White Americans non-caucasoid admixture from 23andme

[TheForeigner]

http://dienekes.blogspot.it/2014/03/admixture-in-us-populations.htm In an update to that work, our researcher Kasia Bryc found that about about 4 percent of whites have at least 1 percent or more African ancestry.

Although it is a relatively small percentage, the percentage indicates that an individual with at least 1 percent African ancestry had an African ancestor within the last six generations, or in the last 200 years. This data also suggests that individuals with mixed parentage at some point were absorbed into the white population.

Looking a little more deeply into the data, Kasia also found that the percentage of whites with hidden African ancestry differed significantly from state-to-state. Southern states with the highest African American populations, tended to have the highest percentages of hidden African ancestry. In South Carolina at least 13 percent of self-identified whites have 1 percent or more African ancestry, while in Louisiana the number is a little more than 12 percent. In Georgia and Alabama the number is about 9 percent. The differences perhaps point to different social and cultural histories within the south.

[Tooting Carmen]

Interesting. Still, White Americans are much more genuinely European genetically than most 'Whites' on the other side of the Rio Grande.

[Leto]

One percent are just nothing. Btw, what about a native American admixture?

[TheForeigner]

On average Latinos had about 70 percent European ancestry, 14 percent Native American ancestry and 6 percent African ancestry. The remainder ancestry is difficult to assign because the DNA is either shared by a number of different populations around the world, or because it’s from understudied populations, such as Native Americans. Obviously that large “unassigned” percentage means that those “averages” could be higher. As with African Americans, looking at the regional and state-to-state numbers for self-identified Latinos, the differences are striking.

...

For example, some Latinos have no discernible Native American ancestry, while in others have as much as 50 percent of the ancestry being Native American. Latinos in states in the Southwest, bordering Mexico — New Mexico, Texas, California and Arizona — have the greatest percentage of Native American ancestry. Latinos in states with the largest proportion of African Americans in their population — South Carolina, Louisiana and Alabama — have the highest percentage of African Ancestry. Also from the study, although it is not about european-americans. I am surprised that mixed race ''latinos'' are on average predominantly european or at least 23andme customers are.

[Tooting Carmen]

On average Latinos had about 70 percent European ancestry, 14 percent Native American ancestry and 6 percent African ancestry. The remainder ancestry is difficult to assign because the DNA is either shared by a number of different populations around the world, or because it’s from understudied populations, such as Native Americans. Obviously that large “unassigned” percentage means that those “averages” could be higher. As with African Americans, looking at the regional and state-to-state numbers for self-identified Latinos, the differences are striking.

...

For example, some Latinos have no discernible Native American ancestry, while in others have as much as 50 percent of the ancestry being Native American. Latinos in states in the Southwest, bordering Mexico — New Mexico, Texas, California and Arizona — have the greatest percentage of Native American ancestry. Latinos in states with the largest proportion of African Americans in their population — South Carolina, Louisiana and Alabama — have the highest percentage of African Ancestry. Also from the study, although it is not about european-americans. I am surprised that mixed race ''latinos'' are on average predominantly european or at least 23andme customers are.

That's interesting, because people usually say that the Mexicans in the Southwestern United States tend to be more Caucasoid than the ones in the Northeast.

[TheForeigner]

http://dienekes.blogspot.it/2014/09/23andme-mega-study-on-different.html Overall, it seems that relatively few (less than 5%) of European Americans have more than 2% either African or Native American ancestry in any of the states, so the breakdown of European ancestry into various subgroups is perhaps more interesting.The existence of "African Americans" with virtually no African ancestry and of "European Americans" with as much as half African ancestry is probably due to either misreporting or some quite strange self-perception issues. The bulk of the African ancestry in European Americans seems to be in the sub-10% range (equivalent to less than 1 great grandparent). It is possible that many of these individuals might not even be aware of the existence of such ancestors. Apparently some african-americans also have some amerindian admixture. This again seems dubious to me, how these studies always contradict previous studies and make radically different claims, which sometimes contradict what is known from history. Notice just a few months later they claim higher average negroid admixture and even a few more or less mixed race types passed as ''whites'', brazilian style.

[TheForeigner]

That's interesting, because people usually say that the Mexicans in the Southwestern United States tend to be more Caucasoid than the ones in the Northeast.

So now you have many Mexicans even in the Northeastern United States?

[Tooting Carmen]

So now you have many Mexicans even in the Northeastern United States?

New York in particular has lots.

[Anglojew]

That's a lot less than I would have expected.

[KawaiiKawaii]

Seriously, with all this time them living together, I would have thought them to have much more, especially in the south. Well, the one drop rule really did work.

[Tooting Carmen]

That's a lot less than I would have expected.

Jim Crow laws were largely obeyed it seems. In countries like Brazil, were such laws in place they'd have been routinely violated as people in Latin American countries tend to be much more disdainful towards laws and rules (good and bad) than in Anglo-Saxon/Germanic countries.

[KawaiiKawaii]

Jim Crow laws were largely obeyed it seems. In countries like Brazil, were such laws in place they'd have been routinely violated as people in Latin American countries tend to be much more disdainful towards laws and rules (good and bad) than in Anglo-Saxon/Germanic countries.

Nothing to do with the incapacity of Southerners to obey laws. They had a different way of managing racial differences. In the Anglo World, the rule was to be separated as much as possible, whereas the elites in South America and Central America thought that they could absorb the others, so as to not have too many differences between people and not to risk civil unrest and stuff. One drop rule with few categories (White, Black, Native and Asian) versus Castizo, Mestizo, Pardo, etc.

[TheForeigner]

Hasn't anyone looked at the second study which makes somewhat different claims? I'm begining to think some studies are bogus because of flawed methodology or agenda driven. Maybe they were concerned about not being able to ''prove'' all are hopelessly mixed and a few months later they deliver the goods.

[TheForeigner]

On the 23andme facebook page, we read (emphasis added):

23andMe Here's the response from our scientist who developed the algorithm underlying ancestry painting: "There's no case that I've seen where 9% Asian ancestry does not indicate genuine East Asian or Native American ancestry. I've looked at order thousands of individuals of known ancestry, that approximately cover the gamut of human diversity. Thus I would regard 9% as a reliable indication of East Asian or Native American ancestry. That said, 9% is close to the threshold above which the following statement can be made, so it is still theoretically possible, albeit very unlikely, that the prediction is not true.
December 20, 2009 at 4:34pm





Therefore, it seems that "Asian minority admixture" in non-Asian populations needs to be in the range of close to ~ 9% to be statistically significant. So, breathless genome forums agonizing over some Finn with a 1% Asian reading can probably stop hypothesizing about "deep Siberian ancestry" and other such nonsense.

Unfortunately, 23andme doesn't give out equivalent information for "African minority admixture" in non-African populations or "European minority admixture" in non-European populations. Given the greater genetic distance of Africans to both Europeans and Asians one would expect the "threshold" for "African minority admixture" to be significantly less than ~ 9%. I recall the ABD2.0 test had an "African minority admixture" threshold of ~ 2-3% which is likely the range for 23andme as well. "European minority admixture" would likely be the inverse - ~ 9% for Asians and ~ 2-3% for Africans to be above the threshold of reasonable confidence.

Finding the odd Chinaman with "1% European" likely does not mean "Tocharian admixture" and having some Cambodian with "1% African" likewise likely does not suggest "ancient Negrito migrations." The DTC companies need to be a little more forthright on these issues. Needless to say, I don't believe that the "genome bloggers" produce more accurate and precise data than do the companies.

This is all above and beyond the problem that the narrow choice of parental populations inflates "admixture" in populations that are within the same broad racial group but genetically somewhat distant, and with variant gene frequencies at some parts of chromosomes - variants not necessarily derived from any real "admixture."

Decodeme admits the following (on their site that requires login), and it obviously applies to 23andme, DNAPrint, and some of what the "genome Bloggers" produce as well (emphasis added):

The reference population samples were obtained from the HapMap project - they are:
1) European Americans from Utah - who most likely have a majority of north European ancestry
2) Yoruban Nigerians
3) Chinese from Beijing and Japanese from Tokyo.

The characteristics of these reference population samples and the clinal nature of human genetic variation (i.e. the fact that people typically become gradually more different as you travel further from your country) have several minor implications for the interpretation of the results. For example, a deCODEme user with a majority of ancestors (during the past >2 generations) from south-east Europe, will typically see higher percentages of African and Asian ancestry than a deCODEme user whose ancestry is mainly from north-west Europe. The difference will be small, but present.

At present, the Ancestral Origins analysis is likely to be most informative for deCODEme users who have recent mixed ancestry (for example African Americans, Hispanic Americans, inhabitants of Central and South America, and others) and and for individuals from populations with an ancient history of mixed ancestry, such as India, Pakistan, populations of Central Asia, Northern Africa and others. http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/5403479/1/

[Prince Of Macrobia]

1% is nothing unless you obsessed with white Americans.

Who owned this thread.

[Smeagol]

So only 4% of Whites have negro admixture. Even then, it only averages about 1%, and that's nothing, that's less admixture than some European countries. People who expected us to be far more admixed, don't know enough about American history.

[JohnSmith]

So now you have many Mexicans even in the Northeastern United States?

It depends where in the Northeast. 20 Years ago there were not many at all. Now they are a growing minority,however, there numbers are really not that large outside of farming,rural areas. There may be more Puerto Ricans in the Northeast than Mexicans. There is also a significant numbers of Cubans. The Midwest like Iowa has a lot of Mexicans in the farming areas.

[LightHouse89]

So now you have many Mexicans even in the Northeastern United States?

Not really. Puerto Ricans mostly which are a biological tragedy. Ugly afro-mestizos. At least mexicans are closer to us than them.

[LightHouse89]

Jim Crow laws were largely obeyed it seems. In countries like Brazil, were such laws in place they'd have been routinely violated as people in Latin American countries tend to be much more disdainful towards laws and rules (good and bad) than in Anglo-Saxon/Germanic countries.

Most blacks I bet can trace pure black ancestry too. Blacks in my neck of the woods only lived in boston and largely kept to themselves. They did not get along with the italians or irish very well.

[JohnSmith]

Most blacks I bet can trace pure black ancestry too. Blacks in my neck of the woods only lived in boston and largely kept to themselves. They did not get along with the italians or irish very well.

I think that is typical all throughout the Northeast. Italians and Irish are probably some of the most racist Americans.

[LightHouse89]

I think that is typical all throughout the Northeast. Italians and Irish are probably some of the most racist Americans.

In the North east or city not as much nowa days but in the past yes very much so. WASPs were fairly racist up until recent times here too. My uncle, or oldest one or infact even on my mom's side were generally not very friendly to blacks here. My dad despite being a liberal is not fond of them at all. My mother is more laid back, and my step mother dislikes them but it kind to them. She use to say how the Italians in milford area really disliked the blacks and passed local laws to have them banned or not allowed to live there in the town. The same can be said of the irish-polish community in Worcester which did not want them here either. WASPs lived in very upscale places in the north east which were unaffordable to blacks.

We did not have jim crow laws but the cost of living was so high most did not come here as they were never hired.

[Oneeye]

That's a lot less than I would have expected.


Seriously, with all this time them living together, I would have thought them to have much more, especially in the south. Well, the one drop rule really did work.





Yeah, you both thought wrong. :p There is a reason we Americans snicker at any other country in the Americas getting votes for being "whiter" due to self reporting. They're all mixed to us, and most seem to be borderline, if white at all. Canadians might be the exception, but I bet they have a higher % on average for aboriginal mixture.




So only 4% of Whites have negro admixture. Even then, it only averages about 1%, and that's nothing, that's less admixture than some European countries. People who expected us to be far more admixed, don't know enough about American history.

And most of them are in the south, descended from blacks who successfully passed themselves off as white.

[Oneeye]

Most blacks I bet can trace pure black ancestry too. Blacks in my neck of the woods only lived in boston and largely kept to themselves. They did not get along with the italians or irish very well.



No, they have a large percentage of European ancestry as a relic from slavery. Somewhere around a quarter European.

[KawaiiKawaii]

Yeah, you both thought wrong. :p There is a reason we Americans snicker at any other country in the Americas getting voted for being "whiter" due to self reporting. They're all mixed to us, and most seem to be borderline, if white at all. Canadians might be the exception, but I bet they have a higher % on average for aboriginal mixture.

And most of them are in the south, descended from blacks who successfully passed themselves off as white.

The one drop rule truly did wonders :D How are relations between Hispanics (immigrants from South of the Rio) and Whites? The racial barrier must be more blurry, given that some can look extremely white in the Northwestern European white sense.

[LightHouse89]

No, they have a large percentage of European ancestry as a relic from slavery. Somewhere around a quarter European.

up here mixing with them was unacceptable.....I mean blacks only lived in a ghetto in Boston. But some southern blacks yes have some euro admixture.

[Oneeye]

up here mixing with them was unacceptable.....I mean blacks only lived in a ghetto in Boston. But some southern blacks yes have some euro admixture.

Practically all southern blacks have a good deal of Euro admixture. So where are Boston's blacks from if not the south? They should have the same origins if not from some Caribbean country. :confused:

[LightHouse89]

Practically all southern blacks have a good deal of Euro admixture. So where are Boston's blacks from if not the south? They should have the same origins if not from some Caribbean country. :confused:

Recent blacks are from Jamaica but yes during the 1970s many began coming up here to escape Jim Crow laws but they came into the cities and small race riots happened. My uncle was a rookie cop then and use to say the civil rights advocates here would get beat up by the white working class mobs XD LOL. But yes a large amount of them came from the South.

[Oneeye]

The one drop rule truly did wonders How are relations between Hispanics (immigrants from South of the Rio) and Whites? The racial barrier must be more blurry, given that some can look extremely white in the Northwestern European white sense.


The Hispanics that live here look very Amerindian on average. Much more so than threads with pictures of Mexicans back
in Mexico suggest. Like George Lopez.

Nonetheless, most mixed marriages are probably between such Hispanics and whites. I get along fine and have worked with many Hispanics. It's only insufferable when they expect us to cater to them not speaking English. I understand some Spanish, but I won't speak it.

I couldn't care less about such marriages, they are still a minority, the children identify as Hispanic, and imo it should only be the two people who are getting married's business. But I am concerned about the demographic change, and wish that more white Americans were having more children.

Also, many of the whitest appearing Hispanics here identify as being of Spanish descent... I don't known if they even have ancestry from south of the Rio or not. I've actually known a complexed guy who was of Spanish descent and went out of his way to offend non-whites while drunk.

[Kamal900]

Recent blacks are from Jamaica but yes during the 1970s many began coming up here to escape Jim Crow laws but they came into the cities and small race riots happened. My uncle was a rookie cop then and use to say the civil rights advocates here would get beat up by the white working class mobs XD LOL. But yes a large amount of them came from the South.

I watched a couple videons on youtube how aframs were rioting in the streets of detroit and etc in the 60's, and it looks like im watching a war movie or something. You should be thanking the Oy Vey-steiners for that.

[Tooting Carmen]

I watched a couple videons on youtube how aframs were rioting in the streets of detroit and etc in the 60's, and it looks like im watching a war movie or something. You should be thanking the Oy Vey-steiners for that.

Oh do shut up. (1) Jews and African-Americans themselves have had a very fraught relationship. (2) Jews aren't responsible for everything in the world. (3) Are you saying it was better when there was official segregation and racism?

[LightHouse89]

I watched a couple videons on youtube how aframs were rioting in the streets of detroit and etc in the 60's, and it looks like im watching a war movie or something. You should be thanking the Oy Vey-steiners for that.

Yes Detriot, Boston, New York city [always had a population of the bastards and no one likes them even ask Alfieb], New Jersey too....mind you traditionally Irish, Italians and Poles here were liberal but during that period they were some of the people actually attacking he blacks because of a radical increase in crime. Before that there was no crime in those places compared to today where crime levels have sky rocketed ever since the 1970s. Now liberals get upset with these facts but too bad.....liberal jews can conjure some fake sorry ass story all they wish but the truth is there for everyone to see.

Yes my dad and mom remember how during the 1960s-1970s and even up until the 90s of the race riots. My dad was in the National Guard then along with my uncles and they were always on call when that crap happened because the blacks were very violent. this is a recent one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW9DMb0iVec [excluding the race riots from the zimmerman case and michael brown case]....I stand behind the police department incident in the brown case.

[LightHouse89]

Oh do shut up. (1) Jews and African-Americans themselves have had a very fraught relationship. (2) Jews aren't responsible for everything in the world. (3) Are you saying it was better when there was official segregation and racism?

Yes!

[Tooting Carmen]

Yes!

I was talking to Gilgamesh who, of all forum members, has undergone one of the most extraordinary turnarounds (for the worst). Once one of the nicest and most open-minded guys here, his posts are nowadays laced with white wannabeism and anti-Semitism.

[LightHouse89]

I was talking to Gilgamesh who, of all forum members, has undergone one of the most extraordinary turnarounds (for the worst). Once one of the nicest and most open-minded guys here, his posts are nowadays laced with white wannabeism and anti-Semitism.

He isnt a white wannabe.....he openly disagrees with OWD.

[Tooting Carmen]

He isnt a white wannabe.....he openly disagrees with OWD.

Yes and no. He openly sucks up to WNs and National Socialists, and doesn't appear to object to the large number of Western immigrants in the UAE in the way he does to South Asian immigrants there.

[Kamal900]

Oh do shut up. (1) Jews and African-Americans themselves have had a very fraught relationship. (2) Jews aren't responsible for everything in the world. (3) Are you saying it was better when there was official segregation and racism?

Well, i do believe in racial separatism because races cant get along, and they are bond to fight one another. I dont blame all the known ills on the jews, but at the same time, they do have a great power over the media, academia, politics and finance in the country. Again, type "the truth of martin luther king" on youtube, and you'll see that many of the top communist leaders in the US were jewish with white gentiles working with them. Maybe you should ask, Joe Slovo, on instigating blacks against white south africans which caused the deaths of 60,000 white deaths in SA.

[Tooting Carmen]

Well, i do believe in racial separatism because races cant get along, and they are bond to fight one another. I dont blame all the known ills on the jews, but at the same time, they do have a great power over the media, academia, politics and finance in the country. Again, type "the truth of martin luther king" on youtube, and you'll see that many of the top communist leaders in the US were jewish with white gentiles working with them. Maybe you should ask, Joe Slovo, on instigating blacks against white south africans which caused the deaths of 60,000 white deaths in SA.

Interesting that you bring up South Africa, because based on your logic the Whites ought not to be living there at all, much less (as they did until twenty years ago) actually run the country and deny the Black majority basic civil and political rights.

[Kamal900]

Yes and no. He openly sucks up to WNs and National Socialists, and doesn't appear to object to the large number of Western immigrants in the UAE in the way he does to South Asian immigrants there.

