|
Post by Subuatai on Dec 15, 2008 2:12:32 GMT -5
No, it's the result of Han people intermixing with Oirat-Mongols and central-Asian Altaics including Uyghur Turks. Lighter colored hair and eyes is not just a Indo-European trait, as many Uralics as well as Altaics share it. And please be careful when you mention Russia. If you say Russia - I can appreciate any negative comment about the flawed federation, about the despicable government, and the Neo-Nazi idiots who side with their slavic blood that underwent incredible inferiority complexes imposed on them by Western Europe (it wasn't just the Nazis - trust me I know). But, when you say RUSSIAN - do make sure you meant 'just the retards' - cause we're not all stupid, and many of us have Altaic roots. Uralic, Tatar and Altaic are ethnic group not biological entities. There are also nigerians with blue eyes. And biological entities are split into only 3 entities? Give me a break. These are pureblooded Altaics (Not mixed Altaics or Tatar/Uralic) = thetincocoon.blogspot.com/2008/12/oirat-mongols.htmlI'm mixed, and I don't even have these lighter traits. Unfortunately anthropology fails to classify us either then "Turanid" but it's way too broad and not all of us are mixed. Why are we rare? Why are Ainus rare too? It's called war and genocide. Especially Oirat Mongols. But doesn't mean we have ceased to exist - not yet
|
|
Shock
Full Member
Posts: 261
|
Post by Shock on Dec 15, 2008 11:18:24 GMT -5
And biological entities are split into only 3 entities? Give me a break. These are pureblooded Altaics (Not mixed Altaics or Tatar/Uralic) = thetincocoon.blogspot.com/2008/12/oirat-mongols.htmlI'm mixed, and I don't even have these lighter traits. Unfortunately anthropology fails to classify us either then "Turanid" but it's way too broad and not all of us are mixed. Why are we rare? Why are Ainus rare too? It's called war and genocide. Especially Oirat Mongols. But doesn't mean we have ceased to exist - not yet There isn't an uralic race. Uralic are an ethnic group, there are white uralic, asian uralic, eurasian uralic... Biological entities or races don't have a clear distinction, but we can assume there are 4 races: whites, blacks, asian, australoids, al the rest are mixed or sub-races.
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Dec 15, 2008 12:34:01 GMT -5
Your theory is outdated and has already been thrown out by the scientific community as inaccurate - it can only be used as a general reference. No 100% accurate replacement is in it's place as of yet, but it's still better science then during the colonial era when science was used to justify slavery. America however, still has racialism rooted in its very culture I've noticed.
And if you seen what I've seen you'll realise that classifying ethnic groups as racial groups is a far more accurate and logical method in describing people then the whole colonial racialist theories that replaced Christianity as a uniting force of Europe. It's not perfect either, but at the very least, fact remains that it is less contradictory to genetical facts.
I've seen more races then 3 or 4. Hell, I've even seen my own and it throws out the whole theory which doesn't make sense to any of my people. With studies of genetics entering the picture of modern anthropology, the old racial documents are already being re-written - though not perfect yet. Nowadays anthropology has all sorts of documents and the recent one I've read puts the Altaic people into a new racial group called Turanid.
Yet they STILL classify us as mixed, when many of us still aren't, yet still have Turanid features. Mixed-looking (only in eyes/hair - but NOT in facial structure btw) but we sure as hell ain't mixed. My grandfather was pure Kalmyk Mongol and two of my relatives who are pureblooded unlike me have green eyes. No 'white' interference whatsoever.
As for those people, they are not mixed. You want more proof? Go do tests on the Ainus left or colored haired/eyed Mongols you won't find any genetic link to any Indo-European races. You will find Slavic genes in me, but you won't find it in my other relatives.
