglers, pirates, and thugs. Among the early adventurers it was only by chance that now and then was found an out-at-elbow cavalier, a ne’er-do-well scion of nobility, or some restless, romantic soul of wealth and station.

From “From Columbus to Castro“, by Eric Williams, 1970, page 37:

In June 1497, on the occasion of Columbus’ third voyage, a general order was issued to all justices in Spain authorizing the transportation to Hispaniola of criminals – with the exception of heretics, traitors, counterfeiters and sodomites – in commutation of death or prison sentences.

From the book “The Conquest of Paradise‘” by Kirkpatrick Sale, 1990, page 156:

…the Spaniards now on the island, some 630 of them in 1495, perhaps as many as a thousand by 1500, and none too savory a lot. They were more canalla than hidalgo now, for most of the gentlemen had chosen to return to Castille, and those left behind, like those who could be attracted out, came largely from the lower rungs of Spanish life, some of them, Fernando reported, with clipped noses and ears, sure sings of convicted robbers in Castille as in Espanola.

The reason there has been little interbreeding ever since, in my opinion, is because Mexico, despite all the BS about the mestizaje mystique (the notion that all Mexicans are mestizos and all are very proud of this), is a profoundly racist society – far more racist, for instance, than the US. It shares this extreme racism with Latin America in general.

In Latin America, there is no such thing as our PC notions about race, and affirmative action is not only nonexistent, it is not even on the horizon. Latin American racism is often open, naked and unashamed, as are racist sentiments in most of the non-Western World. In Peru, an upper-class White will typically refuse to debase himself by even speaking to a lower-class mestizo or Indian, if they are a stranger.

To be White in Latin America is a quality to be preserved at all cost. Indians in Mexico, and in Latin America in general, experience profound and perfectly legal discrimination. Mestizos don’t marry lowly Indians and Whites don’t stoop to marry either a lowly mestizo or especially a beast-like Indian. Family is everything, and preserving the genetics of the family line is what it’s all about.

Think about this the next time some Latin American screams about what a racist society the US is.

Some interesting notions follow from this. For instance, most White Nationalists and White racists are adamant that Hispanics are not White. Yet let us recall that Chicanos are 68% Caucasian on average. Isn’t that majority-White? Isn’t that good enough? Based on that percentage, shouldn’t White Nationalist types consider Chicanos to be mostly White people?

On to the Egyptians. JPA, through studies of genetics and skulls, ascertained that Egyptians are about 90% Caucasian (of various types) and about 10% Black. JPA also felt that there was strong continuity between Ancient and modern Egyptians. The Caucasian component may be a mixture of Arab, Phoenician, Berber and European, especially Greek.

The rest of the Arabs may have a similar makeup. The new theory is that all North Africa was Black up until about 15,000-18,000 years ago (extrapolating from Stanford University scholar Luigi Cavalli-Sforza‘s genetic studies) Cavalli-Sforza feels that European Caucasians invaded North Africa around that time and pushed the Blacks down into the Sahel.

In doing so, they mixed in with them to some extent. In the Sahel, we find a gradient whereby Blacks get lighter as we go north and darker as we go south, no doubt the genetic remnants of this invasion and subsequent millennia of breeding in with Arabs and Berbers to the north.

Ever seen an Ethiopian? Don’t you think these people look pretty interesting? Personally, I think they are very attractive-looking, golden-skinned people. They don’t exactly look either Black or Caucasian. Cavalli-Sforza’s data indicates that Ethiopians are just what we would expect them to be – a mixed Caucasian-Black group of people. I believe the figure he came up with was about 43% Caucasian and 57% Black, on average.

The suggestion was that they had been breeding with Caucasian residents of the Arabian peninsula for a very long time. The peoples of Somalia and Eritrea, who look much like Ethiopians, probably have a similar genetic profile.

Let us move on to the Italians. Italians tend to be a bit swarthier and darker than Northern Caucasians. How did this come about? From research on the Internet (albeit from White Nationalist pages) we discover that Italians are about 93% European Caucasian.

However, they also have about 2% Arab, 2% Phoenician and 2% Berber genes. They are also about .7% Black, but don’t tell that to an Italian street tough from Boston or he will beat you up.

What about the Vietnamese? Where do they come from? The Vietnamese are a product of indigenous Southeast Asian groups (think of the Montagnard tribesman) and a heavy Chinese admixture. About 2,200 years ago, Southern Chinese invaded Vietnam and conquered all of it, making it into a province of China – Cochin China. The Chinese settled in to stay, and bred in heavily with the natives.