I DONT suck up to WNs, but at the same time, i do believe in nationalism for all races and whites are the only ones who arent allowed to have autonomy. Im not an OWDer, and i despise people like Felix or Anxios. Quite the contrary, im proud to be an Arab and ME. Oh, and another thing, the reason why i dislike the south asian immigrants here is because they are the majority populace in an supposedly arab country. I dont mind immigrants if they arent causing trouble, and their numbers are quite low(we dont have much westerners here btw), but a lot of crimes and etc here are committed by immigrants from south asia, and really, i wished that the country was like Oman in demographics.

[Kamal900]

Interesting that you bring up South Africa, because based on your logic the Whites ought not to be living there at all, much less (as they did until twenty years ago) actually run the country and deny the Black majority basic civil and political rights.

And so, you support on what they are doing to the white south africaners then? Again, i dont support on what they did to blacks there, but at the same time, its nothing compared to what the black south africans are doing to whites and other blacks either.

[Leto]

Oh do shut up. (1) Jews and African-Americans themselves have had a very fraught relationship. (2) Jews aren't responsible for everything in the world. (3) Are you saying it was better when there was official segregation and racism?
12% of all members of the Senate are Jews. 5% of all members of the House of Representatives are Jews.
Not so much.;)

[Tooting Carmen]

I DONT suck up to WNs, but at the same time, i do believe in nationalism for all races and whites are the only ones who arent allowed to have autonomy. Im not an OWDer, and i despise people like Felix or Anxios. Quite the contrary, im proud to be an Arab and ME. Oh, and another thing, the reason why i dislike the south asian immigrants here is because they are the majority populace in an supposedly arab country. I dont mind immigrants if they arent causing trouble, and their numbers are quite low(we dont have much westerners here btw), but a lot of crimes and etc here are committed by immigrants from south asia, and really, i wished that the country was like Oman in demographics.

Maybe not in Sharjah, but Dubai and Abu Dhabi are full of Brits and Americans, especially in the better-paid jobs. Moreover, do they genuinely respect the local culture, what with all their drinking, dancing, loose clothes etc. etc? Nor do many even learn Arabic either.

[Kamal900]

I was talking to Gilgamesh who, of all forum members, has undergone one of the most extraordinary turnarounds (for the worst). Once one of the nicest and most open-minded guys here, his posts are nowadays laced with white wannabeism and anti-Semitism.

I dont want to be white, you jackass, and im very proud of my ME roots. I dont support white supremacy, but i don support in white people's determination in preserving their race and cultures, and im against cultural Marxism.

[Tooting Carmen]

And so, you support on what they are doing to the white south africaners then? Again, i dont support on what they did to blacks there, but at the same time, its nothing compared to what the black south africans are doing to whites and other blacks either.

Under Mandela the ANC was fine. The trouble is that successive leaders like Mbeki and Zuma do not come anywhere near his stature and have made the party just a corrupt bureaucratic machine. The most egregious example of all being the massacre of the striking miners a few years ago. But no, whatever isolated cases of murders of Whites in modern-day South Africa there may be does not even begin to measure up to the criminal and tyrannical Apartheid state.

[Kamal900]

Maybe not in Sharjah, but Dubai and Abu Dhabi are full of Brits and Americans, especially in the better-paid jobs. Moreover, do they genuinely respect the local culture, what with all their drinking, dancing, loose clothes etc. etc? Nor do many even learn Arabic either.

No, they make up only 3 percent of the total population here, and yes, they do contribute in building this nation and etc. I dont mind filipinos and other asians though, because they arent causing trouble or they are very big or something. However, i do mind in keeping this country an arab country, and yes, i would be very against mass immigration of europeans or anyone else for that matter, much like europeans are against mass immigration of arabs and other non-euros in their respective countries(like the algerians in spain or france and etc).

[Leto]

I dont want to be white, you jackass, and im very proud of my ME roots. I dont support white supremacy, but i don support in white people's determination in preserving their race and cultures, and im against cultural Marxism.
You can be a Caucasian supremacist. You've got a nice Caucasian look.:thumb001:

[Kamal900]

Under Mandela the ANC was fine. The trouble is that successive leaders like Mbeki and Zuma do not come anywhere near his stature and have made the party just a corrupt bureaucratic machine. The most egregious example of all being the massacre of the striking miners a few years ago. But no, whatever isolated cases of murders of Whites in modern-day South Africa there may be does not even begin to measure up to the criminal and tyrannical Apartheid state.

Are you kidding me? nelson mendala was a terrorist, and many of the members in the ANC were chanting deaths for all whites in south africa. I dont agree with the apartheid, but again, whats happening in south africa today is a hell alot more worse than white rule south africa.

[Tooting Carmen]

No, they make up only 3 percent of the total population here, and yes, they do contribute in building this nation and etc. I dont mind filipinos and other asians though, because they arent causing trouble or they are very big or something. However, i do mind in keeping this country an arab country, and yes, i would be very against mass immigration of europeans or anyone else for that matter, much like europeans are against mass immigration of arabs and other non-euros in their respective countries(like the algerians in spain or france and etc).

All very rational, consistent and understandable, but on that same basis why shouldn't Black South Africans feel aggrieved by the presence of Whites in their country who, moreover, invented an artificial racial hierarchy putting themselves at the top and ruling over and above the native Black majority?

[Kamal900]

You can be a Caucasian supremacist. You've got a nice Caucasian look.:thumb001:

How can i be a caucasian supremacist when i respect east asians, and yes, i do have a lot of african friends as well. Stop lying.

[Tooting Carmen]

Are you kidding me? nelson mendala was a terrorist, and many of the members in the ANC were chanting deaths for all whites in south africa. I dont agree with the apartheid, but again, whats happening in south africa today is a hell alot more worse than white rule south africa.

Says the man who supports Palestinian militants in Israel and the Occupied Territories. 'Terrorist' is most of the time a meaningless anti-concept, merely used by people in power to discredit their opponents.

[Tooting Carmen]

How can i be a caucasian supremacist when i respect east asians, and yes, i do have a lot of african friends as well. Stop lying.

So is it just Jews and South Asians who you have issues with, albeit for totally different reasons?

[Kamal900]

All very rational, consistent and understandable, but on that same basis why shouldn't Black South Africans feel aggrieved by the presence of Whites in their country who, moreover, invented an artificial racial hierarchy putting themselves at the top and ruling over and above the native Black majority?

Again, white people were the ones who created south africa, and yes, they have every right to be in south africa as much as blacks do as well. I never claimed that they should accept white rule, but at the same time, south africa is a hell hole where many whites and other blacks are killed through tribal warfare and crime. NAs for example, never accepted to be ruled under white rule, but at the same time, they are living with whites in Oklahoma with no problems, and the government gave them certain rights for them to live in peace. Blacks in south africa may be discriminated against, but at the same time, they were given free education, health care, and etc, while israel on the other hand, destroys hospitals, schools, and etc, and treat the palestinians there FAAR worst than how whites treated blacks there. Comparing white south africa to israel is like comparing a BB gun to a nuclear bomb just because they're both weapons. Its not the same thing.

[Kamal900]

So is it just Jews and South Asians who you have issues with, albeit for totally different reasons?

I dont like south asians(esp pakis), but i keep my distance from them. If you like to deny jewry's power over america and etc then so be it. I dont create a series of articles bashing jews like how anglo does to the muslims, but at the same time, im not blind their power in hollywood, media and etc.

[Cristiano viejo]

White Americans... what joke...

[KawaiiKawaii]

White Americans... what joke...

They have less African admixture than Spaniards :rolleyes:

[Tooting Carmen]

White Americans... what joke...

It seems that, genetically, their Europeanness is overwhelmingly beyond doubt.

[Aviator]

I'm entertained by some of you guys who said you thought the percentages would be higher. We kept our blood clean :cool:

Not that it really makes a difference for me, my family wasn't here during times of slavery.

[Tooting Carmen]

I dont like south asians(esp pakis), but i keep my distance from them. If you like to deny jewry's power over america and etc then so be it. I dont create a series of articles bashing jews like how anglo does to the muslims, but at the same time, im not blind their power in hollywood, media and etc.

Yeah actually, in Britain, France and the US, Jews are disproportionately present in politics, finance and the media, but not to the extent that EVERYTHING can be attributed to them. Moreover, they don't have anything like the same power (or numbers) in most other Western countries as in those three particular ones.

[Cristiano viejo]

They have less African admixture than Spaniards :rolleyes:

Sure, sure.

[Aviator]

Oh do shut up. (1) Jews and African-Americans themselves have had a very fraught relationship. (2) Jews aren't responsible for everything in the world. (3) Are you saying it was better when there was official segregation and racism?

For us it was. Especially when it came to schools.

[KawaiiKawaii]

Sure, sure.

http://racehist.blogspot.ch/2009/09/estimate-of-sub-saharan-autosomal.html


we estimated that the proportion of sub-Saharan African ancestry in Spain is 2.4 +/- 0.3%

:rolleyes:

[Kamal900]

Yeah actually, in Britain, France and the US, Jews are disproportionately present in politics, finance and the media, but not to the extent that EVERYTHING can be attributed to them. Moreover, they don't have anything like the same power (or numbers) in most other Western countries as in those three particular ones.

I dont claim they control everything, but still, they are very powerful(see AIPAC for example) in dictating which politicians are allowed in office and etc. Morvever, the media in the western world only shows Israeli side of the story, and never show the Palestinians their story on public media(only in independent media outlets).

[Tooting Carmen]

I dont claim they control everything, but still, they are very powerful(see AIPAC for example) in dictating which politicians are allowed in office and etc. Morvever, the media in the western world only shows Israeli side of the story, and never show the Palestinians their story on public media(only in independent media outlets).

Ever heard of Robert Fisk, John Pilger, or even Johann Hari?

EDIT: There's also Barbara Plett and Vanessa Redgrave. Moreover, Jewish intellectual/activist Noam Chomsky (one of my favourite writers) is vigorously anti-Israel.

[LightHouse89]

I'm entertained by some of you guys who said you thought the percentages would be higher. We kept our blood clean :cool:

Not that it really makes a difference for me, my family wasn't here during times of slavery.

when did your ancestors come here? mine have been here in the north since the country was founded. Hell the first boat load of euros here one of my ancestors was on. Ancestry from the Puritan expulsion from eastern England.

[Oneeye]

I'm entertained by some of you guys who said you thought the percentages would be higher. We kept our blood clean :cool:

Not that it really makes a difference for me, my family wasn't here during times of slavery.


Some of my ancestors were still in modern day Northern Germany, Norway, and the Netherlands when slavery was abolished. But on the otherhand, I have ancestors that founded New Amsterdam/New York and the Plymouth colony clear back in the early 1600s. Still fully European, genetically.


When I keep hearing Euros calling Americans mixed, I assume they are referring to us having multiple Northern Euro ethnicities in our backgrounds, now I wonder if they really think we are multiracial? xD Our ancestors were VERY intolerant towards that, and too ambitious to not overwhelm all others and make their living.


I find that the majority of white American 23andeme results, besides Italian types in New York, tend to be a percentage of British Isle, German & French, and Scandinavian. I guestimate the averages I've seen to be about 40%,20%, and 5% and a large chunk of "nonspecific northern European"

What surprises me is the small percentage of Scandinavian that many have, though it probably shouldn't, given their presence throughout US history. I was of the notion that it would be a more regional input, rather than as widespread as it seems.

[Kamal900]

Ever heard of Robert Fisk, John Pilger, or even Johann Hari?

I know Robert Fisk, and i do commend his courage to speak out against injustice. Now, BBC, might be a little flexible, but not a whole lot to a point they allow independent opinions and thoughts to be read out to the public. Doesn't the UK have their own Jewish lobby like in America? No wonder why David Cameron left in voting to recognize Palestine(among others as well). These foreign lobbies in the western world MUST end period, and really, they are harming the world. AIPAC and the jewish neo-cons were solely responsible for the war in Iraq, and really, America is hated all around the world because of that. Micheal Schauer is one of the few patriotic americans who are willing to speak out.

[Leto]

Btw, the Swedish libtard government wants to recognize Palestine as an independant state.:rolleyes:

[Cristiano viejo]

http://racehist.blogspot.ch/2009/09/estimate-of-sub-saharan-autosomal.html



:rolleyes:
What source :lol:
"we estimated" :laugh2:


we estimated that the proportion of sub-Saharan African ancestry in Spain is 2.4 +/- 0.3%, in Tuscany 1.5 +/- 0.3%, and in Greece 1.9 +/- 0.7%
:lol:

Sorry but it´s ridicolous, there are thousand of studies which claim the opposite.
More ridicolous even is claiming that white Americans are White and Spaniards are not because Moors ruled Spain and blablabla. My land was never ruled by Moors and in the other hand Americans are living together with blacks and Amerindians more than 300 years (plus Jews, Asians, Arabs, Hindus etc)

[KawaiiKawaii]

What source :lol:

:lol:

Sorry but it´s ridicolous, there are thousand of studies which claim the opposite.
More ridicolous even is claiming that white Americans are White and Spaniards are not because Moors ruled Spain and blablabla. My land was never ruled by Moors and in the other hand Americans are living with together blacks and Amerindians more than 300 years (plus Jews, Asians, Arabs, Hindus etc)

And apparently they still are not mixed :roll eyes:
Listen, I don't care if Spaniards or Americans have micro-percentages of black ancestry, I was just commenting on your denial of the Whiteness of Americans because they lived with different races during all this time.

[Aviator]

What source :lol:
"we estimated" :laugh2:


:lol:

Sorry but it´s ridicolous, there are thousand of studies which claim the opposite.
More ridicolous even is claiming that white Americans are White and Spaniards are not because Moors ruled Spain and blablabla. My land was never ruled by Moors and in the other hand Americans are living together with blacks and Amerindians more than 300 years (plus Jews, Asians, Arabs, Hindus etc)

We're both White.

[Oneeye]

What source :lol:
"we estimated" :laugh2:


:lol:

Sorry but it´s ridicolous, there are thousand of studies which claim the opposite.
More ridicolous even is claiming that white Americans are White and Spaniards are not because Moors ruled Spain and blablabla. My land was never ruled by Moors and in the other hand Americans are living together with blacks and Amerindians more than 300 years (plus Jews, Asians, Arabs, Hindus etc)

Most ridiculous is claiming that white Americans aren't white. xD

We're not en mass interracials like the former Spanish and Portuguese colonies are. Most of us white Americans don't have any non-European admixture, and the ones who do are a percent or two.

It's simple: We displaced the Amerindians, instead of mixing, and any mixing between slave owners and their slaves resulted in a new slave. The end result? You'd be able to squeeze more non-white blood out of a random rock in the US than out of us true white Americans.

[Fenrir]

More ridicolous even is claiming that white Americans are White and Spaniards are not because Moors ruled Spain and blablabla. My land was never ruled by Moors and in the other hand Americans are living together with blacks and Amerindians more than 300 years (plus Jews, Asians, Arabs, Hindus etc)

You do realize America was one of the only nations in history to implement anti-miscegenation laws and that they were in place from about 1660 until 1967? Although no amendments were ratified nearly every state had a plethora of such laws and many criminalized cohabitation too. And then of course racial segregation laws were imposed in 1876 at the state and local level, which I'm sure you've heard of.

[The Illyrian Warrior]

White Americans are proper European genetically speaking due one drop rule and this blood was preserved for most part of history unlike LA whites who hold infamous history of heavy intermixing which compared to US whites is like day with night difference or is like comparing a berid with mostly nordid types and asking who's whiter which outcome of answer is obvious.

[Cristiano viejo]

Most ridiculous is claiming that white Americans aren't white. xD
It´s a kind to talk... :bored:


We're not en mass interracials like the former Spanish and Portuguese colonies are. Most of us white Americans don't have any non-European admixture, and the ones who do are a percent or two.
Yes, you did.


You do realize America was one of the only nations in history to implement anti-miscegenation laws and that they were in place from about 1660 until 1967? Although no amendments were ratified nearly every state had a plethora of such laws and many criminalized cohabitation too. And then of course racial segregation laws were imposed in 1876 at the state and local level, which I'm sure you've heard of.
Both, dont make me laugh, pease :picard1:

«Scots played an extremely influentian role as Indian agents all along the frontier, especially in the South. Indeed, Scottish Indian agents and merchants frequently intermarried with the Indians and produced generations of Indian chiefs with Scottish roots. Three in particular should be mentioned at this time.

In 1783, Alexander McGillivray was elevated to the status of a chief of the Creek Nation in what is now parts of Georgia and Alabama. McGillivray’s father had been a British Indian agent whose wife was half-Creek and half French. […]

Another Creek chief of Scottish heritage was William McIntosh. He was born in 1775 from the marriage between John McIntosh of Borlum, Scotland, who was a British Indian agent, and a Creek princess. […]

Perhaps the greatest Scottish-Indian was Chief John Ross (Kooweskowe) of the Cherokee Nation. He was born in 1790 near Lookout Mountain on the border of Georgia and Tennessee. His father, David Ross, had been a British Indian agent and a Loyalist in the Revolution. His mother was Mary McDonald Ross, whose mother was Cherokee and whose father was Scottish.» (pp. 155-156).

The Scottish Settlers of America: The 17th and 18th Centuries
http://books.google.es/books?id=j9Vpdkvc2IcC



«Mixed-race subjects were commonly called “country-born,” “East Indian,” “half-cast,” and “Eurasian,” in this period, as the East India Company state made numerous distinctions based on racial differences which were further elaborated as the Company state matured into the British Raj.» (p. 15)

«Although there was little documentary proof of interracial liaisons, the mixed-race population was growing as THERE WERE SIX TIMES AS MANY EURASIANS BEING BORN IN INDIA THAN “PURE” EUROPEANS.» (p. 40).

«Officers of the East India Company’s armies had established the Military Orphan Society in 1782 to educate these mixed-race children while removing them from their mother’s care. Subsequently, many more schools to train the children of Englishmen were founded, and by the 1800s, over 30 such schools existed in Calcutta alone.

Women who were Eurasian, or mixed-race, were always sexually suspect, even when THEY CONVERTED AND MARRIED, MAKING THEMSELVES INTO “LEGITIMATE” WIVES.» (p. 55).

«THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITIES OF INTERRACIAL COUPLES WITH MIXED-RACE CHILDREN, ESPECIALLY AMONG HIGH-RANKING EUROPEAN OFFICIALS, EXISTED ACROSS THE INDIAN SUBCONTINENT in towns that were outside the Company’s dominions. [...] Covenanted Company officials such as Harry Verelst, Philip Francis, James Rennell, John Shore, Neill Edmonstone, Charles Warre Malet, and John Bristow kept Indian female companions. John Bristow and Nathaniel Middleton […] had mixed-race children baptized at St. John’s Church in Calcutta before they were legitimately married.» (p. 76).

«The narratives of the relationships and families of William Palmer and James Achilles Kirkpatrick demonstrate the ways in which interracial relationships and mixed-race families of high-ranking officials and noblewomen of the local princely courts contributed to intercultural negotiation and exchange […] PALMER COHABITED WITH A MUSLIM NOBLEWOMAN, BUT HIS CHILDREN WERE ALL BAPTIZED AND SUBSEQUENTLY MARRIED EUROPEANS. YET WHILE PALMER’S DESCENDANTS RESIDED IN INDIA WITH EUROPEAN AIRS, KIRKPATRICK’S CHILDREN LIVED IN ENGLAND.» (p. 105).

