Post pictures of pigmented Nordics

[Antimage]

I'm not sure you know what homogenous means. Homogenous means least amount of outside admixture(specifically recent, less recent outside admixture, more homogenous, Basques, Swedish/Finnish Lapps or Samis and Sardinians have been largely untouched by others, including other Spaniards/Scandos/Italians, so they are the most homogenous populations in Europe, but if you go far back enough they aren't homogenous).

The type of admixture would be irrelevant to how homogenous a population is, only whether the admixture occured, or how much, would be relevant to homogenity. What you're describing is the outside admixture in those populations(ANE) is further from native Europeans than Basal Eurasian is, kind of like SSA in Spaniards a more diverged component than extra MENA in Sicilians or w/e. Nothing really to do with homogenity.

Homogeneous simply means less diversity within population. For example northernmost Italians plot very far from their southernmost compatriots, so we can deduce italians are not homogeneous by european standards
.
Italians are more diverse than any northern european group(maybe except russians?? but I think that comes from russians mixing with finnics and other ethnics as they expanded their Empire eastwards)

[The Blade]

But they are showing from what people came and what % they
are now today, even if autolomals are in different propotions.

Exactly my point.
While on individual level haplogroups tell very little about one's ancestry and nothing about one's phenotype, that's not the case when we compare nations.
For instance, it's no surprise I2a-Din peaks among West Balkanites.

[Not a Cop]

Exactly my point.
While on individual level haplogroups tell very little about one's ancestry and nothing about one's phenotype, that's not the case when we compare nations.
For instance, it's no surprise I2a-Din peaks among West Balkanites.

I2-Din most likely has origins outside of Balkans.

[Wrong]

Lulz at this Bulgarian nordicist

Taxonomy "Nordocromagnid"

[The Blade]

I2-Din most likely has origins outside of Balkans.

Debate is about certain subclades as there is a group called Dinaric-North, while Dinaric-South group is considered to have its origins in West Balkans.

[The Blade]

Lulz at this Bulgarian nordicist

Taxonomy "Nordocromagnid"

Pretty funny, Albo, but I have never promoted Nordic superiority of any type and especially I don't believe at all in attributing certain qualities to an entire phenotypical group (regardless which the group is).
On the other hand, it's no surprise that some Albanians feel the need to post Gypsies and Blacks in my threads about Bulgarians.
Speaks more about them than about me actually...

[Wrong]

Pretty funny, Albo, but I have never promoted Nordic superiority of any type and especially I don't believe at all in attributing certain qualities to an entire phenotypical group (regardless which the group is).
On the other hand, it's no surprise that some Albanians feel the need to post Gypsies and Blacks in my threads about Bulgarians.
Speaks more about them than about me actually...

Check your threads and shut it. So yeah, Nordicist, I'm speaking of you on an individual level, not for all Bulgarians, don't be an idiot.

[Rethel]

While on individual level haplogroups tell very little about one's ancestry (...) that's not the case when we compare nations.

In this part: quite opposite.

On individual level autosomals are sensless, becasue they
are telling you nothing about ancestors, giving you nothing
except coincidental soup of percentages from coincidental
ascendents - something, what is obvious and gives nothing
to the unit. On the other hand, autosomals can be helpfull
in comparing some groups of people with not known look or
ancestry (like for example Funnelbeaker, which ancestry is
still don;t known, but becasue of autosomals we know that
they in majority where anatolains, so probably they were
G2 plus some minor clades, and look like people from the
Levant, Transcaucasia and Anatolia and rest of Farmers.

[XenophobicPrussian]

I don't get your reasoning or definition of homogenous... Dictionary.com says the definition is:

So what does it matter if it's recent or not? How are you genetically less diverse if you're like ~45% WHG, ~15% ANE and 40% basal Eurasian vs. ~30% whg, 60% basal EA and 7-8% ANE??
I guess you mean that among Finns genetic diversity is not so large because they're a bottleneck pop.? I see what you mean, technically Sicilians are much less homogeneous than Finns are for example, but I think that overall n. Euros tend to be genetically less homogeneous due to having such diverse elements meaning that if they(the elements) vary the difference will be greater I presume. My logic might be flawed though, IDK if that is the case. Look at Swedes for example. Some plot with Brits others all the way with Finns, but I do get your point. I don't see how s. Euro groups are more are less homogeneous as their pop. clusters are usually less diverse compared to Swedes for example. Obv. the Irish or Icelanders are less diverse. Greeks are more since a lot of Greeks today have origins outside of Greece.