The Khmer, or Cambodians, have a distinctive look that is unlike all other Southeast Asians, including a golden skin color. According to Cultural Survival Quarterly – a great magazine, by the way – they, like the Vietnamese, are made up of Southeast Asian indigenous people and invaders. In the case of the Khmer, the invaders were Thai, Vietnamese, Chinese and East Indian.

A Cambodian proverb says that Cambodia lies between the tiger and the crocodile – the one being Thailand and the other being Vietnam – as both nations have repeatedly tried to dominate Cambodia in recent centuries. Genetic remnants of these invasions are written on the faces of the Khmer people.

Cambodians also have a significant Chinese element, but most fascinating of all, and the feature that seems to account for the distinctive appearance and their golden skin, is the East Indian element in the Cambodian people, a remnant of East Indians who invaded Cambodia centuries ago. These East Indians bred in very heavily with Cambodians and left a distinctive residue behind.

Thai culture goes back a very long time, maybe as far back as the Jomonese Culture of 18,000 years ago. An article in JPA traced the Thai Jomon Culture, via skull measurements, to the Ainu of Japan. According to JPA, what we now know as the Ainu originated with seafaring Jomonese who came to Japan an unbelievable 18,000 years ago.

What of the Japanese themselves? The people now known as Japanese invaded from Korea, across the sea in boats, about 2,300 years ago. This culture was called the Yayoi culture. The Yayoi culture brought rice culture to Japan for the first time, which is interesting given the profound racism the Japanese have towards Koreans.

They promptly bred in heavily with the natives, who were related to the Jomonese, plus all sorts of other folks who had somehow drifted to Japan. These people were a very heterogeneous mix, including Chinese, Polynesians, Southeast Asians, Siberians, and even one Caucasian line from the Urals (this is being disputed – see the comments at the end of the piece).

The Yayoi invaders interbred thoroughly with the natives. In the North, where the Ainu lived, it was more of a slow genocide. One piece said that the Ainu, as we now know them, did not appear until around 700 AD. Prior to that, they were still in Japan, but had a different culture.

There are some theories that the Ainu are actually Caucasian, mostly because they are hairy. There are also theories linking very early Native Americans (especially 9,000 year old Kennewick Man) with the Ainu.

Recent genetic testing has left the Caucasian Ainu theory in the dust, and it has now been shown that the Ainu are 50% Northeast Asian, mostly related to the Nivki of Sakhalin Island and the mouth of the Amur River on the Siberian Coast and the Koryak or Kamchatka. The other 50% is related to the proto-Japanese mix descended from the Jomonese.

There seems to have been a male-female differentiation in the 50-50 split above – that is, one line was paternal and the other was maternal. There are some suggestions that the Ainu may be proto-East Asian, in other words, that they are the related to the earliest people of East Asia, from which the others descended. The Nivkhi are also thought to be proto-East Asians. Furthermore, Ainu and Nivkhi culture share similarities.

The Ainu language is considered to be a language isolate (a language that is not related to any other languages) but there have been attempts to link it up with other languages, especially Nivkhi, another isolate. If it is related to another language, the split must be deep, at the level of more than 10,000 years.

I have reviewed the linguistic evidence, though not extensively. My conclusion is that the Ainu language is related to the Japanese, Korean and at least Nivkhi. Japanese, Korean and apparently also Ainu form a very divergent branch of the Altaic Language family. This conclusion is not accepted by mainstream linguists, who continue to say that Korean, Japanese, Ainu and Nivkhi are all language isolates.

If you have spent time around Koreans, you may notice that they have a distinctive appearance – in particular, round, moon-like faces, a stocky build and very prominent high cheekbones, although others suggest that you cannot reliably tell a Korean from a Japanese based on looks.

JPA said, based on skull measurements, that Koreans are related to Mongolians who invaded the Korean Peninsula about 5,000 years ago and completely displaced the indigenous Korean people in yet another genocide. The indigenous Koreans were completely wiped out and not a trace of them remains. We do, however, have archaeological findings of their artifacts, so we know that they existed.

Interesting linguistic theories noted above positing that the Korean, Japanese and Ainu languages, instead of being language isolates, are actually Altaic languages, fit in well with the genetic data.

Note that the correlation between language and genes, while high, is not 100% in human groups.

Regular readers of this blog will note that we dare to discuss the Jews from time to time, a subject which, in our PC-culture, is banned as racist when discussed by non-Jews, except if we wish to shower continuous praise on these Chosen Folks like goofy obsequious supplicants.