«SOLDIERS’ FAMILIES FREQUENTLY INCLUDED NATIVE WIVES AND MIXED-RACE CHILDREN, the policy of supporting an Anglicized but mixed-race population funded by the Company became more complicated.» (p. 213).

«From 1783 through the 1810s, marrying off half-caste orphan girls with European soldiers was seemingly uncomplicated by anxieties about promoting miscegenation. Instead, it was seen by military authorities as a way to maintain appropriate male guardianship over female orphans […] By marrying off half-cast women to European soldiers, the orphan sodiety was complicit in ACTIVELY PROMOTING INTERRACIAL MARRIAGES, MISCEGENATION, AND THE GROWTH OF A MIXED-RACE OR CREOLE POPULATION THAT DILUTED THE RACIAL PURITY OF THE BRITISH COMMUNITY IN INDIA.» (p. 238).

«Even when the numbers of men acknowledging interracial relationships and illegitimate children declined in the early 1800s, THE NUMBER OF MIXED-RACE CHILDREN BORN GREW EVERY YEAR paralleling an increase in colonial companions leaving wills, suggesting that INTERRACIAL SEX DID NOT FADE AWAY, but that it was recorded with less frequency in colonial archives. […] While cohabiting with a local woman and Anglicizing mixed-race children was sometimes seen as beneficial to the nascent colonial state of the East India company, these practices met wit little resistance from native elites, probably because THESE RELATIONSHIPS INVOLVED WOMEN OF THE LOWER SOCIAL AND CASTE ORDERS.*» (p. 249).

Sex and the Family in Colonial India: The Making of Empire
http://books.google.es/books?hl=es&id=dmJj8ibGQp4C

«In every colony, wherever the unmarried white man found himself isolated, liaisons with local women were common in the nineteenth century. […] IN THE EARLY NINETEENTH CENTURY THERE WAS SEXUAL INTERACTION WITH THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF NEW ZEALAND, AUSTRALIA AND SOUTH AFRICA, including the trekboer regions. WHEN CAPE COLONY CAME UNDER BRITISH RULE IN 1807, PERHAPS TEN PER CENT OF WHITES WERE MARRIED TO NON-WHITES* (probably including Asians and Coloureds); under three per cent of Cape marriages were to pure-blooded Africans, even less in rural areas. BUT WHILE MARRIAGE WAS NOT FREQUENT, AND INTERMARRIAGE ALREADY IN DECLINE, MISCEGENATION WAS STILL QUITE HIGH. IT HAS BEEN CALCULATED THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF NON-WHITE BLOOOD IN TODAY’S AFRIKANER COMMUNITY IS PERHAPS SEVEN PER CENT. [W. M. Freund, ‘Race in social structure of South Africa, 1652-1836’, Race and Class, XVIII, 1976, pp. 53-67; R. Ross, Adam Kok’s Griquas, Cambridge, 1976, p. 4; the key work, apparently, is J. A. Heese, Die herkoms van die Afrikaner, 1652-1867, 1971]» (p. 107).


«Bibi is a Hindustani word meaning ‘high-class woman’, which in Hobson-Jobson ‘Anglo-Indian’ parlance came to mean native mistress. […] THE KEEPING OF A MISTRESS IN BRITISH INDIA BECAME A WELL-ESTABLISHED PRACTICE BY THE LATER EITGHTEENTH CENTURY, DEFENDED AS INCREASING THE KNOWLEDGE OF INDIAN AFFAIRS. SOME OFFICERS RECOMMENDED IT QUITE OPENLY, AND THE PATTERN WAS SET AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Job Charnock (d. 1693), founder of Calcutta, had three children by the Hindu mistress he had rescued from a suttee funeral pyre. George Dick (Governor of Bombay in the 1790s) kept a Maratha woman, allowing her to parade about the streets ostentatiously […] Sir David Ochterlony (the Resident of Delhi, 1803-25) apparently had thirteen mistresses among Indian ladies. Even so respectable a figure as Lord Teignmouth, Governor General (1793-98) and a British and Foreig Bible Society founder, had such a liaison. COL. JAMES SKINNER (1778-1841), FOUNDER OF THE CRACK REGIMENT ‘SKINNER’S HORSE’, WAS SAID TO HAVE HAD A HAREM OF FOURTEEN WIVES, THOUGH THE FAMILY HOTLY DENIED THERE WERE EVER MORE THAN SEVEN; EIGHTY [¡80!*] CHILDREN CLAIMED HIM AS THEIR FATHER.


Lower down the social scale, too, many of the British in India formally married Hindu women or (preferably) half-Indians, known as Anglo-Indians, or in Victorian times as Eurasians. IT IS ESTIMATED THAT NINETY PER CENT OF THE BRITISH IN INDIA BY THE MID-EIGHTEENTH CENTURY MADE SUCH MARRIAGES* […] the directors of the East India Company on 8 April 1778 declared that because of the importance of soldiers’ marrying Indian women in Madras, THEY WERE ‘CONTENT TO ENCOURAGE AT SOME EXPENSE’ SUCH MARRIAGES, MAKING A CHRISTENING PRESENT OF FIVE RUPEES FOR EVERY CHILD OF A RANK-SOLDIER BAPTISED. IN OTHER WORDS, A DELIBERATE POLICY OF INTERMARRIAGE WAS ENCOURAGED BY THE COMPANY» (pp. 115-116).


«Although intermarriage was virtually at an end by the beginning of the nineteenth century, the bibi still held her place. METCALFE (ACTING GOVERNOR-GENERAL 1835-36) HAD THREE EURASIAN SONS BETWEEN 1809 AND 1817 BY AN INDIAN WOMAN HE HAD MET AT THE COURT OF RANJIT SINGH. HE NEVER MADE A EUROPEAN MARRIAGE.» (p. 117).

Empire and Sexuality: The British Experience
http://books.google.es/books?id=DVS8AAAAIAAJ


«THE ARMY WAS NOT WHOLLY AGAINST ITS SOLDIERS MARRYING MIXED-RACE OR NATIVE WOMEN AS IT WAS MUCH CHEAPER THAN SHIPPING OVER EUROPEAN WOMEN FOR THEM TO MARRY.» (p. 37).

«Until the closing decades of the eighteenth century, British attitudes towards persons of mixed descent were not necessarily negative. Many mixed-race people had been more or less unproblematically assimilated as individuals into the British establishment. IT WAS NOT UNCOMMON FOR HIGH-RANKING OFFICIALS TO HAVE MIXED OFFSPRING WITH INDIAN WOMEN. INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE AND CONCUBINARY ARRANGEMENTS WERE GENERALLY TOLERATED IF NOT POSITIVELY ENCOURAGED. High-ranking British men often invested in the futures of their mixed-race offspring, sending them to the metropole for higher education.» (p. 60).

«As a Eurasian writer, Kenneth Wallace, remarked in his book (1930), ‘SO MUCH INTERMARRIAGE TAKES PLACE BETWEEN DOMICILED EUROPEANS AND ANGLO-INDIANS (I.E. EURASIANS) THAT IT IS ALMOST SAFE TO SAY THAT DOMICILED EUROPEANS OF ONE GENERATION ARE SUCCEEDED BY ANGLO-INDIANS IN THE NEXT’. [Wallace, The Eurasian Problem Constructively Approached, 29]» (p. 67).

The Meaning of White: Race, Class, and the 'Domiciled Community' in British India 1858-1930
http://books.google.es/books?id=8Mt78VcAhfIC


«Interestingly, the Company’s men showed a similar openness to native “abilities” when it came to their sexual lives. During the period of Company governance in India (roughly between 1757 and 1858), MARRIAGE BETWEEN BRITISH MEN AND INDIAN WOMEN WAS COMMON. AND THERE WAS CONSIDERABLY MORE MISCEGENATION THAN THERE WAS INTERMARRIAGE. “I now commenced a regular course of fυck¡ng with native women,” wrote one Englishman, recalling his early days in India as a sixteen-year-old Company cadet. Another Company employee waxed more philosophical: “THOSE WHO HAVE LIVED WITH A NATIVE WOMAN FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIME NEVER MARRY A EUROPEAN… so amusingly playful, so anxious to oblige and please [are they], that A PERSON AFTER BEING ACCUSTOMED TO THEIR SOCIETY SHRINKS FROM THE IDEA OF ENCOUNTERING THE WHIMS OR YELDING TO THE FANCIES OF AN ENGLISHWOMAN.”

The Company’s promiscuity, both sexual and religious, outraged English evangelicals back in London.» (p. 215)

Day of Empire: How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance—and Why They Fall
http://books.google.es/books?id=nOSZPne0zVwC


«Mixed-race subjects were commonly called “country-born,” “East Indian,” “half-cast,” and “Eurasian,” in this period, as the East India Company state made numerous distinctions based on racial differences which were further elaborated as the Company state matured into the British Raj.» (p. 15)

Sex and the Family in Colonial India: The Making of Empire
http://books.google.es/books?hl=es&id=dmJj8ibGQp4C


«Intermarriage between Highlanders and Indians, as well as between Highlanders and the daughters of other Highlanders and Indians, reached all across the continent and produced a population in both Canada and athe United States that traced its descent from both Scottish clans and Indian tribes. Highland men and Indian women generated webs of allegiance and identity that persist to this day.» (pp. 147-148).

«Englishmen in the seventeenth century resisted intercourse and intermarriage with Indian women as a threat to their assumed cultural supremacy and their social order. However, in the eighteenth century they engaged in plenty of both on the frontiers, especially in the fur trade, where Indian partners brought commercial andvantages, as well as sexual companionship. […]

“I am really at a loss how to pass my time in this remote part of the Country if I don’t take one of the Squaws into the Woods and play at all fours with her,” one Highland soldier stationed at the Abenaki town of Saint Francis (now Odanak) near Montreal wrote to his brother in 1762. Simon Fraser boasted of his sexual conquests with Indian women to Sir William Johnson (whose own sexual exploits with Iroquois women were legendary).» (p. 148).

«European men and Indian women all across America produced children of mixed parentage, and Highland Scots probably had no more interactions with Indian women than did the French, who intermarried so commonly with Indian peoples of the Great Lakes and Canadian prairies that a “new” Métis population developed with a distinct ethnic identity. Nonetheless, Scots took up with Indian women in large numbers, far more proportionately than did their English counterparts. An investigation of ethnic patterns of intermarriage with Indian people in the Pacific Northwest in the last two decades of the nineteenth century, for example, found that foreigh-born settlers were far more likely than their American-born neighbors to marry Indians. Scottish settlers accounted for only 1.4 percent of the total population but for 5.6 percent of marriage with Indians, a rate of intermarriage four times what would be predicted merely from their proportion of the region’s total population.» (p. 149).

«In a world where prosperous Scots traders often owned plantations and slaves, Scots and Indian intermarriages sometimes became entwined with African intermarriage. Robert Grierson, a native of Scotland […] married a woman named Sinnugee […] Grierson was “much attached to this country and means to spend his days here with his Indian family and connexions.” Grierson and Sinnugee had eight children and many descendants, including those of a daughter who had children with a man of African descent.» (p. 156).

«The North West Company had few compuctions about intermarriage: All ranks took Indian partners, and the company accepted some responsibility for maintaining Native wives and families.» (p. 157).

«Scots may have taken more easily than Englishmen to the “custom of the country,” but living with Indian women was widespread, even standard, practice. By 1821, when the two companies merged, “practically all offices of the Hudson’s Bay and North West Companies, and many lower-ranked employees as well, were allied with women born in the Indian country.” […]» (p. 158).

«When James Carnegie, the Earl of Southesk, traveledthrough Saskatchewan and the Rockies in 1859 and 1860, Scots and Scots-Indian Métis were ubiquitous. When Lady Ishbel Aberdeen visited the Blackfeet in the 1860s, she saw “many faces reminding of Scottish characteristics.” Treaty commissioners in Manitoba reported “a large population of French Métis and Scotch Halfbreeds.” Although there was much general resemblance, the Earl of Southesk wrote, Scots-Indian Métis differed considerably from those of French Indian origin. They often had “the fair hair and other physical characteristics of a northern race, while in disposition they are more industrious and more actuated by a sense of duty.”» (p. 164).

White People, Indians, and Highlanders: Tribal People and Colonial Encounters in Scotland and America
http://books.google.es/books?id=kL8bYs02ahoC


«The East India Company was licensed by the British state to monopolise trade with the subcontinent and points east. When its mercenary army, commanded by Robert Clive, defeated the Nawab of Bengal, Siraj-ud-Dowla, at Plassey in 1757 and installed his uncle Mir Jafar as his successor, the EIC was able to commence the ‘rape of Bengal’, plundering the territory and its taxpayers freely.» (p. 178).

Gods, Mongrels and Demons
http://books.google.es/books?id=GAmFGPI8A5gC


«Allen Edwardes has written a biography of Robert Clive, the British diplomat and explorer, which is, as Edwardes’ subtitle indicates, effectively “a sexual history of the conquest of Hindustan”. But Clive was also the great sexual nabob of the of the Indian subcontinent. […] Clive’s ‘conquest’ was sexual, partly homosexual. […] according to his own manuscript diaries […] Clive commited sodomy on dozens of natives in orgies that today seem scarcely credible. […] even his French adventures among the confrérie de sodomie seem tame in comparison to those he had in India.» (p. 31).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Robert_Clive%2C_1st_Baron_Clive_by_Nathaniel_Dance %2C_%28later_Sir_Nathaniel_Dance-Holland%2C_Bt%29.jpg/473px-Robert_Clive%2C_1st_Baron_Clive_by_Nathaniel_Dance %2C_%28later_Sir_Nathaniel_Dance-Holland%2C_Bt%29.jpg

Perilous Enlightenment: pre- and post-modern discourses: sexual, historical
http://books.google.es/books?id=6QoNAQAAIAAJ


«The British army in India was given to same-sex activities, in the context of what has been described as ‘the prevailing homosocial structure of desire in British India’. There are snippets of evidence from the 1830s and 1840s, such as Sir Richard Burton’s notorious investigation of the boy-brothels of Karachi in 1845, but the rest is silence, broken only by the terrible tragedy of Major-General Sir Hector Macdonald in Ceylon, committing suicide in 1903 after allegations of sex with a considerable number of Sinhalese boys.»

«It has always been understood that a major justification for ‘regimental brothels’ in India was the fear that without access to female prostitutes, there would be, as one viceroy put it, ‘ever more deplorable evils… an increase in unnatural crimes’» (p. 440).

«The survival of a lengthy erotic manuscript, of indisputable authenticity, written by a serving Indian army officer, Captain Kenneth Searight, is of great significance. […] embedded in it is a chronicle of imperial experience, all the more important because of its unique revelation of a prolonged and intensive set of sexual relationships with Indian boys.» (p. 441).

«the vast majority of men in supposedly ‘homosexual’ cultures in the past —whether in ancient Greece and Rome […] Nelson’s navy, or even late Victorian and Edwardian England— were involved in asymmetric relationships, usually with boys and not other mature men.» (p. 442).

«It was well known to the British in India that Muslim sexuality was ambivalent, even hypocritical […] To get a boy in Peshawar, he [Searight] wrote, ‘was easier than to pick the flowers by the wayside’.» (p. 443).

«The ‘Paidiology’ list at the back of the volume consists almost entirely of the 125 boys from the Indian period, 1909 to 1917, and it is certainly incomplete […] The tables record for each boy his forename, age, and ‘race’ […] Invariably the boys —Mahmud, Abdul, Umar, Mazuffar, and the rest—» (p. 446).

«To begin with, his contacts in Bengal were with Gurkha boys in their mid-teens, Kaul, Lachman, Bahadur, and Lobzang the Tibetan, ‘slim brown enchanters’ […] A defining moment occurred in Calcutta in 1911 when he was approached […] by a fourteen-year-old seductive Narayan, who, once they had found a room, penetrated him, and thus ‘taught me how the passive love is won’.» (p. 447).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/HectorAMacdonald.jpg/371px-HectorAMacdonald.jpg
Sir Hector MacDonald

Understanding the British Empire
http://books.google.es/books?id=iylEklKX_WQC


«Natural population growth was retarded also by the considerable sexual inbalance that existed throught the [17th] century. Besides being an immigrant society, THE CHESAPEAKE WAS EMPHATICALLY A MALE SOCIETY. [...] SIX TIMES MORE MEN THAN WOMEN EMIGRATED IN THE 1630S, and although greater numbers of females took ship after 1650, men continued to outnumber women by nearly three to one throughout the rest of the century.»

The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume I: The Origins of Empire, p. 182
http://books.google.es/books?id=eQHSivGzEEMC

[KawaiiKawaii]

It´s a kind to talk... :bored:


Yes, you did.


Both, dont make me laugh, pease :picard1:



God you are butthurt. American Whites are white, deal with it.

[Leto]

American Indian and Alaska Native (2010 Census Bureau)

One race: 2,932,248 are registered (56.2%).
In combination with one or more of the other races listed: 2,288,331 (43.8%).
Total: 5,220,579.

[Smeagol]

Christiano is a good example of a guy with zero knowledge of American history. He has no response to the genetic tests, so he just copies, and pastes information, a lot of which has nothing to do with Americans, but with the British in India. Lol.

[Oneeye]

It´s a kind to talk... :bored:


Yes, you did.


These responses make no sense to me.


Given DNA results, the only way to believe what you do about white Americans is to either be ignorant of those results, or to think that it is some massive conspiracy.

[Smeagol]

These responses make no sense to me.


Given DNA results, the only way to believe what you do about white Americans is to either be ignorant of those results, or to think that it is some massive conspiracy.

And anyway, most of the Indian White mixes were considered Indians.. So the Indians have White admixture, not the other way around.

[Leto]

I think there are some whites with a minor native admixture, but they aren't so numerous and even so it doesn't really make them "biracial".

[Oneeye]

I think there are some whites with a minor native admixture, but they aren't so numerous and even so it doesn't really make them "biracial".

Many white Americans that have been told by relatives that there is a native in the woodpile end up showing no Amerindian genetics at all.

[KawaiiKawaii]

Many white Americans that have been told by relatives that there is a native in the woodpile end up showing no Amerindian genetics at all.

Yeah, I know that Hollywood actors love this kind of exotic origins. It makes them special. Funny thing is, they are all part cherokee now, which does not make them special at all.

[Isleño]

Interesting. Still, White Americans are much more genuinely European genetically than most 'Whites' on the other side of the Rio Grande.
Well that is the work of the one drop rule. Obviously the racism of the one drop rule was not nice, but there was a flip side to it.....it kept the whites in the U.S. from being very mixed in a region that is very multicultural. North American whites are some of the most homogenous European types in the Americas. This thread is about African ancestry, but Native American ancestry is a different story. There are many white Americans with small percentages of Native American admixture. I think I read a study once that put the average Native American in white Americans as 2.2% (don't quote me on that exact figure, it was 2 point somthing, I think it was 2.2) and the African at something like 0.3%-0.7% or something, I can't quite remember the exact percentage, but it was something like this. But of course there are some with higher Native American some even reaching 5 or 10, but they seem to be less common.