|
|
|
Post by catgirl on Dec 15, 2008 14:55:42 GMT -5
I dont think anyone in the whole world is pureblooded? I think you can take these genetic tests on ethnic groups to find your percentage in all of it! We re probably not what we think we are en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogical_DNA_test
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Dec 15, 2008 15:06:39 GMT -5
Those are the same methods of tests used on native Ainus and Mongols with suspected Europid ancestry, and results = no Europid genetics found, and Altai genetics consistent. Mongols who are mixed say they are mixed, and genetics can cover for them - including me who is mixed, but for those who aren't mixed, don't assume that they are just because they have traits of light hair or light eyes. And the whole stereotype we have when these features show up is "It's because your granddaddies f**ked the whole world" which is simply pathetic as it's only true for the descendants not from native Mongolia itself.* Descendants of the Yuan Dynasty has mixed somewhat with Sino people. Descendants of the Chagatai Khanate and Ilkhanate are mixed with Iranic people - such as the Hazara Mongols. Descendants of the Kipchak Khanate/Golden Horde/Ulus of Jochi are mixed with Slavic. Descendants of the Dzungar Khanate are actually not as mixed because we didn't practice polygamy or migrate to new lands without our own women. *Also note this and sources listed: Now: What's new? There's very few pure Altaics these days, but these historical reports, as well as photos I've provided, as well as DNA tests done on light haired/light eyed Mongols, as well as the disgraceful racialist political history, proves that we possessed these traits without Caucasiod interference.
|
|
|
Post by catgirl on Dec 15, 2008 20:27:13 GMT -5
I think Ive seen some other peoples results somewhere. And it said VERY many things. Usually from 100% white people, they had also some percentage of black, asian and native american and even more....
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Dec 16, 2008 3:18:36 GMT -5
Yes, Europe was invaded quite a few times, Carthage across the Alps, Persians in Greece, then Hunnic all the way to France, Greece and Italy, Uralic all the way to the Danube. Then they went to colonise Africa, south-east Asia, and the Americas. As a rather united race at this period, their genes weren't quarantined by borders so it spread amongst them. That's why their genealogy tests are very different.
Many Altaics are already mixed, with either Sino (in Tsahar-Mongolia, to a lesser extent Halh-Mongolia), Iranic (Central-Asia, Hazara Mongols in Afghanistan), or Indo-European genes (in Buryatia, Tatarstan, Turkey, North-Central-Asia, etc). Their genealogy tests proves it.
However, for those pureblooded Altaics above (who are people from my ethnic Mongol tribe btw) - genealogy tests proves that they are have absolutely no Caucasiod ancestry, but instead some common genes with native Ainus in Japan and North Chinese (Which North-Chinese are already mixed with Mongols and Manchus in the first place).
To explain this phenomena, some scientists and anthropologists believe it's due to evolution. From the whole Africa theory, different races of people evolved to suit the climates, lifestyle, and human challenges necessary; thus Altays and Ainus both evolved - falling outside traditional 18th century racialist categories. Personally I trust this modern science.
|
|
Shock
Full Member
Posts: 261
|
Post by Shock on Dec 16, 2008 7:52:29 GMT -5
Your theory is outdated and has already been thrown out by the scientific community as inaccurate - it can only be used as a general reference. No 100% accurate replacement is in it's place as of yet, but it's still better science then during the colonial era when science was used to justify slavery. America however, still has racialism rooted in its very culture I've noticed. And if you seen what I've seen you'll realise that classifying ethnic groups as racial groups is a far more accurate and logical method in describing people then the whole colonial racialist theories that replaced Christianity as a uniting force of Europe. It's not perfect either, but at the very least, fact remains that it is less contradictory to genetical facts. I've seen more races then 3 or 4. Hell, I've even seen my own and it throws out the whole theory which doesn't make sense to any of my people. With studies of genetics entering the picture of modern anthropology, the old racial documents are already being re-written - though not perfect yet. Nowadays anthropology has all sorts of documents and the recent one I've read puts the Altaic people into a new racial group called Turanid. Scientists have many theories and methods of classification, which often reflect their cultural and social backgrounds. I've noticed for example, people from Turkey and Central Asia believe on so called turanid race, which is indeed what we called here the eurasian race (in all its variables). Classifying ethnic groups as racials groups, is one of the wrongest idea ever. It's like basing scientific facts on pure stereotypes. It's only a good way to simplifly things, nothing more. Modern scientists divide "human factors" or "indicators" (as language, culture, history etc) from biology. Yet they STILL classify us as mixed, when many of us still aren't, yet still have Turanid features. Mixed-looking (only in eyes/hair - but NOT in facial structure btw) but we sure as hell ain't mixed. My grandfather was pure Kalmyk Mongol and two of my relatives who are pureblooded unlike me have green eyes. No 'white' interference whatsoever. As for those people, they are not mixed. You want more proof? Go do tests on the Ainus left or colored haired/eyed Mongols you won't find any genetic link to any Indo-European races. You will find Slavic genes in me, but you won't find it in my other relatives. Blue eyes and blond hair don't mean european ancestry, they can easily be produced by albinism. As said before blond hair and blue eyes occur casually everywhere, even in africa or in india, without any clue of european ancestry. The only people who believe mongols are mixed, are crazy nazi dudes without any knowledge as Arthur Kemp, who see white genes everywhere. As you can see, it's not my case.