The genetic origins of the Jews are deeply controversial, mostly because so many Jews are so sensitive, insane and weird about the subject. Jewish self-perception in this area is the usual bundle of ever-changing, neuroticized, politicized and tribalized Jewish contradictions and self-deceptions (we are a tribe, no, wait, we are a religion, no wait, we are a race).

Also, with the advent of Zionism, the subject has gotten even more nutty and toxic for Zionist Jews, anti-Zionists and anti-Semites. Typically, anti-Zionists and anti-Semites have taken the politically convenient line that Ashkenazi Jews are not Semites – that, instead, they are Europeans, or, especially, Khazars from the area north of the Caucasus in Russia up through the Ukraine.

This is convenient for anti-Zionists because it supposedly means that Ashkenazi Jews have no right to resettle in Palestine, 2000 years after they were supposedly tossed out, because they never lived there in the first place.

There was a large Jewish kingdom in Khazaria up until around 1200 or so in the Ukraine and the Russian Cossack region north of the Caucasus and thereabouts. Many there converted to Judaism. A website devoted explicitly to the Khazarian question is authored by one of the world’s top experts on the subject, Brian Brook.

Brook, who is Jewish, originally started out believing in the Khazarian theory of Ashkenazi origins but his research did not really pan out, and, like a good scientist, he since abandoned the strong Khazarian theory.

Ashkenazi Jewish Zionists often react with rage to anyone bringing up the Khazarian theory, on the insane grounds that only anti-Semites believe in this theory.

These Jews are also reacting with predictable defensive rage to the assumption, that, if the Ashkenazi were Khazarians, they would have no right to be in Israel. Fact is, whether Ashkenazi Jews come from Khazaria 1000 years ago or from Palestine 2000 years ago, neither scenario gives them a right to reconquer Palestine and displace the natives, so the whole argument is silly.

On Blank’s site there is a complete compendium of all of the recent genetic studies of Jewish people. It takes a long time to sift through all of it and some of Blank’s conclusions are not necessarily accurate. After wading through that data, the best conclusion seems to be this:

Ashkenazi Jews left the Middle East around 60-500 AD, settling mostly in southern Europe, particularly in the Balkans, Greece and Italy. They were closely associated with the Roman Empire, despite the Romans’ persecutions of Jews (for more on that, see this post on this blog). After about 500, with the fall of the Roman Empire, these Jews began spreading out all over Europe.

For the first 500 years, for reasons that remain obscure, Jewish men in this cohort were marrying non-Jewish European women in wherever in Europe they migrated to. This is why European Jews tend to look like the natives of whatever European country they came from. The women would then convert to Judaism. This went on for about 500 years, until around 1000 or so.

At that time, Rabbinical/Talmudic Judaism, honed first in Palestine with the Palestinian Talmud around 300, then in Iraq with the Babylonian Talmud around 800, had become solidified and was spreading through Europe’s Jewish communities.

One of the peculiarities of this takeover was a new, very strong proscription against Jews intermarrying with Gentiles. This proscription continued for the next 800 years and to varying degrees thereafter, during which time there was little interbreeding between Jews and Gentiles.

During this period, Jews often either isolated themselves or were isolated by others in ghettos, limited their contacts with Gentiles, and mass-adopted exploitative and hostile attitudes towards Gentiles.

European Gentiles, for their part, developed a great deal of antipathy to European Jews, and there was a lot of Jewish-Gentile conflict throughout Europe, characterized by varying degrees of persecution and discrimination against Jews, all the way to out-and-out murderous pogroms and expulsions.

The vicious circle known as European anti-Semitism goes beyond the scope of this post, and the only thing to note here for the purpose of this post is that Jews bred in almost exclusively with other Jews during this period. However, let us look at a brief tidbit from the insightful Kevin MacDonald, one of our best scholars on Judaism, concerning this period:

Failure to provide charity for poor Jews, failure to pay communal taxes, marriage to a gentile, or informing on other Jews resulted in expulsion for self and relatives. Similar consequences were in store for Jewish businessmen who made alliances with gentile businessmen or who interfered with monopolies held by other Jews.

I note with disgust that for the crime of making such insightful statements, the US Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has bashed Dr. MacDonald as an anti-Semite, in their usual knee-jerk fashion. The sordid ADL hit piece (pdf file) can be read here.

The best theory of the Ashkenazi Jews, described above, recognizes them as a group that is genetically part-Israeli and part-European.