Overall, I think most white Americans in the U.S. are between 95%-100% European, with a minority of them probably being around 90%-94% European. But times seem to be changing in the U.S. due to multiculturalism and interracial TV media being beamed into the living rooms of white Americans, you can see there are now many interracial relationships among them with blacks, East Asians, Middle Easterners and others. It may be common for white Americans 200 years from now to have an East Asian or black grandparent or two.

But this goes along with the changing U.S. society. If you look at American movies before the 70's, they are lily white, I'd say a vast majority of them were 100% white in cast, with a minority of them having a having a black or mestizo character or two. The immigration laws in the U.S. were changed in 1965 to allow immigration from any country, not just Europe. And that was the precursor to today's U.S. that is 61%-63% white (I didn't count Hispanic whites, because there is no way of knowing how many there are since many mestizos mark "white Hispanic" on the census, but I bet the number is low since most in the U.S. seem to be mestizo), and the white American percentage is in the 60 percentile, down from 90% in 1950, only about 60 years ago.

And if you look at U.S. children 5 and under, as of 2014 minorities are already the majority, just above the half mark. And on the other end of the spectrum, most older people 65 and older are white. So there is a trend of outgoing whites and incoming minorities. The U.S. will become like many countries in Latin America in the future where whites are a minority.

Strangely, many whites in the U.S. know this, yet do not try to stop it or combat their shrinking percentage. Many liberal types even welcome it as if they seek to be a minority. I do not understand that. But I guess when you figure in political correctness and the chances of being branded as a racist for even speaking about it, you get your answer.

Anyway, here's an article on it:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/13/18934111-census-white-majority-in-us-gone-by-2043?lite

[Leto]

...
Very good and insightful post!:thumb001: I totally agree with it.

[Cristiano viejo]

God you are butthurt. American Whites are white, deal with it.
Butthurt is what is happening to you. I post FACTS.


These responses make no sense to me.


Given DNA results, the only way to believe what you do about white Americans is to either be ignorant of those results, or to think that it is some massive conspiracy.
You talked about European colonies telling nonsense about your clean British colonies which were free of admixture. Jaaaaaaaa

When that does not interest to you, then you talk about genetics :rolleyes: ok


In 2002, Mark D. Shriver, a molecular anthropologist at Penn State University, published results of a study regarding the racial admixture of Americans who identified as white or black:[19] Shriver surveyed a 3,000-person sample from 25 locations in the United States and tested subjects for genetic make-up:
Among those who self-identified as white: The average was 0.7% black ancestry, which is the equivalent of having 1 black and 127 white ancestors among one's 128 5×great-grandparents
Shriver estimates that 70% of white Americans have no African ancestors (in part because of the greatly increased immigration from Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries).
Among the 30% who do have African ancestry, Shriver estimates their black racial admixture is 2.3%; the equivalent of having had 3 black ancestors among their 128 5×great-grandparents.[19]



30% of Americans have black blood. 30%!
btw have you not 3% or something so of Amerindian blood?
I remember McCauley had that percentage.


And anyway, most of the Indian White mixes were considered Indians.. So the Indians have White admixture, not the other way around.
Facts are facts.

[Isleño]

Many white Americans that have been told by relatives that there is a native in the woodpile end up showing no Amerindian genetics at all.

This is true. I think in these circumstances it can either be the ancestry was too far back and didn't make it to them or that it could be a fabrication. But there is a large number of whites that do show small amounts ranging from less than 1%-3%. But I think there is probably many that do not have any as well. With that aside, white Americans are some of the most homogenous European types in the Americas.

[KawaiiKawaii]

Butthurt is what is happening to you. I post FACTS.


You talked about European colonies telling nonsense about your clean British colonies which were free of admixture. Jaaaaaaaa

When that does not interest to you, then you talk about genetics :rolleyes: ok



30% of Americans have black blood. 30%!
btw have you not 3% or something so of Amerindian blood?
I remember McCauley had that percentage.


Facts are facts.

Butthurt! Americans are white, just plain white. Why the fuck does a Spaniard hate Americans?

[Leto]

The population younger than 5 stood at 49.9 percent minority in 2012.
But 54% of all children in the same year were born to non-Hispanic white mothers. Considering these statistics, we can conclude that ~2% of children had a Hispanic father (of any race), 0.5% a black one and ~1.5% a non-black and non-Hispanic one (Asian, Am. Indian, biracial, etc.).
http://6.firepic.org/6/images/2014-10/20/sop0a2qho1g8.jpg (http://firepic.org/)

[Cristiano viejo]

Butthurt! Americans are white, just plain white.
If you say it...


Why the fuck does a Spaniard hate Americans?
This has nothing to do with hate.
But hey, America is the bitch of Israel. Hard not to hate it.

[alfieb]

Yes Detriot, Boston, New York city [always had a population of the bastards and no one likes them even ask Alfieb], New Jersey too....mind you traditionally Irish, Italians and Poles here were liberal but during that period they were some of the people actually attacking he blacks because of a radical increase in crime. Before that there was no crime in those places compared to today where crime levels have sky rocketed ever since the 1970s. Now liberals get upset with these facts but too bad.....liberal jews can conjure some fake sorry ass story all they wish but the truth is there for everyone to see.

This is true, most groups do not get along with Aframs here.

Crime in NYC is lower than any other major city in America. Coincidentally, the African-American population has been going down at the same time, while we get more blacks from the Caribbean who have a different mentality from American blacks.

[Mars06]

I've never understood this fixation on minor admixture.

[Leto]

Coincidentally, the African-American population has been going down at the same time, while we get more blacks from the Caribbean who have a different mentality from American blacks.
The Caribbeans from Haiti? They must be even less civilized than Aframs.

[Isleño]

30% of Americans have black blood. 30%!
Yes, but Cristiano my friend, Shriver has since then recanted his original calculation of 30%. He went from 30% down to 10% and is in agreement with the test co-creator that it's actually about 5%. Here are the recants:

"The spectrum of mixed ancestry continues into the European-American population, about 10 percent of whom have some African ancestry, Dr. Shriver said. He had discovered to his surprise that that included him."

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/01/health/genetics/01RACE.html?8vd

"We are very dichotomous in the United States," said Mark Shriver, the DNA test co-inventor. "You're either black or white. And understandably, less than 200 years ago, that meant life or death, basically — who was master, who was slave."

Shriver cautions the test does not always provide exact results always. Still, about 7,000 people have taken it, including Joseph.

Tony Frudacas, the other test co-creator and the director of DNA Print Genomics, said the company gets a lot of hate-mail these days from white supremacists who've heard about the test and don't like it.

"They might be afraid of what they might find in their own genomes," Frudacas said. "Five percent of European Americans exhibit some detectable level of African ancestry."

That means about one in 20 so-called white Americans have African genes."

http://web.archive.org/web/20040803055203/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Nightline/SciTech/racial_identity_031228.html

[alfieb]

The Caribbeans from Haiti? They must be even less civilized than Aframs.

Haiti, Jamaica, Trinidad, etc.

And their neighborhoods have lower crime rates and higher property values than Afram neighborhoods.

[LightHouse89]

The Caribbeans from Haiti? They must be even less civilized than Aframs.

They are not wonderful but do not cause half of the social issues in this country unlike the Blacks which if one of them commits a crime and the end result is one of them being arrested for it or injured the entire 13% population of them rebel and loot/riot over it. They play the race baiting game all of the time.

[Isleño]

If you say it...


This has nothing to do with hate.
But hey, America is the bitch of Israel. Hard not to hate it.

And what are your feelings toward Spanish-Americans?

[KawaiiKawaii]

Haiti, Jamaica, Trinidad, etc.

And their neighborhoods have lower crime rates and higher property values than Afram neighborhoods.

I assume they are more selected? Plus they lack the victim mentality and the blame-whitey attitude?

[Leto]

They are not wonderful but do not cause half of the social issues in this country unlike the Blacks which if one of them commits a crime and the end result is one of them being arrested for it or injured the entire 13% population of them rebel and loot/riot over it. They play the race baiting game all of the time.
That's strange, since you've always been focused on the "Caribbean trash".

[LightHouse89]

Many white Americans that have been told by relatives that there is a native in the woodpile end up showing no Amerindian genetics at all.

Like my family and the family records go back to the first ship that came to New England. Not a single non European ancestor was mentioned in my family records and my grand parents paid alot of money to have the ancestry researched. Still some idiots in my family think we have native american ancestry.

[Oneeye]

Butthurt is what is happening to you. I post FACTS.


You talked about European colonies telling nonsense about your clean British colonies which were free of admixture. Jaaaaaaaa

When that does not interest to you, then you talk about genetics :rolleyes: ok



30% of Americans have black blood. 30%!
btw have you not 3% or something so of Amerindian blood?
I remember McCauley had that percentage.


Facts are facts.

Are you arguing against that European colonists displaced the Amerindians rather than absorbing them? Nobody is arguing that the Amerindians didn't absorb some European genetics, just the other way around.


And LOL @ 30%..... Try again:


Researchers at 23andMe looked at the genetic ancestry of about 78,000 customers likely to consider themselves as entirely of European ancestry and found that somewhere between 3 percent and 4 percent of those people have “hidden” African ancestry.

The percent of African ancestry is relatively low with the majority of individuals having just 0.5 percent to 0.75 percent — which suggests that those people have an African ancestor who lived about six generations, or about 200 years, ago.


Read more at http://blog.23andme.com/ancestry/our-hidden-african-ancestry/#x8m7fJpy4AwzZIIz.99


http://spittoon.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/hiddenafricanancestry_chart.png










I'm 100% European going by McDonald:


http://i1065.photobucket.com/albums/u399/hammer1115/Christopher_Hammersla_Full_20120401185638BGA1.png (http://s1065.photobucket.com/user/hammer1115/media/Christopher_Hammersla_Full_20120401185638BGA1.png. html)




And I'm 99.9& European according to 23andme.

http://i1065.photobucket.com/albums/u399/hammer1115/d57eae5b-7ab8-481b-936c-8af59fe11c77_zps496d5982.png (http://s1065.photobucket.com/user/hammer1115/media/d57eae5b-7ab8-481b-936c-8af59fe11c77_zps496d5982.png.html)



The 0.1% "North African" is on my X chromosome, of which the entire rest of that chromosome is Scandinavian. It would have been inherited from my Norwegian side, which came here during the 1870s... obviously such a small mixture had to have happen a long time ago in the old country. And given the slower rate of X chromosomes in mutating, I can't help but wonder if that.... if it isn't just noise... happened
due to lecherous, kidnapping vikings.

[Leto]

They play the race baiting game all of the time.
That Boston-based radio station I sometimes listen to promoted "black power" during the Ferguson riots. They encouraged all African Americans to identify as black and stand up for their rights.:rolleyes:

[Leto]

Still some idiots in my family think we have native american ancestry.
Jim, you're biracial. Just embrace your wonderful multicultural American background.:D

[LightHouse89]

These responses make no sense to me.


Given DNA results, the only way to believe what you do about white Americans is to either be ignorant of those results, or to think that it is some massive conspiracy.

I think he believes the East India Company was in New England XD LOL what a moron!

Interracial relations did not happen here due to religious and cultural reasons. The natives here were ruthless to New Englanders and we to them. Most of them left and migrated west ward in less than 100 years.

[LightHouse89]

Well that is the work of the one drop rule. Obviously the racism of the one drop rule was not nice, but there was a flip side to it.....it kept the whites in the U.S. from being very mixed in a region that is very multicultural. North American whites are some of the most homogenous European types in the Americas. This thread is about African ancestry, but Native American ancestry is a different story. There are many white Americans with small percentages of Native American admixture. I think I read a study once that put the average Native American in white Americans as 2.2% (don't quote me on that exact figure, it was 2 point somthing, I think it was 2.2) and the African at something like 0.3%-0.7% or something, I can't quite remember the exact percentage, but it was something like this. But of course there are some with higher Native American some even reaching 5 or 10, but they seem to be less common.

Overall, I think most white Americans in the U.S. are between 95%-100% European, with a minority of them probably being around 90%-94% European. But times seem to be changing in the U.S. due to multiculturalism and interracial TV media being beamed into the living rooms of white Americans, you can see there are now many interracial relationships among them with blacks, East Asians, Middle Easterners and others. It may be common for white Americans 200 years from now to have an East Asian or black grandparent or two.

But this goes along with the changing U.S. society. If you look at American movies before the 70's, they are lily white, I'd say a vast majority of them were 100% white in cast, with a minority of them having a having a black or mestizo character or two. The immigration laws in the U.S. were changed in 1965 to allow immigration from any country, not just Europe. And that was the precursor to today's U.S. that is 61%-63% white (I didn't count Hispanic whites, because there is no way of knowing how many there are since many mestizos mark "white Hispanic" on the census, but I bet the number is low since most in the U.S. seem to be mestizo), and the white American percentage is in the 60 percentile, down from 90% in 1950, only about 60 years ago.

And if you look at U.S. children 5 and under, as of 2014 minorities are already the majority, just above the half mark. And on the other end of the spectrum, most older people 65 and older are white. So there is a trend of outgoing whites and incoming minorities. The U.S. will become like many countries in Latin America in the future where whites are a minority.

Strangely, many whites in the U.S. know this, yet do not try to stop it or combat their shrinking percentage. Many liberal types even welcome it as if they seek to be a minority. I do not understand that. But I guess when you figure in political correctness and the chances of being branded as a racist for even speaking about it, you get your answer.

Anyway, here's an article on it:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/13/18934111-census-white-majority-in-us-gone-by-2043?lite

They do not stop it because they believe what Jews tell them.....'America is a nation of Immigrants'. The KKK had the opportunity in 1890 of changing that mind set and did not do anything. My area looks like a third world country compared to what it looked like 100 years ago. Little Puerto Rico! You cannot go anywhere now here without seeing them now. They are a plague and the future America will look like Haiti once they become the majority. But yes liberal whites and jews want this.

[Leto]

And I'm 99.9& European according to 23andme.

I'm not very familiar with such tests. Do I need to show up in a clinic to get it?

[LightHouse89]

Butthurt is what is happening to you. I post FACTS.


You talked about European colonies telling nonsense about your clean British colonies which were free of admixture. Jaaaaaaaa

When that does not interest to you, then you talk about genetics :rolleyes: ok



30% of Americans have black blood. 30%!
btw have you not 3% or something so of Amerindian blood?
I remember McCauley had that percentage.


Facts are facts.

Entirely fictitious.

[alfieb]

I assume they are more selected? Plus they lack the victim mentality and the blame-whitey attitude?
Aframs in NYC have been in multi-generational poverty, used to government assistance, lack of father figures, drugs in their neighborhoods, etc.

Off-the-boat immigrants don't expect an easy life and are willing to work for a better life.

[Leto]

Entirely fictitious.
I don't believe either. 30% are too much.

[KawaiiKawaii]

Aframs in NYC have been in multi-generational poverty, used to government assistance, lack of father figures, drugs in their neighborhoods, etc.

Off-the-boat immigrants don't expect an easy life and are willing to work for a better life.

Well, 70% of black families are fatherless if I remember. This plus 25% of their young male population in jail can't do good. Do Aframs and Caribbeans live together or do they segregate themselves?

[LightHouse89]

Jim, you're biracial. Just embrace your wonderful multicultural American background.:D

No I am not 'bi-racial'. I am literally 7/8ths Northern Euro and 1/8 French. Yes very bi-racial :rolleyes:

[Isleño]

But 54% of all children in the same year were born to non-Hispanic white mothers. Considering these statistics, we can conclude that ~2% of children had a Hispanic father (of any race), 0.5% a black one and ~1.5% a non-black and non-Hispanic one (Asian, Am. Indian, biracial, etc.).
http://6.firepic.org/6/images/2014-10/20/sop0a2qho1g8.jpg (http://firepic.org/)
Yes, but 54% of children in what year? 2008? And what about the children born to minority mothers from white fathers? The article I posted was from 2013 that quoted a 2012 figure of 49.9% non-white, but since then now in 2014, the majority of children under 5 are non-white minorities and is over the 50% mark. This figure will grow with immigration, low white birth rates and interracial birth rates. Immigration is the biggest factor. How else did the U.S. so far go from 90% white to 63% white in only about 60 years when it has not done that since it's creation? It only fluctuated from 80.7% white in 1790 to 89.5% white in 1950 and even in 1960 it was 88.6% white. Only since the change of the immigration law has it plummeted to almost 60% today. It only fluctuated 10% in 160 years and was still above 80% white. It's dropped from the 90% range down to the 60% range within about 60 years. The only explanation is immigration. Especially given the fact that the black population has not grown greatly over the past decades and has only had incremental gains. Both the mestizo/afromestizo, Asian and Middle Eastern populations have grown exponentially since 1965 when the immigration law was changed to include countries outside of Europe.

[alfieb]

Well, 70% of black families are fatherless if I remember. This plus 25% of their young male population in jail can't do good. Do Aframs and Caribbeans live together or do they segregate themselves?
Mostly segregated. You'll have some Aframs in Caribbean neighborhoods and some Caribbeans in Afram neighborhoods, but the Caribbeans usually avoid being in those places.

[Leto]

Yes, but 54% of children in what year? 2008? And what about the children born to minority mothers from white fathers? The article I posted was from 2013 that quoted a 2012 figure of 49.9% non-white, but since then now in 2014, the majority of children under 5 are non-white minorities and is over the 50% mark. This figure will grow with immigration, low white birth rates and interracial birth rates.
In 2012. I agree with the rest.

[Leto]

No I am not 'bi-racial'. I am literally 7/8ths Northern Euro and 1/8 French. Yes very bi-racial :rolleyes:
Are you light-haired and light-eyed?

[KawaiiKawaii]

Mostly segregated. You'll have some Aframs in Caribbean neighborhoods and some Caribbeans in Afram neighborhoods, but the Caribbeans usually avoid being in those places.

Interesting. Thank you for your input. Just one more question : Is the situation of Aframs in general improving, or are they still living in bad conditions? Because there is a borough in NY where actually Blacks have a higher median wage than white, if I remember correctly the Queens, and I was wondering if there are some more examples like that.

[alfieb]

Interesting. Thank you for your input. Just one more question : Is the situation of Aframs in general improving, or are they still living in bad conditions? Because there is a borough in NY where actually Blacks have a higher median wage than white, if I remember correctly the Queens, and I was wondering if there are some more examples like that.

Queens is the only county in the United States where the average black family's median income is higher than their white counterpart.

Aframs are being priced out of New York City, because of gentrification of formerly black high-crime neighborhoods by young white interlopers from the Suburbs.

[Tooting Carmen]

Queens is the only county in the United States where the average black family's median income is higher than their white counterpart.