Actually what you were getting at was a more accurate description of homogenity, I had a bit of a brain fart there. What I described could also be homogenity though.

I just thought that's a weird thing to try to make a point about because what you'd consider northern Europe or southern Europe would be highly subjective, it only really makes sense to compare country vs country. Where would central Europe fit in? If you compare Scandinavia to your typical southern Europe Italy/Spain/Greece, Scandinavia is way more homogenous. If you include NE Euros, Brits, North Germans, do you include Balkans for southern Europe, who would make it even more diverse? Larger countries are going to be more diverse, smaller countries are going to be less. The least diverse large countries would probably be Ukraine or France, the most diverse large countries would be(in order) Italy(probably the most diverse in Europe if you don't include non ethnic Russians), Russia, Spain. The least diverse large countries would be(in order) UK, Ukraine, France. The most diverse small countries would be Finland, Switzerland, Sweden or Greece, least diverse small countries would be Denmark, Lithuania and Serbia or something.

[Enflamme]

Actually what you were getting at was a more accurate description of homogenity, I had a bit of a brain fart there. What I described could also be homogenity though.

I just thought that's a weird thing to try to make a point about because what you'd consider northern Europe or southern Europe would be highly subjective, it only really makes sense to compare country vs country. Where would central Europe fit in? If you compare Scandinavia to your typical southern Europe Italy/Spain/Greece, Scandinavia is way more homogenous. If you include NE Euros, Brits, North Germans, do you include Balkans for southern Europe, who would make it even more diverse? Larger countries are going to be more diverse, smaller countries are going to be less. The least diverse large countries would probably be Ukraine or France, the most diverse large countries would be(in order) Italy(probably the most diverse in Europe if you don't include non ethnic Russians), Russia, Spain. The least diverse large countries would be(in order) UK, Ukraine, France. The most diverse small countries would be Finland, Switzerland, Sweden or Greece, least diverse small countries would be Denmark, Lithuania and Serbia or something.

No. But since you do not know anything about the history of France i forgive you !!

First:

The assertion that France is "homogeneous" racially speaking, is an absurdity: the "French people" do not exist, it is a republican narrative that was forged by the revolutionaries of the Revolution of 1789; These revolutionaries wanted to "unify" the country under a single national language, a single people (hence the term "French").



Second:

Prior to the Revolution of 1789, the provinces, languages ​​and various provincial ethnic groups were recognized by the ruling power (the monarchy). After the Revolution of 1789, all this no longer existed in the eyes of revolutionaries ... and so far, the Republic (which is the result of this revolution) does not recognize the existence of these different ethnic groups, languages ​​and provinces!

In fact, if you visit the different provinces (Brittany, Picardy, Gascony, Languedoc, etc.) you will quickly realize that all its differences still exist and the revolutionaries have never succeeded in suppressing all this.

When I say that there are differences between the different ethnic groups in France, there is also a difference in architecture that can be seen in the different provinces: Brittany, for example, will not have a Germanic style architecture, unlike Alsace.


As far as ethnic groups are concerned, it is enough to pass the Dna tests (not FTDNA, since it goes back to the ancestors at more than 2,000 years, it would have to be done on the 23andme, more recent on the level of the ancestors) to the different ethnic groups (which are predominantly Breton, gascogne, etc., without too much mixing) and look at the results to see the difference at the at the genetic level (and phenotype)!

So we must really ignore all these incontestable facts to say that France is "the least diverse"! It's ridiculous. But I suppose that to ignore all this, it must serve your specific political agenda.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I told you earlier "and so far, the Republic (which is the result of this revolution) does not recognize the existence of these different ethnic groups, languages ​​and provinces!"


But you know the Republic has pursued the republican concept: in addition to the fact that the Republic does not recognize any provincial language, ethnic groups or provinces; Republic does not take race into account. That is to say that you can be a negro and "become French" according to the Republic, because being French (republican term, I repeat) is "adhere to the values of the republic".