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Dec 16, 2008 8:15:11 GMT -5
As I already mentioned - no 100% accurate replacement is in it's place. Classifying ethnic groups as racial groups may not be perfect - but as you admitted, it's a good way to simplify things until more research is done. Clovisian, Australoid, Polynesian, these are new categories, so is Turanid -> still under research. Clovisian is under heavy debate too. Personally I believe in this one however, as only the Alaskans have strong Altai features. Where as further south they show obviously different traits. As I also have mentioned, I've seen way more races then 3 or 4 or even 5. And as I've also mentioned, the ones that fall outside those categories don't fit into the 'mixed' category. Hell even Europe is divided into 5 races (also seen as subraces) on its own; Nordic, Alpine, Latino, Hellenic, Hispanic. It gets more complicated in some countries, more simplified in others (e.g. America). So until more research is done and universally logical we're stuck with using what we can to prove our own theories. Btw this is what Albinos look like: This are some Papuans, also with no I.E. ancestry: So nope - we sure as hell ain't Albinos
|
|
Shock
Full Member
Posts: 261
|
Post by Shock on Dec 16, 2008 8:43:04 GMT -5
1) The simpler way is not always the right way. For example the Newton's laws are simpler than Einstein's ones, but they are worth only in some cases. 2) There are also cases of partial albinism (what do you think blue eyes are?), which eventually can become common between isolated populations as northen europeans or papauans, by genetic drift. There is a good article on wiki for info. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Genetic_drift
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Dec 16, 2008 9:10:22 GMT -5
1) So the right way ("complicated" way) is to see only 3 races? (VERY complicated indeed) Where in this outdated theory Africans are considered stupid and 'race' itself was used to justify slavery? And all those photos above I've provided are photoshopped and my family doesn't even exist -> because "they can't exist, they are black! they are asian!" Please forgive my sarcasm, but you can't be serious.
From what I've studied in both anthro and genetics including what I've also seen I can not deny the existence of many racial groups. Denying the existence of many racial groups to me is pretty much the same as race denial - denying that race doesn't exist.
2) Albinism is a physical disorder, genetic drifts through natural evolution are not. I support the theory current research has made in relation to evolution being the cause of the light hair/light eye traits found in pureblood Altay and Ainu populations - same way all other races became known. Whether it can be coined "Mild Albinism" or not, I'm not so certain.
|
|
|
Post by catgirl on Dec 16, 2008 12:29:16 GMT -5
Someone told me that red hair and light skin + freckles was something similar to albinism.....Some kind of pigment missing or something.
I also heard one can be albino without the red eyes....
|
|
|
Post by Altan on Dec 16, 2008 18:58:32 GMT -5
^I think it's more of the blending effect. Now red eyes....lock that in the Vatican where it belongs.
Now Ural and Altai are the same family to some folks out there.
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Dec 16, 2008 19:23:30 GMT -5
^ According to some Turanists yes, but I don't support that theory in full. Uralics are related to Altaic people yes, but we are still diverse and different. I don't support the whole Native-American-Turanist theory either, and I tend to lean towards the Clovisian theory as only Alaskas show similar Altaic features. Of course we can always say the Clovisians are still born from Turan, just evolved. But this far back is difficult to piece together.
There's many scholars out there, contradicting each other with their theories. Failure to write is the cause of all this, as a result -> you have people claiming this, claiming that, hell objectivity is difficult when it comes to steppe history, too much politics as well as superstition is involved in it.
Many Turkic scholars fail to be objective and proceed to claim way too many things at once. Western scholars also fail to be objective and proceed to impose their racialist supremist theories on more then half their documents. Chinese scholars are no better either, with CCP propaganda and pseudosciences attempting to claim their rights on the steppes based on their past affliation with the nomadic Manchus.
Though to be honest, some sources of information from the above scholars are quite reliable, with proven data, and you can tell that they do intend to be objective. It's piecing together all this mess which is a mind-blowing headache.
|
|
|
Post by filhispano on Jan 15, 2009 0:22:35 GMT -5
I have one blue eye and 1 green eye.
That is, when I get the contax mixed up!! ;D
|
|