Aframs are being priced out of New York City, because of gentrification of formerly black high-crime neighborhoods by young white interlopers from the Suburbs.

Much like how traditionally working-class Black areas of London, such as Brixton and Hackney, are gradually being taken over by young White professionals and hippies.

[KawaiiKawaii]

Queens is the only county in the United States where the average black family's median income is higher than their white counterpart.

Aframs are being priced out of New York City, because of gentrification of formerly black high-crime neighborhoods by young white interlopers from the Suburbs.

Where do they go? The suburbs? It is positive, no, given the fact that suburbs are a much better place than city centers in the us?

[alfieb]

Where do they go? The suburbs? It is positive, no, given the fact that suburbs are a much better place than city centers in the us?

Back to the South, where their grandparents came from. It's a much cheaper life down there for them, where the races get along better. Instead of living in a shitty apartment in a high-crime neighborhood with a Jewish landlord, they can own a car and a house and be able to send their kids to school without worrying about them being killed.

[Tooting Carmen]

Back to the South, where their grandparents came from. It's a much cheaper life down there for them, where the races get along better. Instead of living in a shitty apartment in a high-crime neighborhood with a Jewish landlord, they can own a car and a house and be able to send their kids to school without worrying about them being killed.

Races get on better in the South?:confused:

[KawaiiKawaii]

Back to the South, where their grandparents came from. It's a much cheaper life down there for them, where the races get along better. Instead of living in a shitty apartment in a high-crime neighborhood with a Jewish landlord, they can own a car and a house and be able to send their kids to school without worrying about them being killed.

Ok, thanks, so they seem to be back migrating to where they came from during the industrial boom. Thanks and sorry for getting Off-Topic.

[LightHouse89]

Are you light-haired and light-eyed?

I lost most of my hair [it was blonde] and no I have brown eyes.

[KawaiiKawaii]

Races get on better in the South?:confused:

Well, I've always found the South to be more friendly in general, so maybe that is what he meant.

[Leto]

I lost most of my hair [it was blonde] and no I have brown eyes.
Do you mean you got bald?:icon_eek:

[LightHouse89]

Races get on better in the South?:confused:

not really. blacks are hated in florida. I have relatives there and they do not like Obama or the black national agenda here.

[LightHouse89]

Do you mean you got bald?:icon_eek:

yes mother nature sucks. Oh well. Natural born skinhead :cool:

[Isleño]

Queens is the only county in the United States where the average black family's median income is higher than their white counterpart.

Aframs are being priced out of New York City, because of gentrification of formerly black high-crime neighborhoods by young white interlopers from the Suburbs.Same thing is happening in New Orleans. Previously black neighborhoods are being gentrified into white neighborhoods. But if you think about it, it's just going through a circular change since those black neighborhoods were once white neighborhoods only 50 years ago when the great white flight happen to American cities and blacks began moving into white neighborhoods.

[KawaiiKawaii]

not really. blacks are hated in florida. I have relatives there and they do not like Obama or the black national agenda here.

Well, the pace of living is slower, and people are friendlier than in, say, NYC or the Northeast, so maybe that's why they get along better.

[Leto]

yes mother nature sucks. Oh well. Natural born skinhead :cool:
God punished you for racism.:D Most blacks are bald or close to it, because they can hardly have normal haircuts.

[LightHouse89]

Same thing is happening in New Orleans. Previously black neighborhoods are being gentrified into white neighborhoods. But if you think about it, it's just going through a circular change since those black neighborhoods were once white neighborhoods only 50 years ago when the great white flight happen to American cities and blacks began moving into white neighborhoods.

My state recently proclaimed they want to increase welfare spending so more afro-mestizos and blacks are coming here but into the cities where crime rates are growing still....alot of stabbings and gun crimes here now. This is why more whites are leaving for states like new hampshire or more north. Some even leave for canada.

[Isleño]

not really. blacks are hated in florida. I have relatives there and they do not like Obama or the black national agenda here.

In the south, there are many people that do not care for the blacks. There are some that just don't care to deal with them because of the way many of them act and there are some that flat out don't like them. But there are also some that do not mind them and have no problems with them whatsoever. But the disdain for them is probably higher in the south than the rest of the country.

[Oneeye]

I'm not very familiar with such tests. Do I need to show up in a clinic to get it?

No, it is a private company that many members here have bought kits from. You spit in a tube they mail to you, mail it back to them, then they process it and show you the results with your online account at their website.

You can also download your data and run it through third party calculators. Many of us here do that to compare results to each other.

[LightHouse89]

God punished you for racism.:D Most blacks are bald or close to it, because they can hardly have normal haircuts.

:rolleyes: No it is called inheriting DNA from my dad who is bald and an ancestor on my dad's side. Women like men without hair so long as they have the right shaped head for it like me. I have that British/North sea shaped skull and face so it evens out good enough. My girlfriend doesnt mind it. She says I look like a military man with my body build and no hair....some women are turned on by it so I am fine with it. :thumb001:

[Isleño]

Well, I've always found the South to be more friendly in general, so maybe that is what he meant.

Most people in the south generally have that "Southern hospitality" thing going for them.

[Cristiano viejo]

Yes, but Cristiano my friend, Shriver has since then recanted his original calculation of 30%. He went from 30% down to 10% and is in agreement with the test co-creator that it's actually about 5%. Here are the recants:

"The spectrum of mixed ancestry continues into the European-American population, about 10 percent of whom have some African ancestry, Dr. Shriver said. He had discovered to his surprise that that included him."

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/01/health/genetics/01RACE.html?8vd

"We are very dichotomous in the United States," said Mark Shriver, the DNA test co-inventor. "You're either black or white. And understandably, less than 200 years ago, that meant life or death, basically — who was master, who was slave."

Shriver cautions the test does not always provide exact results always. Still, about 7,000 people have taken it, including Joseph.

Tony Frudacas, the other test co-creator and the director of DNA Print Genomics, said the company gets a lot of hate-mail these days from white supremacists who've heard about the test and don't like it.

"They might be afraid of what they might find in their own genomes," Frudacas said. "Five percent of European Americans exhibit some detectable level of African ancestry."

That means about one in 20 so-called white Americans have African genes."

http://web.archive.org/web/20040803055203/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Nightline/SciTech/racial_identity_031228.html
I dont care, 5% of "white" Americans with black blood what is... around 12-15 millions of them? still a lot.
Add them these "White" Americans with Amerindian blood and you will see how much white they are :rolleyes:


And what are your feelings toward Spanish-Americans?
No problems with them, ofc


Are you arguing against that European colonists displaced the Amerindians rather than absorbing them? Nobody is arguing that the Amerindians didn't absorb some European genetics, just the other way around.
Re-read that post of mine about racial mix in the Briish colonies, you need do it.



I'm 100% European going by McDonald:


http://i1065.photobucket.com/albums/u399/hammer1115/Christopher_Hammersla_Full_20120401185638BGA1.png (http://s1065.photobucket.com/user/hammer1115/media/Christopher_Hammersla_Full_20120401185638BGA1.png. html)




And I'm 99.9& European according to 23andme.

http://i1065.photobucket.com/albums/u399/hammer1115/d57eae5b-7ab8-481b-936c-8af59fe11c77_zps496d5982.png (http://s1065.photobucket.com/user/hammer1115/media/d57eae5b-7ab8-481b-936c-8af59fe11c77_zps496d5982.png.html)[QUOTE]




The 0.1% "North African" is on my X chromosome, of which the entire rest of that chromosome is Scandinavian. It would have been inherited from my Norwegian side, which came here during the 1870s... obviously such a small mixture had to have happen a long time ago in the old country. And given the slower rate of X chromosomes in mutating, I can't help but wonder if that.... if it isn't just noise... happened
due to lecherous, kidnapping vikings.
0,1% is noise for sure imo. But I believed to remember that you scored highest percentages.
ok, nevermind.


I think he believes the East India Company was in New England XD LOL what a moron!
What I posted is not only about East India Company, you are the moron. And it was an answer to that post of 1eye about Spanish colonies vs British colonies in racial mix issues.


Interracial relations did not happen here due to religious and cultural reasons. The natives here were ruthless to New Englanders and we to them. Most of them left and migrated west ward in less than 100 years.


Entirely fictitious.
Again for you, Jimmy, read, re-read, enjoy and wake up (thumbs down is bored, man)

«Scots played an extremely influentian role as Indian agents all along the frontier, especially in the South. Indeed, Scottish Indian agents and merchants frequently intermarried with the Indians and produced generations of Indian chiefs with Scottish roots. Three in particular should be mentioned at this time.

In 1783, Alexander McGillivray was elevated to the status of a chief of the Creek Nation in what is now parts of Georgia and Alabama. McGillivray’s father had been a British Indian agent whose wife was half-Creek and half French. […]

Another Creek chief of Scottish heritage was William McIntosh. He was born in 1775 from the marriage between John McIntosh of Borlum, Scotland, who was a British Indian agent, and a Creek princess. […]

Perhaps the greatest Scottish-Indian was Chief John Ross (Kooweskowe) of the Cherokee Nation. He was born in 1790 near Lookout Mountain on the border of Georgia and Tennessee. His father, David Ross, had been a British Indian agent and a Loyalist in the Revolution. His mother was Mary McDonald Ross, whose mother was Cherokee and whose father was Scottish.» (pp. 155-156).

The Scottish Settlers of America: The 17th and 18th Centuries
http://books.google.es/books?id=j9Vpdkvc2IcC



«Mixed-race subjects were commonly called “country-born,” “East Indian,” “half-cast,” and “Eurasian,” in this period, as the East India Company state made numerous distinctions based on racial differences which were further elaborated as the Company state matured into the British Raj.» (p. 15)

«Although there was little documentary proof of interracial liaisons, the mixed-race population was growing as THERE WERE SIX TIMES AS MANY EURASIANS BEING BORN IN INDIA THAN “PURE” EUROPEANS.» (p. 40).

«Officers of the East India Company’s armies had established the Military Orphan Society in 1782 to educate these mixed-race children while removing them from their mother’s care. Subsequently, many more schools to train the children of Englishmen were founded, and by the 1800s, over 30 such schools existed in Calcutta alone.

Women who were Eurasian, or mixed-race, were always sexually suspect, even when THEY CONVERTED AND MARRIED, MAKING THEMSELVES INTO “LEGITIMATE” WIVES.» (p. 55).

«THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITIES OF INTERRACIAL COUPLES WITH MIXED-RACE CHILDREN, ESPECIALLY AMONG HIGH-RANKING EUROPEAN OFFICIALS, EXISTED ACROSS THE INDIAN SUBCONTINENT in towns that were outside the Company’s dominions. [...] Covenanted Company officials such as Harry Verelst, Philip Francis, James Rennell, John Shore, Neill Edmonstone, Charles Warre Malet, and John Bristow kept Indian female companions. John Bristow and Nathaniel Middleton […] had mixed-race children baptized at St. John’s Church in Calcutta before they were legitimately married.» (p. 76).

«The narratives of the relationships and families of William Palmer and James Achilles Kirkpatrick demonstrate the ways in which interracial relationships and mixed-race families of high-ranking officials and noblewomen of the local princely courts contributed to intercultural negotiation and exchange […] PALMER COHABITED WITH A MUSLIM NOBLEWOMAN, BUT HIS CHILDREN WERE ALL BAPTIZED AND SUBSEQUENTLY MARRIED EUROPEANS. YET WHILE PALMER’S DESCENDANTS RESIDED IN INDIA WITH EUROPEAN AIRS, KIRKPATRICK’S CHILDREN LIVED IN ENGLAND.» (p. 105).

«SOLDIERS’ FAMILIES FREQUENTLY INCLUDED NATIVE WIVES AND MIXED-RACE CHILDREN, the policy of supporting an Anglicized but mixed-race population funded by the Company became more complicated.» (p. 213).

«From 1783 through the 1810s, marrying off half-caste orphan girls with European soldiers was seemingly uncomplicated by anxieties about promoting miscegenation. Instead, it was seen by military authorities as a way to maintain appropriate male guardianship over female orphans […] By marrying off half-cast women to European soldiers, the orphan sodiety was complicit in ACTIVELY PROMOTING INTERRACIAL MARRIAGES, MISCEGENATION, AND THE GROWTH OF A MIXED-RACE OR CREOLE POPULATION THAT DILUTED THE RACIAL PURITY OF THE BRITISH COMMUNITY IN INDIA.» (p. 238).

«Even when the numbers of men acknowledging interracial relationships and illegitimate children declined in the early 1800s, THE NUMBER OF MIXED-RACE CHILDREN BORN GREW EVERY YEAR paralleling an increase in colonial companions leaving wills, suggesting that INTERRACIAL SEX DID NOT FADE AWAY, but that it was recorded with less frequency in colonial archives. […] While cohabiting with a local woman and Anglicizing mixed-race children was sometimes seen as beneficial to the nascent colonial state of the East India company, these practices met wit little resistance from native elites, probably because THESE RELATIONSHIPS INVOLVED WOMEN OF THE LOWER SOCIAL AND CASTE ORDERS.*» (p. 249).

Sex and the Family in Colonial India: The Making of Empire
http://books.google.es/books?hl=es&id=dmJj8ibGQp4C

«In every colony, wherever the unmarried white man found himself isolated, liaisons with local women were common in the nineteenth century. […] IN THE EARLY NINETEENTH CENTURY THERE WAS SEXUAL INTERACTION WITH THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF NEW ZEALAND, AUSTRALIA AND SOUTH AFRICA, including the trekboer regions. WHEN CAPE COLONY CAME UNDER BRITISH RULE IN 1807, PERHAPS TEN PER CENT OF WHITES WERE MARRIED TO NON-WHITES* (probably including Asians and Coloureds); under three per cent of Cape marriages were to pure-blooded Africans, even less in rural areas. BUT WHILE MARRIAGE WAS NOT FREQUENT, AND INTERMARRIAGE ALREADY IN DECLINE, MISCEGENATION WAS STILL QUITE HIGH. IT HAS BEEN CALCULATED THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF NON-WHITE BLOOOD IN TODAY’S AFRIKANER COMMUNITY IS PERHAPS SEVEN PER CENT. [W. M. Freund, ‘Race in social structure of South Africa, 1652-1836’, Race and Class, XVIII, 1976, pp. 53-67; R. Ross, Adam Kok’s Griquas, Cambridge, 1976, p. 4; the key work, apparently, is J. A. Heese, Die herkoms van die Afrikaner, 1652-1867, 1971]» (p. 107).


«Bibi is a Hindustani word meaning ‘high-class woman’, which in Hobson-Jobson ‘Anglo-Indian’ parlance came to mean native mistress. […] THE KEEPING OF A MISTRESS IN BRITISH INDIA BECAME A WELL-ESTABLISHED PRACTICE BY THE LATER EITGHTEENTH CENTURY, DEFENDED AS INCREASING THE KNOWLEDGE OF INDIAN AFFAIRS. SOME OFFICERS RECOMMENDED IT QUITE OPENLY, AND THE PATTERN WAS SET AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Job Charnock (d. 1693), founder of Calcutta, had three children by the Hindu mistress he had rescued from a suttee funeral pyre. George Dick (Governor of Bombay in the 1790s) kept a Maratha woman, allowing her to parade about the streets ostentatiously […] Sir David Ochterlony (the Resident of Delhi, 1803-25) apparently had thirteen mistresses among Indian ladies. Even so respectable a figure as Lord Teignmouth, Governor General (1793-98) and a British and Foreig Bible Society founder, had such a liaison. COL. JAMES SKINNER (1778-1841), FOUNDER OF THE CRACK REGIMENT ‘SKINNER’S HORSE’, WAS SAID TO HAVE HAD A HAREM OF FOURTEEN WIVES, THOUGH THE FAMILY HOTLY DENIED THERE WERE EVER MORE THAN SEVEN; EIGHTY [¡80!*] CHILDREN CLAIMED HIM AS THEIR FATHER.


Lower down the social scale, too, many of the British in India formally married Hindu women or (preferably) half-Indians, known as Anglo-Indians, or in Victorian times as Eurasians. IT IS ESTIMATED THAT NINETY PER CENT OF THE BRITISH IN INDIA BY THE MID-EIGHTEENTH CENTURY MADE SUCH MARRIAGES* […] the directors of the East India Company on 8 April 1778 declared that because of the importance of soldiers’ marrying Indian women in Madras, THEY WERE ‘CONTENT TO ENCOURAGE AT SOME EXPENSE’ SUCH MARRIAGES, MAKING A CHRISTENING PRESENT OF FIVE RUPEES FOR EVERY CHILD OF A RANK-SOLDIER BAPTISED. IN OTHER WORDS, A DELIBERATE POLICY OF INTERMARRIAGE WAS ENCOURAGED BY THE COMPANY» (pp. 115-116).


«Although intermarriage was virtually at an end by the beginning of the nineteenth century, the bibi still held her place. METCALFE (ACTING GOVERNOR-GENERAL 1835-36) HAD THREE EURASIAN SONS BETWEEN 1809 AND 1817 BY AN INDIAN WOMAN HE HAD MET AT THE COURT OF RANJIT SINGH. HE NEVER MADE A EUROPEAN MARRIAGE.» (p. 117).

Empire and Sexuality: The British Experience
http://books.google.es/books?id=DVS8AAAAIAAJ


«THE ARMY WAS NOT WHOLLY AGAINST ITS SOLDIERS MARRYING MIXED-RACE OR NATIVE WOMEN AS IT WAS MUCH CHEAPER THAN SHIPPING OVER EUROPEAN WOMEN FOR THEM TO MARRY.» (p. 37).

«Until the closing decades of the eighteenth century, British attitudes towards persons of mixed descent were not necessarily negative. Many mixed-race people had been more or less unproblematically assimilated as individuals into the British establishment. IT WAS NOT UNCOMMON FOR HIGH-RANKING OFFICIALS TO HAVE MIXED OFFSPRING WITH INDIAN WOMEN. INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE AND CONCUBINARY ARRANGEMENTS WERE GENERALLY TOLERATED IF NOT POSITIVELY ENCOURAGED. High-ranking British men often invested in the futures of their mixed-race offspring, sending them to the metropole for higher education.» (p. 60).

«As a Eurasian writer, Kenneth Wallace, remarked in his book (1930), ‘SO MUCH INTERMARRIAGE TAKES PLACE BETWEEN DOMICILED EUROPEANS AND ANGLO-INDIANS (I.E. EURASIANS) THAT IT IS ALMOST SAFE TO SAY THAT DOMICILED EUROPEANS OF ONE GENERATION ARE SUCCEEDED BY ANGLO-INDIANS IN THE NEXT’. [Wallace, The Eurasian Problem Constructively Approached, 29]» (p. 67).