However, some Ashkenazi Jews are apparently pure European, as this study notes. This particular group of Ashkenazi – the Ashkenazi Levites (think of the surnames Levi, Levinson, etc.) – apparently descends from a single founder who was related to present-day Sorbians (a Slavic group in Eastern Germany) and Byelorussians.

But before the Ashkenazi Jews moved out of Palestine, where did the Jews come from? Let us ignore for now the Zionist Jewish liars who insist that the Jews were either always in Israel or were the first people in Israel, or were, by 2000 years ago, the only surviving ethnic group in Israel.

Instead, the best, most recent genetics suggests that Jews came out of Kurdistan, probably Iraqi Kurdistan, some 3000 years ago, and moved down into Palestine, or Israel if you will.

We can find traces of this lineage in Biblical history, which notes that Abraham, supposedly the founder of the Hebrew line, came from Ur, which is in southern Iraq.

In fact, Iraq is the second most frequently mentioned place in the Bible other than Israel, although it’s not called Iraq. These studies note that Jews are more closely related to Kurds, especially Iraqi Kurds, than to any other group. Jews are also close to Turks and Armenians.

Studies of Palestinians show that they are uniquely close to Jews, even as compared to other Arabs. This finding no doubt dismays both Zionist Jews and Palestinian Arabs, while smashing to smithereens the self-serving Zionist lie that Palestinians are related solely to invaders from the Arabian Peninsula who first showed up around 638 with the Arab conquest.

The upshot to this finding is that Palestinians, as their propagandists have always insisted, are indeed related to the indigenous peoples of Palestine (as are Jews) and furthermore, it appears that many Palestinians are former Jews, who first converted to Christianity and then, after the Islamic invasion, converted to Islam.

Moving on, one of the things I have wondered about lately is why we are attracted to whomever we are attracted to and why. And lately, I have wondered whether it has anything to do with race. That is, do members of their own race find their own kind most attractive, and other races or ethnic groups less attractive?

If this is so, it should drive a stake through the heart of notions dear to racists and nationalists, namely that they can scientifically prove that their race is more beautiful than the other races. White Nationalists seem to be the worst of all when it comes to believing that their race is the most beautiful and that this is a scientifically verifiable fact.

For a fascinating look at some of those who think that way, and some who disagree with them, check out this thread on the White Nationalist Majority Rights blog titled, Does Race Mixing Increase Physical Attractiveness? The poster believes that it does not, and feels that he can prove it. The post also contains many photos of beautiful women, for those who are interested.

This got me to thinking. Can we actually prove, scientifically, that some races are more beautiful than others?

Sketchy evidence available suggests that this is not so.

For instance, I was watching a show on the US cable station The Travel Channel about a decade ago. In this segment, a Blond White female college student went to Kenya and visited a Masai tribe.

At night while they were having the Masai equivalent of a party, she asked the Masai if they found her attractive. The Masai men honestly said no, that they thought she was ugly. Her skin was very white, and they thought that looked terrible. They like their women more copper-colored. And her hair was long and light and washed-out looking. They like women with dark, tight, curly hair close to the head.

I am told that many East Asians, especially Japanese and Chinese, find Caucasians in general to be very ugly. For one, they think we have huge noses, which they find disgusting. For another, they see us as very hairy, which they think makes us look like apes.

The fact that East Asians find Caucasian noses to be huge and repellent is interesting because supposedly Caucasians find small, flattened, wide Asian noses to be unattractive.

When the first Caucasian visitors went to Africa, the Blacks thought they looked horrible. They thought the Caucasians looked like ghosts; that they looked sickly, weak and near death. This was their cognitive image of what a pale-skinned person was.

Growing up on the Southern California beaches as I did, the basic attitude of Whites was that the darker you could get your tan the better. This seemed to be an odd POV for a race that purportedly prides itself on being lighter-skinned than other races. Living at the beach, very pale-skinned White women were regarded as less attractive, though that is supposedly the White ideal.

This interesting blog post on a great blog called Martin Willett explores the question we are discussing. Willett notes that what he calls “super-mongrel” features currently seem to be in vogue – that is, mixed-race people. A look at the contestants in recent beauty contests and a number of top US models bears this out.

Willett also reports that many White models are now having “lip enhancement surgery” to make their lips more full, like the lips of a Black person. In other words, Whites are having surgery to make themselves look like Black people! This is fascinating because supposedly a hallmark of classic White beauty is thin lips, and many Whites regard the full lips of Blacks as an unattractive feature.

Willett also notes that he, apparently a White male, finds Black, Chinese, Japanese and East Indian women to be very attractive, but he is not much interested in Aborigine or American Indian women, although he notes that he has received emails from White men who are fixated on American Indian women.