The Meaning of White: Race, Class, and the 'Domiciled Community' in British India 1858-1930
http://books.google.es/books?id=8Mt78VcAhfIC


«Interestingly, the Company’s men showed a similar openness to native “abilities” when it came to their sexual lives. During the period of Company governance in India (roughly between 1757 and 1858), MARRIAGE BETWEEN BRITISH MEN AND INDIAN WOMEN WAS COMMON. AND THERE WAS CONSIDERABLY MORE MISCEGENATION THAN THERE WAS INTERMARRIAGE. “I now commenced a regular course of fυck¡ng with native women,” wrote one Englishman, recalling his early days in India as a sixteen-year-old Company cadet. Another Company employee waxed more philosophical: “THOSE WHO HAVE LIVED WITH A NATIVE WOMAN FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIME NEVER MARRY A EUROPEAN… so amusingly playful, so anxious to oblige and please [are they], that A PERSON AFTER BEING ACCUSTOMED TO THEIR SOCIETY SHRINKS FROM THE IDEA OF ENCOUNTERING THE WHIMS OR YELDING TO THE FANCIES OF AN ENGLISHWOMAN.”

The Company’s promiscuity, both sexual and religious, outraged English evangelicals back in London.» (p. 215)

Day of Empire: How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance—and Why They Fall
http://books.google.es/books?id=nOSZPne0zVwC


«Mixed-race subjects were commonly called “country-born,” “East Indian,” “half-cast,” and “Eurasian,” in this period, as the East India Company state made numerous distinctions based on racial differences which were further elaborated as the Company state matured into the British Raj.» (p. 15)

Sex and the Family in Colonial India: The Making of Empire
http://books.google.es/books?hl=es&id=dmJj8ibGQp4C


«Intermarriage between Highlanders and Indians, as well as between Highlanders and the daughters of other Highlanders and Indians, reached all across the continent and produced a population in both Canada and athe United States that traced its descent from both Scottish clans and Indian tribes. Highland men and Indian women generated webs of allegiance and identity that persist to this day.» (pp. 147-148).

«Englishmen in the seventeenth century resisted intercourse and intermarriage with Indian women as a threat to their assumed cultural supremacy and their social order. However, in the eighteenth century they engaged in plenty of both on the frontiers, especially in the fur trade, where Indian partners brought commercial andvantages, as well as sexual companionship. […]

“I am really at a loss how to pass my time in this remote part of the Country if I don’t take one of the Squaws into the Woods and play at all fours with her,” one Highland soldier stationed at the Abenaki town of Saint Francis (now Odanak) near Montreal wrote to his brother in 1762. Simon Fraser boasted of his sexual conquests with Indian women to Sir William Johnson (whose own sexual exploits with Iroquois women were legendary).» (p. 148).

«European men and Indian women all across America produced children of mixed parentage, and Highland Scots probably had no more interactions with Indian women than did the French, who intermarried so commonly with Indian peoples of the Great Lakes and Canadian prairies that a “new” Métis population developed with a distinct ethnic identity. Nonetheless, Scots took up with Indian women in large numbers, far more proportionately than did their English counterparts. An investigation of ethnic patterns of intermarriage with Indian people in the Pacific Northwest in the last two decades of the nineteenth century, for example, found that foreigh-born settlers were far more likely than their American-born neighbors to marry Indians. Scottish settlers accounted for only 1.4 percent of the total population but for 5.6 percent of marriage with Indians, a rate of intermarriage four times what would be predicted merely from their proportion of the region’s total population.» (p. 149).

«In a world where prosperous Scots traders often owned plantations and slaves, Scots and Indian intermarriages sometimes became entwined with African intermarriage. Robert Grierson, a native of Scotland […] married a woman named Sinnugee […] Grierson was “much attached to this country and means to spend his days here with his Indian family and connexions.” Grierson and Sinnugee had eight children and many descendants, including those of a daughter who had children with a man of African descent.» (p. 156).

«The North West Company had few compuctions about intermarriage: All ranks took Indian partners, and the company accepted some responsibility for maintaining Native wives and families.» (p. 157).

«Scots may have taken more easily than Englishmen to the “custom of the country,” but living with Indian women was widespread, even standard, practice. By 1821, when the two companies merged, “practically all offices of the Hudson’s Bay and North West Companies, and many lower-ranked employees as well, were allied with women born in the Indian country.” […]» (p. 158).

«When James Carnegie, the Earl of Southesk, traveledthrough Saskatchewan and the Rockies in 1859 and 1860, Scots and Scots-Indian Métis were ubiquitous. When Lady Ishbel Aberdeen visited the Blackfeet in the 1860s, she saw “many faces reminding of Scottish characteristics.” Treaty commissioners in Manitoba reported “a large population of French Métis and Scotch Halfbreeds.” Although there was much general resemblance, the Earl of Southesk wrote, Scots-Indian Métis differed considerably from those of French Indian origin. They often had “the fair hair and other physical characteristics of a northern race, while in disposition they are more industrious and more actuated by a sense of duty.”» (p. 164).

White People, Indians, and Highlanders: Tribal People and Colonial Encounters in Scotland and America
http://books.google.es/books?id=kL8bYs02ahoC


«The East India Company was licensed by the British state to monopolise trade with the subcontinent and points east. When its mercenary army, commanded by Robert Clive, defeated the Nawab of Bengal, Siraj-ud-Dowla, at Plassey in 1757 and installed his uncle Mir Jafar as his successor, the EIC was able to commence the ‘rape of Bengal’, plundering the territory and its taxpayers freely.» (p. 178).

Gods, Mongrels and Demons
http://books.google.es/books?id=GAmFGPI8A5gC


«Allen Edwardes has written a biography of Robert Clive, the British diplomat and explorer, which is, as Edwardes’ subtitle indicates, effectively “a sexual history of the conquest of Hindustan”. But Clive was also the great sexual nabob of the of the Indian subcontinent. […] Clive’s ‘conquest’ was sexual, partly homosexual. […] according to his own manuscript diaries […] Clive commited sodomy on dozens of natives in orgies that today seem scarcely credible. […] even his French adventures among the confrérie de sodomie seem tame in comparison to those he had in India.» (p. 31).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Robert_Clive%2C_1st_Baron_Clive_by_Nathaniel_Dance %2C_%28later_Sir_Nathaniel_Dance-Holland%2C_Bt%29.jpg/473px-Robert_Clive%2C_1st_Baron_Clive_by_Nathaniel_Dance %2C_%28later_Sir_Nathaniel_Dance-Holland%2C_Bt%29.jpg

Perilous Enlightenment: pre- and post-modern discourses: sexual, historical
http://books.google.es/books?id=6QoNAQAAIAAJ


«The British army in India was given to same-sex activities, in the context of what has been described as ‘the prevailing homosocial structure of desire in British India’. There are snippets of evidence from the 1830s and 1840s, such as Sir Richard Burton’s notorious investigation of the boy-brothels of Karachi in 1845, but the rest is silence, broken only by the terrible tragedy of Major-General Sir Hector Macdonald in Ceylon, committing suicide in 1903 after allegations of sex with a considerable number of Sinhalese boys.»

«It has always been understood that a major justification for ‘regimental brothels’ in India was the fear that without access to female prostitutes, there would be, as one viceroy put it, ‘ever more deplorable evils… an increase in unnatural crimes’» (p. 440).

«The survival of a lengthy erotic manuscript, of indisputable authenticity, written by a serving Indian army officer, Captain Kenneth Searight, is of great significance. […] embedded in it is a chronicle of imperial experience, all the more important because of its unique revelation of a prolonged and intensive set of sexual relationships with Indian boys.» (p. 441).

«the vast majority of men in supposedly ‘homosexual’ cultures in the past —whether in ancient Greece and Rome […] Nelson’s navy, or even late Victorian and Edwardian England— were involved in asymmetric relationships, usually with boys and not other mature men.» (p. 442).

«It was well known to the British in India that Muslim sexuality was ambivalent, even hypocritical […] To get a boy in Peshawar, he [Searight] wrote, ‘was easier than to pick the flowers by the wayside’.» (p. 443).

«The ‘Paidiology’ list at the back of the volume consists almost entirely of the 125 boys from the Indian period, 1909 to 1917, and it is certainly incomplete […] The tables record for each boy his forename, age, and ‘race’ […] Invariably the boys —Mahmud, Abdul, Umar, Mazuffar, and the rest—» (p. 446).

«To begin with, his contacts in Bengal were with Gurkha boys in their mid-teens, Kaul, Lachman, Bahadur, and Lobzang the Tibetan, ‘slim brown enchanters’ […] A defining moment occurred in Calcutta in 1911 when he was approached […] by a fourteen-year-old seductive Narayan, who, once they had found a room, penetrated him, and thus ‘taught me how the passive love is won’.» (p. 447).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/HectorAMacdonald.jpg/371px-HectorAMacdonald.jpg
Sir Hector MacDonald

Understanding the British Empire
http://books.google.es/books?id=iylEklKX_WQC


«Natural population growth was retarded also by the considerable sexual inbalance that existed throught the [17th] century. Besides being an immigrant society, THE CHESAPEAKE WAS EMPHATICALLY A MALE SOCIETY. [...] SIX TIMES MORE MEN THAN WOMEN EMIGRATED IN THE 1630S, and although greater numbers of females took ship after 1650, men continued to outnumber women by nearly three to one throughout the rest of the century.»

The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume I: The Origins of Empire, p. 182
http://books.google.es/books?id=eQHSivGzEEMC

[LightHouse89]

In the south, there are many people that do not care for the blacks. There are some that just don't care to deal with them because of the way many of them act and there are some that flat out don't like them. But there are also some that do not mind them and have no problems with them whatsoever. But the disdain for them is probably higher in the south than the rest of the country.

Disdain for them here is growing as well for the afro-mestizos who cause alot of social problems here. But they cause issues where ever they go. I never got along with them even as a young child. Most blacks here have zero relation to the local culture or people....so it is understandable for them to not fit in. Also after the boston bombings alot of muslims have complained about racism against them here.

[KawaiiKawaii]

Most people in the south generally have that "Southern hospitality" thing going for them.

Yep, that's what I meant.

[LightHouse89]

I dont care, 5% of "white" Americans with black blood what is... around 12-15 millions of them? still a lot.
Add them these "White" Americans with Amerindian blood and you will see how much white they are :rolleyes:


No problems with them, ofc


Re-read that post of mine about racial mix in the Briish colonies, you need do it.


[QUOTE=Oneeye;3066251]I'm 100% European going by McDonald:


http://i1065.photobucket.com/albums/u399/hammer1115/Christopher_Hammersla_Full_20120401185638BGA1.png (http://s1065.photobucket.com/user/hammer1115/media/Christopher_Hammersla_Full_20120401185638BGA1.png. html)




And I'm 99.9& European according to 23andme.

http://i1065.photobucket.com/albums/u399/hammer1115/d57eae5b-7ab8-481b-936c-8af59fe11c77_zps496d5982.png (http://s1065.photobucket.com/user/hammer1115/media/d57eae5b-7ab8-481b-936c-8af59fe11c77_zps496d5982.png.html)




0,1% is noise for sure imo. But I believed to remember that you scored highest percentages.
ok, nevermind.


What I posted is not only about East India Company, you are the moron. And it was an answer to that post of 1eye about Spanish colonies vs British colonies in racial mix issues.




Again for you, Jimmy, read, re-read, enjoy and wake up

«Scots played an extremely influentian role as Indian agents all along the frontier, especially in the South. Indeed, Scottish Indian agents and merchants frequently intermarried with the Indians and produced generations of Indian chiefs with Scottish roots. Three in particular should be mentioned at this time.

In 1783, Alexander McGillivray was elevated to the status of a chief of the Creek Nation in what is now parts of Georgia and Alabama. McGillivray’s father had been a British Indian agent whose wife was half-Creek and half French. […]

Another Creek chief of Scottish heritage was William McIntosh. He was born in 1775 from the marriage between John McIntosh of Borlum, Scotland, who was a British Indian agent, and a Creek princess. […]

Perhaps the greatest Scottish-Indian was Chief John Ross (Kooweskowe) of the Cherokee Nation. He was born in 1790 near Lookout Mountain on the border of Georgia and Tennessee. His father, David Ross, had been a British Indian agent and a Loyalist in the Revolution. His mother was Mary McDonald Ross, whose mother was Cherokee and whose father was Scottish.» (pp. 155-156).

The Scottish Settlers of America: The 17th and 18th Centuries
http://books.google.es/books?id=j9Vpdkvc2IcC



«Mixed-race subjects were commonly called “country-born,” “East Indian,” “half-cast,” and “Eurasian,” in this period, as the East India Company state made numerous distinctions based on racial differences which were further elaborated as the Company state matured into the British Raj.» (p. 15)

«Although there was little documentary proof of interracial liaisons, the mixed-race population was growing as THERE WERE SIX TIMES AS MANY EURASIANS BEING BORN IN INDIA THAN “PURE” EUROPEANS.» (p. 40).

«Officers of the East India Company’s armies had established the Military Orphan Society in 1782 to educate these mixed-race children while removing them from their mother’s care. Subsequently, many more schools to train the children of Englishmen were founded, and by the 1800s, over 30 such schools existed in Calcutta alone.

Women who were Eurasian, or mixed-race, were always sexually suspect, even when THEY CONVERTED AND MARRIED, MAKING THEMSELVES INTO “LEGITIMATE” WIVES.» (p. 55).

«THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITIES OF INTERRACIAL COUPLES WITH MIXED-RACE CHILDREN, ESPECIALLY AMONG HIGH-RANKING EUROPEAN OFFICIALS, EXISTED ACROSS THE INDIAN SUBCONTINENT in towns that were outside the Company’s dominions. [...] Covenanted Company officials such as Harry Verelst, Philip Francis, James Rennell, John Shore, Neill Edmonstone, Charles Warre Malet, and John Bristow kept Indian female companions. John Bristow and Nathaniel Middleton […] had mixed-race children baptized at St. John’s Church in Calcutta before they were legitimately married.» (p. 76).

«The narratives of the relationships and families of William Palmer and James Achilles Kirkpatrick demonstrate the ways in which interracial relationships and mixed-race families of high-ranking officials and noblewomen of the local princely courts contributed to intercultural negotiation and exchange […] PALMER COHABITED WITH A MUSLIM NOBLEWOMAN, BUT HIS CHILDREN WERE ALL BAPTIZED AND SUBSEQUENTLY MARRIED EUROPEANS. YET WHILE PALMER’S DESCENDANTS RESIDED IN INDIA WITH EUROPEAN AIRS, KIRKPATRICK’S CHILDREN LIVED IN ENGLAND.» (p. 105).

«SOLDIERS’ FAMILIES FREQUENTLY INCLUDED NATIVE WIVES AND MIXED-RACE CHILDREN, the policy of supporting an Anglicized but mixed-race population funded by the Company became more complicated.» (p. 213).

«From 1783 through the 1810s, marrying off half-caste orphan girls with European soldiers was seemingly uncomplicated by anxieties about promoting miscegenation. Instead, it was seen by military authorities as a way to maintain appropriate male guardianship over female orphans […] By marrying off half-cast women to European soldiers, the orphan sodiety was complicit in ACTIVELY PROMOTING INTERRACIAL MARRIAGES, MISCEGENATION, AND THE GROWTH OF A MIXED-RACE OR CREOLE POPULATION THAT DILUTED THE RACIAL PURITY OF THE BRITISH COMMUNITY IN INDIA.» (p. 238).

«Even when the numbers of men acknowledging interracial relationships and illegitimate children declined in the early 1800s, THE NUMBER OF MIXED-RACE CHILDREN BORN GREW EVERY YEAR paralleling an increase in colonial companions leaving wills, suggesting that INTERRACIAL SEX DID NOT FADE AWAY, but that it was recorded with less frequency in colonial archives. […] While cohabiting with a local woman and Anglicizing mixed-race children was sometimes seen as beneficial to the nascent colonial state of the East India company, these practices met wit little resistance from native elites, probably because THESE RELATIONSHIPS INVOLVED WOMEN OF THE LOWER SOCIAL AND CASTE ORDERS.*» (p. 249).

Sex and the Family in Colonial India: The Making of Empire
http://books.google.es/books?hl=es&id=dmJj8ibGQp4C

«In every colony, wherever the unmarried white man found himself isolated, liaisons with local women were common in the nineteenth century. […] IN THE EARLY NINETEENTH CENTURY THERE WAS SEXUAL INTERACTION WITH THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF NEW ZEALAND, AUSTRALIA AND SOUTH AFRICA, including the trekboer regions. WHEN CAPE COLONY CAME UNDER BRITISH RULE IN 1807, PERHAPS TEN PER CENT OF WHITES WERE MARRIED TO NON-WHITES* (probably including Asians and Coloureds); under three per cent of Cape marriages were to pure-blooded Africans, even less in rural areas. BUT WHILE MARRIAGE WAS NOT FREQUENT, AND INTERMARRIAGE ALREADY IN DECLINE, MISCEGENATION WAS STILL QUITE HIGH. IT HAS BEEN CALCULATED THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF NON-WHITE BLOOOD IN TODAY’S AFRIKANER COMMUNITY IS PERHAPS SEVEN PER CENT. [W. M. Freund, ‘Race in social structure of South Africa, 1652-1836’, Race and Class, XVIII, 1976, pp. 53-67; R. Ross, Adam Kok’s Griquas, Cambridge, 1976, p. 4; the key work, apparently, is J. A. Heese, Die herkoms van die Afrikaner, 1652-1867, 1971]» (p. 107).


«Bibi is a Hindustani word meaning ‘high-class woman’, which in Hobson-Jobson ‘Anglo-Indian’ parlance came to mean native mistress. […] THE KEEPING OF A MISTRESS IN BRITISH INDIA BECAME A WELL-ESTABLISHED PRACTICE BY THE LATER EITGHTEENTH CENTURY, DEFENDED AS INCREASING THE KNOWLEDGE OF INDIAN AFFAIRS. SOME OFFICERS RECOMMENDED IT QUITE OPENLY, AND THE PATTERN WAS SET AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Job Charnock (d. 1693), founder of Calcutta, had three children by the Hindu mistress he had rescued from a suttee funeral pyre. George Dick (Governor of Bombay in the 1790s) kept a Maratha woman, allowing her to parade about the streets ostentatiously […] Sir David Ochterlony (the Resident of Delhi, 1803-25) apparently had thirteen mistresses among Indian ladies. Even so respectable a figure as Lord Teignmouth, Governor General (1793-98) and a British and Foreig Bible Society founder, had such a liaison. COL. JAMES SKINNER (1778-1841), FOUNDER OF THE CRACK REGIMENT ‘SKINNER’S HORSE’, WAS SAID TO HAVE HAD A HAREM OF FOURTEEN WIVES, THOUGH THE FAMILY HOTLY DENIED THERE WERE EVER MORE THAN SEVEN; EIGHTY [¡80!*] CHILDREN CLAIMED HIM AS THEIR FATHER.


Lower down the social scale, too, many of the British in India formally married Hindu women or (preferably) half-Indians, known as Anglo-Indians, or in Victorian times as Eurasians. IT IS ESTIMATED THAT NINETY PER CENT OF THE BRITISH IN INDIA BY THE MID-EIGHTEENTH CENTURY MADE SUCH MARRIAGES* […] the directors of the East India Company on 8 April 1778 declared that because of the importance of soldiers’ marrying Indian women in Madras, THEY WERE ‘CONTENT TO ENCOURAGE AT SOME EXPENSE’ SUCH MARRIAGES, MAKING A CHRISTENING PRESENT OF FIVE RUPEES FOR EVERY CHILD OF A RANK-SOLDIER BAPTISED. IN OTHER WORDS, A DELIBERATE POLICY OF INTERMARRIAGE WAS ENCOURAGED BY THE COMPANY» (pp. 115-116).


«Although intermarriage was virtually at an end by the beginning of the nineteenth century, the bibi still held her place. METCALFE (ACTING GOVERNOR-GENERAL 1835-36) HAD THREE EURASIAN SONS BETWEEN 1809 AND 1817 BY AN INDIAN WOMAN HE HAD MET AT THE COURT OF RANJIT SINGH. HE NEVER MADE A EUROPEAN MARRIAGE.» (p. 117).

Empire and Sexuality: The British Experience
http://books.google.es/books?id=DVS8AAAAIAAJ


«THE ARMY WAS NOT WHOLLY AGAINST ITS SOLDIERS MARRYING MIXED-RACE OR NATIVE WOMEN AS IT WAS MUCH CHEAPER THAN SHIPPING OVER EUROPEAN WOMEN FOR THEM TO MARRY.» (p. 37).

«Until the closing decades of the eighteenth century, British attitudes towards persons of mixed descent were not necessarily negative. Many mixed-race people had been more or less unproblematically assimilated as individuals into the British establishment. IT WAS NOT UNCOMMON FOR HIGH-RANKING OFFICIALS TO HAVE MIXED OFFSPRING WITH INDIAN WOMEN. INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE AND CONCUBINARY ARRANGEMENTS WERE GENERALLY TOLERATED IF NOT POSITIVELY ENCOURAGED. High-ranking British men often invested in the futures of their mixed-race offspring, sending them to the metropole for higher education.» (p. 60).

«As a Eurasian writer, Kenneth Wallace, remarked in his book (1930), ‘SO MUCH INTERMARRIAGE TAKES PLACE BETWEEN DOMICILED EUROPEANS AND ANGLO-INDIANS (I.E. EURASIANS) THAT IT IS ALMOST SAFE TO SAY THAT DOMICILED EUROPEANS OF ONE GENERATION ARE SUCCEEDED BY ANGLO-INDIANS IN THE NEXT’. [Wallace, The Eurasian Problem Constructively Approached, 29]» (p. 67).

The Meaning of White: Race, Class, and the 'Domiciled Community' in British India 1858-1930
http://books.google.es/books?id=8Mt78VcAhfIC


«Interestingly, the Company’s men showed a similar openness to native “abilities” when it came to their sexual lives. During the period of Company governance in India (roughly between 1757 and 1858), MARRIAGE BETWEEN BRITISH MEN AND INDIAN WOMEN WAS COMMON. AND THERE WAS CONSIDERABLY MORE MISCEGENATION THAN THERE WAS INTERMARRIAGE. “I now commenced a regular course of fυck¡ng with native women,” wrote one Englishman, recalling his early days in India as a sixteen-year-old Company cadet. Another Company employee waxed more philosophical: “THOSE WHO HAVE LIVED WITH A NATIVE WOMAN FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIME NEVER MARRY A EUROPEAN… so amusingly playful, so anxious to oblige and please [are they], that A PERSON AFTER BEING ACCUSTOMED TO THEIR SOCIETY SHRINKS FROM THE IDEA OF ENCOUNTERING THE WHIMS OR YELDING TO THE FANCIES OF AN ENGLISHWOMAN.”

The Company’s promiscuity, both sexual and religious, outraged English evangelicals back in London.» (p. 215)

Day of Empire: How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance—and Why They Fall
http://books.google.es/books?id=nOSZPne0zVwC


«Mixed-race subjects were commonly called “country-born,” “East Indian,” “half-cast,” and “Eurasian,” in this period, as the East India Company state made numerous distinctions based on racial differences which were further elaborated as the Company state matured into the British Raj.» (p. 15)

Sex and the Family in Colonial India: The Making of Empire
http://books.google.es/books?hl=es&id=dmJj8ibGQp4C


«Intermarriage between Highlanders and Indians, as well as between Highlanders and the daughters of other Highlanders and Indians, reached all across the continent and produced a population in both Canada and athe United States that traced its descent from both Scottish clans and Indian tribes. Highland men and Indian women generated webs of allegiance and identity that persist to this day.» (pp. 147-148).

«Englishmen in the seventeenth century resisted intercourse and intermarriage with Indian women as a threat to their assumed cultural supremacy and their social order. However, in the eighteenth century they engaged in plenty of both on the frontiers, especially in the fur trade, where Indian partners brought commercial andvantages, as well as sexual companionship. […]

“I am really at a loss how to pass my time in this remote part of the Country if I don’t take one of the Squaws into the Woods and play at all fours with her,” one Highland soldier stationed at the Abenaki town of Saint Francis (now Odanak) near Montreal wrote to his brother in 1762. Simon Fraser boasted of his sexual conquests with Indian women to Sir William Johnson (whose own sexual exploits with Iroquois women were legendary).» (p. 148).

«European men and Indian women all across America produced children of mixed parentage, and Highland Scots probably had no more interactions with Indian women than did the French, who intermarried so commonly with Indian peoples of the Great Lakes and Canadian prairies that a “new” Métis population developed with a distinct ethnic identity. Nonetheless, Scots took up with Indian women in large numbers, far more proportionately than did their English counterparts. An investigation of ethnic patterns of intermarriage with Indian people in the Pacific Northwest in the last two decades of the nineteenth century, for example, found that foreigh-born settlers were far more likely than their American-born neighbors to marry Indians. Scottish settlers accounted for only 1.4 percent of the total population but for 5.6 percent of marriage with Indians, a rate of intermarriage four times what would be predicted merely from their proportion of the region’s total population.» (p. 149).

«In a world where prosperous Scots traders often owned plantations and slaves, Scots and Indian intermarriages sometimes became entwined with African intermarriage. Robert Grierson, a native of Scotland […] married a woman named Sinnugee […] Grierson was “much attached to this country and means to spend his days here with his Indian family and connexions.” Grierson and Sinnugee had eight children and many descendants, including those of a daughter who had children with a man of African descent.» (p. 156).

«The North West Company had few compuctions about intermarriage: All ranks took Indian partners, and the company accepted some responsibility for maintaining Native wives and families.» (p. 157).

«Scots may have taken more easily than Englishmen to the “custom of the country,” but living with Indian women was widespread, even standard, practice. By 1821, when the two companies merged, “practically all offices of the Hudson’s Bay and North West Companies, and many lower-ranked employees as well, were allied with women born in the Indian country.” […]» (p. 158).

«When James Carnegie, the Earl of Southesk, traveledthrough Saskatchewan and the Rockies in 1859 and 1860, Scots and Scots-Indian Métis were ubiquitous. When Lady Ishbel Aberdeen visited the Blackfeet in the 1860s, she saw “many faces reminding of Scottish characteristics.” Treaty commissioners in Manitoba reported “a large population of French Métis and Scotch Halfbreeds.” Although there was much general resemblance, the Earl of Southesk wrote, Scots-Indian Métis differed considerably from those of French Indian origin. They often had “the fair hair and other physical characteristics of a northern race, while in disposition they are more industrious and more actuated by a sense of duty.”» (p. 164).

White People, Indians, and Highlanders: Tribal People and Colonial Encounters in Scotland and America
http://books.google.es/books?id=kL8bYs02ahoC


«The East India Company was licensed by the British state to monopolise trade with the subcontinent and points east. When its mercenary army, commanded by Robert Clive, defeated the Nawab of Bengal, Siraj-ud-Dowla, at Plassey in 1757 and installed his uncle Mir Jafar as his successor, the EIC was able to commence the ‘rape of Bengal’, plundering the territory and its taxpayers freely.» (p. 178).

Gods, Mongrels and Demons
http://books.google.es/books?id=GAmFGPI8A5gC


«Allen Edwardes has written a biography of Robert Clive, the British diplomat and explorer, which is, as Edwardes’ subtitle indicates, effectively “a sexual history of the conquest of Hindustan”. But Clive was also the great sexual nabob of the of the Indian subcontinent. […] Clive’s ‘conquest’ was sexual, partly homosexual. […] according to his own manuscript diaries […] Clive commited sodomy on dozens of natives in orgies that today seem scarcely credible. […] even his French adventures among the confrérie de sodomie seem tame in comparison to those he had in India.» (p. 31).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Robert_Clive%2C_1st_Baron_Clive_by_Nathaniel_Dance %2C_%28later_Sir_Nathaniel_Dance-Holland%2C_Bt%29.jpg/473px-Robert_Clive%2C_1st_Baron_Clive_by_Nathaniel_Dance %2C_%28later_Sir_Nathaniel_Dance-Holland%2C_Bt%29.jpg

Perilous Enlightenment: pre- and post-modern discourses: sexual, historical
http://books.google.es/books?id=6QoNAQAAIAAJ


«The British army in India was given to same-sex activities, in the context of what has been described as ‘the prevailing homosocial structure of desire in British India’. There are snippets of evidence from the 1830s and 1840s, such as Sir Richard Burton’s notorious investigation of the boy-brothels of Karachi in 1845, but the rest is silence, broken only by the terrible tragedy of Major-General Sir Hector Macdonald in Ceylon, committing suicide in 1903 after allegations of sex with a considerable number of Sinhalese boys.»

«It has always been understood that a major justification for ‘regimental brothels’ in India was the fear that without access to female prostitutes, there would be, as one viceroy put it, ‘ever more deplorable evils… an increase in unnatural crimes’» (p. 440).

«The survival of a lengthy erotic manuscript, of indisputable authenticity, written by a serving Indian army officer, Captain Kenneth Searight, is of great significance. […] embedded in it is a chronicle of imperial experience, all the more important because of its unique revelation of a prolonged and intensive set of sexual relationships with Indian boys.» (p. 441).

«the vast majority of men in supposedly ‘homosexual’ cultures in the past —whether in ancient Greece and Rome […] Nelson’s navy, or even late Victorian and Edwardian England— were involved in asymmetric relationships, usually with boys and not other mature men.» (p. 442).

«It was well known to the British in India that Muslim sexuality was ambivalent, even hypocritical […] To get a boy in Peshawar, he [Searight] wrote, ‘was easier than to pick the flowers by the wayside’.» (p. 443).

«The ‘Paidiology’ list at the back of the volume consists almost entirely of the 125 boys from the Indian period, 1909 to 1917, and it is certainly incomplete […] The tables record for each boy his forename, age, and ‘race’ […] Invariably the boys —Mahmud, Abdul, Umar, Mazuffar, and the rest—» (p. 446).

«To begin with, his contacts in Bengal were with Gurkha boys in their mid-teens, Kaul, Lachman, Bahadur, and Lobzang the Tibetan, ‘slim brown enchanters’ […] A defining moment occurred in Calcutta in 1911 when he was approached […] by a fourteen-year-old seductive Narayan, who, once they had found a room, penetrated him, and thus ‘taught me how the passive love is won’.» (p. 447).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/HectorAMacdonald.jpg/371px-HectorAMacdonald.jpg
Sir Hector MacDonald

Understanding the British Empire
http://books.google.es/books?id=iylEklKX_WQC


«Natural population growth was retarded also by the considerable sexual inbalance that existed throught the [17th] century. Besides being an immigrant society, THE CHESAPEAKE WAS EMPHATICALLY A MALE SOCIETY. [...] SIX TIMES MORE MEN THAN WOMEN EMIGRATED IN THE 1630S, and although greater numbers of females took ship after 1650, men continued to outnumber women by nearly three to one throughout the rest of the century.»

The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume I: The Origins of Empire, p. 182
http://books.google.es/books?id=eQHSivGzEEMC

Again dipshit.....same post with the same info that has zero relation to my ethnic group or local history. The fact is racial mixing was more socially acceptable in parts of South America [not all]. If you compared the typical blonde haired blue eyed new england to a tri-racial puerto rican you would understand the harsh reality.

We are aware of the British Empire and pro Interracial mixing behind them......again we are not British and not related to the British Empire. You have no clue what you are talking about.

[Leto]

Cristiano, what the fuck are you trying to prove? You mean white Americans are not white? It's not true at all. Even with a minor non-caucasoid admixture.

[Cristiano viejo]

A great film, I admit

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRwUPqX7wEFwLJIVQaezZ2V_xAgegyy_ muwAvLJFCz7KnsyLgtjfg

Cajun rules!

[Leto]

Again dipshit.....same post with the same info that has zero relation to my ethnic group or local history.
You should have deleted the text in the quote. It's too fucking large.

[LightHouse89]

Cristiano, what the fuck are you trying to prove? You mean white Americans are not white? It's not true at all. Even with a minor non-caucasoid admixture.

there is hardly any admixture nationally and almost none in 99% of the country. He is an idiot. He really does not know anything about this countries past and the racial laws.....one drop rule [the good days when this country was ran by normal men].

[Cristiano viejo]

Again dipshit.....same post with the same info that has zero relation to my ethnic group or local history. The fact is racial mixing was more socially acceptable in parts of South America [not all]. If you compared the typical blonde haired blue eyed new england to a tri-racial puerto rican you would understand the harsh reality.

We are aware of the British Empire and pro Interracial mixing behind them......again we are not British and not related to the British Empire. You have no clue what you are talking about.
16% of people in Massachutets are blacks, Amerindians etc how can you compare Puerto Rico (which is "part of USA btw) which was a slave colony, with NE?


Cristiano, what the fuck are you trying to prove? You mean white Americans are not white? It's not true at all. Even with a minor non-caucasoid admixture.
Nah, just it´s funny that people say nonsense about British vs Spanish empires, and deniying irrefutable facts.
I can not to keep quiet.

[Cristiano viejo]

You should have deleted the text in the quote. It's too fucking large.

And annoying, I see.

[Isleño]

My state recently proclaimed they want to increase welfare spending so more afro-mestizos and blacks are coming here but into the cities where crime rates are growing still....alot of stabbings and gun crimes here now. This is why more whites are leaving for states like new hampshire or more north. Some even leave for canada.Well Louisiana has always had a sizable black population as the racial breakdown of the state is around 70 white/30 black, give a percent or two for non-whites and non-blacks. Reason for this is that New Orleans is a port city and was classically a place where slave ships would dock and auctions were held in New Orleans where rich whites would come from all over the U.S. to purchase slaves and many of the rich in Louisiana had plantations had owned large numbers of slaves to work the plantations and the cotton fields and kept a sizable portion of the slave stock for themselves in Louisiana. But even until today, both whites and blacks usually live in their own neighborhoods. There are a few mixed neighborhoods, but it's more common to see white neighborhoods and black neighborhoods. This is actually self-segregation. Both parties prefer to live among their own and have no problem with it and do not see it at all as racist in any way.

In the city of New Orleans, there are rich local whites and poor local blacks that live there, as well as incoming out-of-town hipster type whites. The middle class and working class local whites all had left the city by the 80's and white-flighted to the surrounding suburbs. Before the 80's, New Orleans was about 70% white and 30% black, just like the percentages of the state of Louisiana, but since white flight, it went from that to the exact opposite of 70% black and 30% white. But since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, it gained mass migrations of out-of-towner whites of the hipster variety and is now about a city with equal parts of whites and blacks. There are select areas of the city where the middle class and working class local whites still remain. It's just the big thing now in New Orleans is swarms of whites from out-of-state are moving to New Orleans. They move right in the middle of the ghetto and next thing you know, after many of them following suit, the ghetto is now a white neighborhood full of out-of-town whites and barely any blacks if any. Again, they seem to be of the hipster variety, very different from the local whites of the area. Local whites would have not dared to move in the middle of the ghetto, but the ones from out-of-state do it without a second thought.

There seems to be a bit of a culture war going on because of this new scenario. Although the new residents are white just like the local whites, the culture is different and the local whites actually have culture closer to the local blacks that the out-of-town whites are replacing. So it's a funny thing, because I'm starting to see a few local whites moving back to the city into these white areas, but the two cultures are clashing a bit between local white and out-of-town white. Strange. But for the most part, they do get along, where as the local blacks have a grudge against both sets of whites for displacing them. But then the local whites bring up the argument that the local blacks displaced them 50 years before when the city was 70% white. So it's crazy, lol.

[Also]

They are not white if they have a drop of non-white blood. Thus white americans non-caucasoid admixture is an oxymoron.

[Tooting Carmen]

They are not white if they have a drop of non-white blood. Thus white americans non-caucasoid admixture is an oxymoron.

Then what does that say about Brazil? On that basis, Whites would barely exceed 5% there.

[Also]

Then what does that say about Brazil? On that basis, Whites would barely exceed 5% there.

What does Brazil has to do with this topic? The criteria is the same for eveybody.

[Tooting Carmen]

What does Brazil has to do with this topic? The criteria is the same for eveybody.

That those who claim the White population in Brazil is so high would have to think again, if even Americans' whiteness is called into question like this.

[KawaiiKawaii]

Then what does that say about Brazil? On that basis, Whites would barely exceed 5% there.

The definition of White in the US and White in Latin America is different. The US were much more "square" when it came to races. Brazil and the rest of the Latin America were more liberal, people could move classes, plus they have their pardo, mestizo, castizo, whatnot.

[Also]

That those who claim the White population in Brazil is so high would have to think again, if even Americans' whiteness is called into question like this.

I don't know anyone who claims it is very high, but still it is a lot higher than some clueless people think.

[Tooting Carmen]

Out of curiosity, what proportion of people in this thread of mine look White? (This is NOT an OWD question, but I think the definition of 'White' is far from objective and universal). http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?130747-People-of-Colombia

[Oneeye]

I dont care, 5% of "white" Americans with black blood what is... around 12-15 millions of them? still a lot.
Add them these "White" Americans with Amerindian blood and you will see how much white they are :rolleyes:


It may seem a lot, but in a country of over 320 million, it is insignificant.



I personally have not seen any more white Americans with Native American showing up than SSA. I doubt that the number of European Americans with such is much, if any higher, than the 4% with SSA.


There is no comparison to the large scale mixing of natives and Europeans of Latin American countries... what percentage of them have absolutely no native and/or black showing in their Ancestry Compositions?



I've looked at this thread a while back, and didn't see any Mexicans that were solely European in descent.


http://www.forumnostrum.com/showthread.php?959-23andme-Results-of-Mexicans&highlight=mexican





0,1% is noise for sure imo. But I believed to remember that you scored highest percentages.
ok, nevermind.


I'm pure vanilla. :cool:




As for the articles, I already knew about the eastern Native American tribes absorbing many whites, but it wasn't nearly as much of a two way street in regards to that. And I don't care about British mixing in India, Australia, or even Canada. Ok, actually I'd love to have a decent comparison to see who has mixed more.