Willett attributes the fact that he does not find Aborigines and American Indians attractive to the fact that he has not spent much time around them, but there may be other reasons.

Ethnographies are full of tribes that find disks in women’s lips that make a woman’s lips hang out several inches, rings that stretch women’s ears down to a foot in length, rings around a woman’s neck that make her look like a giraffe, tattoos covering a woman’s face, and female teeth sharpened to points or dyed black, to be ideals of beauty. The fact that you or I find those things disgusting is not relevant.

As we look into this more and more, it appears that a scientific notion that any races are more beautiful than any other races is increasingly dubious. We are used to what we know, and we are attracted to what we have grown up with, as social identity theory would predict.

Social identity theory would seem to predict that we are most attracted to our own kind (though I am not sure this has been tested).

Along these same lines, Kevin MacDonald, discussed above, notes that there is apparently a genetic tendency amongst human males, dating back to our ancient tribal past, to not want exotic males (males from other groups) mating with “our” women. Astute readers can think of a number of depressing historical examples of this trait in action, even in our modern era.

At the same time, MacDonald notes, there also seems to be an ancient genetic male drive to mate with exotic females (females of different groups). Perhaps the urge to mate with exotic females is an adaptation intended to increase the fitness of one’s in-group by breeding with out-groups, in order to increase the in-group’s genetic diversity and decrease the negative effects of in-group inbreeding.

Clearly, these two tendencies are in serious conflict with each other.

For those who are wondering, I am a pan-humanist and an anti-racist universalist. Though I am Caucasian, I couldn’t be less interested in White Nationalism or the future of the White race. We Whites can mongrelize ourselves out of existence for all I care.

This research takes a lot of time, and I do not get paid anything for it. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a a contribution to support more of this valuable research.

14 Comments

Filed under Reposts From The Old Site

14 responses to “A Few Observations About Race

  1. Pingback: The Major and Minor Races of Mankind « Robert Lindsay

  2. Melungian Pride

    However, they also have about 2% Arab, 2% Phoenician and 2% Berber genes. They are also about .7% Black, but don’t tell that to an Italian street tough from Boston or he will beat you up.

    You think .7% is significant? That’s nothing. Many white Americans have much more than that.

  3. I like this article – but I think you are a little behind on your grasp of racial issues. You belabor Latin American racism – but I’m sorry, its a bit of talking out of your behind 🙂

    The word “racism” is simply not adequate for the kind of discussion you were aiming at.

  4. Tim Weir

    Hanging out in a few bars in Hong Kong might lead you to the conclusion that Chinese females find Caucasian males very attractive. In fact, every single Chinese girl that I know (and I know plenty, for work reasons) has a Caucasian husband or boyfriend.

  5. Robert Jarosz

    Races are somewhat created by the weather they’ve been affected by all their lives. Look at Jews in Israel and Jews in Europe. They look different.

  6. Steve

    Sao Tome blacks are 35% Caucasian? That is the only black country with a murder rate like western Europe.

  7. Steve

    Can you remember your source for that?

  8. My question is is it really possible to have any broad-brush categorizations for different racial types, seeing as so many human populations seem to be dynamic and intermingle with each other (for good reasons or ill) over time? (A fact lost on some racial purists).

    It seems to me that attractiveness is somewhat of a subjective thing, and there does seem to be a certain amount of fashion-based influence in it (what with the current trend towards [women] being tanned or mixed-race- or even a weird, seemingly un-natural combination of blonde hair and tanned/bronzed skin; yet in the past, light skin was ‘in’ and it does seem to be still true of South Asians). As for race, yes, probably what you’re used to.

    • I really tire of this, “Which race is better looking?” stuff.

      • It is pretty silly, I’ll grant you. I have tended to presume it was mostly the preserve of bored teenagers on Yahoo Answers looking to ask whatever inane questions they could, but it may be a more widespread phenomenon.

        • Oh no! ALL of the White nationalists are really, really, really big on this question. They have 100% objective scientific proof that Whites are better looking than any other race and all other races are inferior and ugly.

        • Them as well. I had thought to mention them but neglected to.

          Phrased in the exact “which race is better looking?” way, it’s Y!A spammers, to me though.

          I definitely can’t get the mentality of the “White nationalists”. They almost seem to be living in reactionary fantasy-land if you ask me.

        • The WN’s are reactionaries. To them, clocks don’t run forwards, they run backwards. They are in a race against time!

          Time…and…history.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s