[Isleño]

I dont care, 5% of "white" Americans with black blood what is... around 12-15 millions of them? still a lot.
Add them these "White" Americans with Amerindian blood and you will see how much white they are :rolleyes:Well that's true, actually since there are 200 million white Americans in the U.S., that would translate to about 10 million whites having some detectable degree of Sub-Saharan African DNA. But then we have to examine the amount. According to some studies out there, the amount is usually less than 1% on average, but there are some that exceed that and are 2-3% even as high as 5%. But they are much less common among that 10 million and most of them fall within range of less than 1%-1%. Which as you know is barely anything and you can find this in Europe. As for Native American DNA, yes that's true it's larger and more widespread than the SSA, but even that is small on average. Studies show the average for Native American among whites is at the 2-3% range on average, and only in a portion of the population. I can't remember how large the portion percentage of American whites was that had it. I'd have to go searching for the study. But don't get me wrong, there are some whites that have up to 5%, even a few with 10% Amerind DNA, but they are a tiny minority and can't be used as a mean average.

From my findings on North American whites, they are some of the most homogenous whites in the Americas. Many I've seen are in the 95%-100% range and a minority of those in the 90%-94% range. But still, most I've seen were in the 90's and very European. This is a stark contrast to Latin America in which whites there in the 90's, are a much smaller population in number than in North America.


No problems with them, ofc

Well that's good :) I ask because I'm always interested in the opinions of Spaniards from Spain about us Spanish-Americans, their brethren in the Americas.

[LightHouse89]

16% of people in Massachutets are blacks, Amerindians etc how can you compare Puerto Rico (which is "part of USA btw) which was a slave colony, with NE?


Nah, just it´s funny that people say nonsense about British vs Spanish empires, and deniying irrefutable facts.
I can not to keep quiet.

16% ? LOL no more like 5% at most or maybe 6% and they are situated in three big cities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts#Race_and_ancestry

Wrong again! Puerto Rico is a territory not a state you fucking idiot.

[LightHouse89]

Well Louisiana has always had a sizable black population as the racial breakdown of the state is around 70 white/30 black, give a percent or two for non-whites and non-blacks. Reason for this is that New Orleans is a port city and was classically a place where slave ships would dock and auctions were held in New Orleans where rich whites would come from all over the U.S. to purchase slaves and many of the rich in Louisiana had plantations had owned large numbers of slaves to work the plantations and the cotton fields and kept a sizable portion of the slave stock for themselves in Louisiana. But even until today, both whites and blacks usually live in their own neighborhoods. There are a few mixed neighborhoods, but it's more common to see white neighborhoods and black neighborhoods. This is actually self-segregation. Both parties prefer to live among their own and have no problem with it and do not see it at all as racist in any way.

In the city of New Orleans, there are rich local whites and poor local blacks that live there, as well as incoming out-of-town hipster type whites. The middle class and working class local whites all had left the city by the 80's and white-flighted to the surrounding suburbs. Before the 80's, New Orleans was about 70% white and 30% black, just like the percentages of the state of Louisiana, but since white flight, it went from that to the exact opposite of 70% black and 30% white. But since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, it gained mass migrations of out-of-towner whites of the hipster variety and is now about a city with equal parts of whites and blacks. There are select areas of the city where the middle class and working class local whites still remain. It's just the big thing now in New Orleans is swarms of whites from out-of-state are moving to New Orleans. They move right in the middle of the ghetto and next thing you know, after many of them following suit, the ghetto is now a white neighborhood full of out-of-town whites and barely any blacks if any. Again, they seem to be of the hipster variety, very different from the local whites of the area. Local whites would have not dared to move in the middle of the ghetto, but the ones from out-of-state do it without a second thought.

There seems to be a bit of a culture war going on because of this new scenario. Although the new residents are white just like the local whites, the culture is different and the local whites actually have culture closer to the local blacks that the out-of-town whites are replacing. So it's a funny thing, because I'm starting to see a few local whites moving back to the city into these white areas, but the two cultures are clashing a bit between local white and out-of-town white. Strange. But for the most part, they do get along, where as the local blacks have a grudge against both sets of whites for displacing them. But then the local whites bring up the argument that the local blacks displaced them 50 years before when the city was 70% white. So it's crazy, lol.

Yes here it is opposite. In the 1970s we were 96-97% White with 3% Blacks living in Boston mostly most jobs were there and easy for them to have access to them]. New Orleans blacks came here and clashed with local blacks believe it or not.....the local blacks view them as trashy and dislike them for other reasons.....some moved in my town and the cops were always over there questioning them. The moved afew years ago as it was hard for them to find work and they did not get along with people here.

Alot of puerto ricans are here which are the worst. We are not naturally very xenophobic but the recent demographic change which is significant is causing alot of problems here.

[Isleño]

Disdain for them here is growing as well for the afro-mestizos who cause alot of social problems here. But they cause issues where ever they go. I never got along with them even as a young child. Most blacks here have zero relation to the local culture or people....so it is understandable for them to not fit in. Also after the boston bombings alot of muslims have complained about racism against them here.

Well remember at one time in the antebellum past, blacks were mainly from the south. That's why when many of them left the south and moved north and west, they took southern culture with them as well as accent and dialect. Ever notice many times a black person born and raised in the north or west many times has a speech or accent closely related to southern dialects in both speech pattern and accent? This is a part of the south that has never left from them. And most black culture in the north and south still has southern roots to it. Look at the cooking you find in the north and west among blacks. The "soul food" that they cook is nothing more than southern food, enjoyed by white southerners and black southerners alike. There is nothing black about it, it's just basic southern cuisine and is not tied to any particular race. But because they are the only people cooking this southern food in the north and south, in those areas was dubbed "soul food". But down south, we all know better. It's nothing more than southern food and whites cook and eat it too. I mean everyone down south makes fried chicken, baked mac and cheese, greens, cornbread, peach cobbler and drinks sweet tea, lemonade or koolaid, :picard1:

[Isleño]

A great film, I admit

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRwUPqX7wEFwLJIVQaezZ2V_xAgegyy_ muwAvLJFCz7KnsyLgtjfg

Cajun rules!
I live in Louisiana where that movie was filmed and where the Cajun people are located. They are a very tight-knit community of people and still carry their French language and traditions. But their language is dying out among the younger generations and they are becoming more like the rest of America just with a Cajun twist. They live not far from my Spanish community here in Louisiana. Many of them live in rural areas, but there are also some in the cities such as Lafayette and Baton Rouge.

[LightHouse89]

I live in Louisiana where that movie was filmed and where the Cajun people are located. They are a very tight-knit community of people and still carry their French language and traditions. But their language is dying out among the younger generations and they are becoming more like the rest of America just with a Cajun twist. They live not far from my Spanish community here in Louisiana. Many of them live in rural areas, but there are also some in the cities such as Lafayette and Baton Rouge.

All southerners hate yankees :cool: [it would seem the entire country is distrustful of us though from other american posters].

[Isleño]

They are not white if they have a drop of non-white blood. Thus white americans non-caucasoid admixture is an oxymoron.

You are on a forum that specializes in genetic examination of DNA results and genetic studies and you say things like that? Don't you know true purity is a fairytale?

[Isleño]

Then what does that say about Brazil? On that basis, Whites would barely exceed 5% there.

That's a completely delusional theory for anyone with knowledge in genetics to believe in. One drop of non-white blood does not make any white person non-white. The only thing that does that is significant enough percentages that show that usually show in phenotype. The one drop rule is invalid today and never made sense and was only used as a vehicle for discrimination. Besides, it never existed in Brazil. That was an American invention of the U.S., but is now defunct because it's complete nonsense.

[Isleño]

The definition of White in the US and White in Latin America is different. The US were much more "square" when it came to races. Brazil and the rest of the Latin America were more liberal, people could move classes, plus they have their pardo, mestizo, castizo, whatnot.
This is very true. Caste system laws were more liberal and relaxed in Latin America. According to the old Spanish caste system that was used in colonial Latin America, one could still be considered white with up to 1/8th Amerind (12.5%). Black ancestry was out of the question. But that doesn't mean all whites were 1/8th Amerind, it just allowed up to that much legally. One in Latin America could still be just as white as those in North America. But since the laws were more liberal, it allowed for more individuals in Latin America with a touch of Amerind blood than found in North America.

But North America was not completely strict, as there were many Amerinds that did enter white families and their bloodlines were admixed into many white American families. This is how today you have a large portion of white Americans with say for instance 1-3% Amerindian ancestry. Generations before them would have been more similar to those that occupied the spot in the Spanish caste system of the legal limit. But there were just less of them in North America and North America was a bit more strict. In Canada there were many "metis" too, some of which mixed into a portion of the white populations. But even then, it's a bit more in Latin America than even Canada. So it seems Latin America was the most liberal. But Latin America has also had large scale more recent immigration such as in the late 18th century stretching through the 19th century into the 20th, just like the U.S. and Canada.

[Isleño]

Yes here it is opposite. In the 1970s we were 96-97% White with 3% Blacks living in Boston mostly most jobs were there and easy for them to have access to them]. New Orleans blacks came here and clashed with local blacks believe it or not.....the local blacks view them as trashy and dislike them for other reasons.....some moved in my town and the cops were always over there questioning them. The moved afew years ago as it was hard for them to find work and they did not get along with people here.

Alot of puerto ricans are here which are the worst. We are not naturally very xenophobic but the recent demographic change which is significant is causing alot of problems here.

New Orleans blacks were there? This had to be after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 right? Yeah, New Orleans blacks are very crime inclined, I think more than other American blacks. The day before Katrina hit, New Orleans was 67% black. Now after Katrina due to the influx of whites from other states moving in the city, blacks are about 50% of New Orleans right now. In 1960, New Orleans was about 70% white. After the civil rights movement of the mid 60's, blacks started moving into the city from the little black country towns of Louisiana and Mississippi where former slaves settled. Major white flight took place during the 70's in New Orleans and by the 1980 census, the city was half white, half black, down from 70% white 20 years earlier. Throughout the 80's the city became majority black up until Katrina in 2005 to it's percentage of 67% black.

Now the city is at 1980 Census demographic levels from the addition of whites moving to the city from other states after Hurricane Katrina of 2005. New Orleans became a majority black city in the early 80's. Before then, it was majority white for most of its 293 year history. Before the civil rights movement of the 60's and 70's happened, blacks made up 30% of New Orleans, whites made up 70%.

[Isleño]

All southerners hate yankees :cool: [it would seem the entire country is distrustful of us though from other american posters].

I don't hate Yankees. That's really the old fashioned way people in the south used to think. Sure there are still some here that think like that but among the more modern generations today, I don't think many don't really even think about it. It can be funny sometimes that some of them come down here and try to act the way we do in our culture or it can be annoying when they come down here and all they want to talk about is the racial history of the south (which to me, in their minds, that's all they think about us....south=race problems, but they've had some too, the north isn't innocent). I left the U.S. to visit in other countries before and they refer to Americans as Yankees or Yanks in general, which many times infuriates Southerners because to us, the only Yankees or Yanks are from the north. The fastest way to get a bad stare from a southerner is to call him a Yankee or Yank, lol.

[LightHouse89]

I don't hate Yankees. That's really the old fashioned way people in the south used to think. Sure there are still some here that think like that but among the more modern generations today, I don't think many don't really even think about it. It can be funny sometimes that some of them come down here and try to act the way we do in our culture or it can be annoying when they come down here and all they want to talk about is the racial history of the south (which to me, in their minds, that's all they think about us....south=race problems, but they've had some too, the north isn't innocent). I left the U.S. to visit in other countries before and they refer to Americans as Yankees or Yanks in general, which many times infuriates Southerners because to us, the only Yankees or Yanks are from the north. The fastest way to get a bad stare from a southerner is to call him a Yankee or Yank, lol.

Yes some from here find the south fascinating but think the KKK is still around. But the KKK is here too but mostly in rural Connecticut area. Here there were many racial clashes in the past and most blacks were shunned even during the civil war, they came here but ended up traveling to canada via the trains to find work or went out west to build the rail road [which alot of them did do]. But yes to answer your other question here many blacks came here after 2005.

[Cristiano viejo]

It may seem a lot, but in a country of over 320 million, it is insignificant.
Not 320, hell. We are talking only about the "white" population.


There is no comparison to the large scale mixing of natives and Europeans of Latin American countries... what percentage of them have absolutely no native and/or black showing in their Ancestry Compositions?

I've looked at this thread a while back, and didn't see any Mexicans that were solely European in descent.

http://www.forumnostrum.com/showthread.php?959-23andme-Results-of-Mexicans&highlight=mexican
Do you know how many Spaniards were to America? I guess the answer is no. Very, very, very few, nothing to do with Anglos. And in a bigger area. People believe that any Latino has certain amount of Spanish blood but thats is bullshit. Most of them are purely Natives, or/and mixed with slave blacks mainly. People like the Bolivian Evo Morales is a good example what I am telling.


As for the articles, I already knew about the eastern Native American tribes absorbing many whites, but it wasn't nearly as much of a two way street in regards to that. And I don't care about British mixing in India, Australia, or even Canada. Ok, actually I'd love to have a decent comparison to see who has mixed more.
You should, before accusing other for racial mix. Also you should taking account that your country was part of them, and racial mix happened in. Damn, even your president Thomas Jefferson had negro descendants... is not funny that an American user talked me some posts ago about purity laws in US taking Thomas Jefferson in his avatar? :laugh2:

Here you have a bit more information, read and comment (Jim Crow will be happy with the news about Massachussets):


Racial mix in America (USA) comes from old times:

“the intentions of the people in Virginia,” according to a 1625 account, “were NO WAYS TO SETTLE THERE A COLONY, but to get a little wealth by tobacco, then inprice, and to return for England.”

Sexual Revolution in Early America
http://books.google.es/books?id=Tngxrcg-kqEC&pg=PA162#v=onepage&q&f=false


… WOMEN WERE SCARCE IN EARLY AMERICA. NO WOMEN ACCOMPANIED THE SETTLERS WHO ESTABLISHED JAMESTOWN, VIRGINIA IN 1607. AND WHEN THE PILGRIMS LANDED AT PLYMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS IN 1620, ONLY 28 WOMEN NUMBERED AMONG THE 100 OR SO PASSENGERS ON THE MAYFLOWER. In a rich new world, marriageable white women remained rare…

Colonial Love & Marriage
http://www.genealogymagazine.com/coloandma.html


by 1625, MEN STILL COMPRISED THREE-QUARTERS OF VIRGINIA’S WHITE POPULATION, AND, BY MID-CENTURY, THE SITUATION HAD WORSENED. Eligible ladies obviously remained hard to come by.

Genealogy Magazine. Colonial Love and Marriage
http://www.genealogymagazine.com/coloandma.html


A 1662 law decreed that the children of slaves took on the status of their mother, in contrast to common law, which conferred the father’s status on a child. The law was intended to enslave the increasing number of children fathered by white men…

A 1681 Maryland law reversed an earlier statute and reestablished that children born to free black women and black children born to white women would be free.

Understanding Race. Government: 1600-1775. Colonial Authority
http://www.understandingrace.org/history/gov/colonial_authority.html

there was early resistance to these race laws by the newly whited lower classes. When, for example, the Virginia Assembly in 1691 outlawed mixed marriages and thus mulatto offspring... residents petitioned the assembly in 1699 "for the Repeale of the Act of Assembly, Against English people’s Marrying with Negroes Indians or Mulattoes."

The Whiting of Euro-Americans: A Divide and Conquer Strategy
http://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/spl/thandekawhiting.html


When John Rolfe petitioned Governor Dale in 1614 for permission to marry Pocahontas, the daughter of Powhatan… He insisted that this was not a union of last resort: he had marital prospects back in England… Rolfe assured Sir Thomas that he was in “no way led” to marry Pocahontas by “the unbridled desier of carnal affection.” Theirs was an affair of the heart.

Sexual Revolution in Early America
http://books.google.es/books?id=Tngxrcg-kqEC


The marriage of Rolfe and Pocahontas was ONE AMONG THOUSANDS OF INTERRACIAL MARRIAGES FOUND IN THE ANNALS OF AMERICAN HISTORY. THE 1700S FRENCH CENSUS OF FRANCE’S NORTH AMERICAN SUBJECTS SHOWS THAT OVER 50% OF MARRIAGES WERE INTERRACIAL. The most typical examples of interracial marriage in this period occurred between Indian women and White men.

Interracial Marriage In Early America: Motivation and the Colonial Project
http://umichjh.com/docs/2007-fall/Interracial_Marriage_in_Early_America_Mann.pdf


There is a long history of intermarriage involving some American indian groups and white Americans. The impact of this intermarriage has been recognized in the definition of “American Indian” used by the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs: an Indian is a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe with one-quarter or more “degree of Indian blood.”… An analysis of intermarriage patterns with data from the 1980 Public Use Microdata Sample shows that there is considerably more intermarriage between Indians and whites than between blacks and whites…

Soldiers on the frontier intermarried with Indians; trappers, traders and agents were often intermarried. There were, in fact, legal attempts to PROMOTE intermarriage between whites and Indians. In 1784, a bill was presented to the Virginia legislature providing that “EVERY WHITE MAN WHO MARRIED AN INDIAN WOMAN SHOULD BE PAID TEN POUNDS, AND FIVE FOR EACH CHILD BORN OF SUCH A MARRIAGE; AND THAT IF ANY WHITE WOMAN MARRIED AN INDIAN SHE SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO TEN POUNDS with which the county court should buy them livestock…”. In 1824, William H. Crawford advocated similar legislation before the U.S. Congress…”

Not only was intermarriage historically important for American Indians in the U.S., but it has also continued to be an important phenomenon. Data from the 1960 Census showed that over 15% of Indian males were married to white wives… The 1970 Census showed that 33 percent of married Indian men were married to white wives and 35 percent of married indian women were married to white husbands… Data from the 1976 Survey of Income and Education showed that over 40% of Indian males between the ages of 24 and 54 were married to white wives…

49% of American Indian men were intermarried with white women in 1980… the percentages of American Indian men and women who are intermarried with whites are relatively equal. The results also show that American Indians are more likely to have married someone outside of their group than they are to have married an Indian…

Intermarriage Between American Indians and White Americans: Patterns and Implications
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/cdewp/85-26.pdf


Eighteenth-century travelers who ventured into the frontier regions of British America often noted that fleeting sexual congress and more established relationships between Native Americans and Englishmen were commonplace… John Lawson, an English explorer and naturalist who traveled extensively through the Carolina backcountry in 1700-1701… recommended that “ORDINARY PEOPLE” BE GIVEN INCENTIVES (“LAND AND SOME GRATUITY OF MONEY”) TO MARRY INDIANS and bring them into English settlements…

Sexual Revolution in Early America
http://books.google.es/books?id=Tngxrcg-kqEC


In neither the upper nor the lower South was there any room for doubt that MISCEGENATION WAS TAKING PLACE ON A LARGE SCALE. As a minister in Charles City County, Virginia, put it, “THE COUNTRY SWARMS WITH MULATTO BASTARDS.” Henry Muhlenberg, a Lutheran minister, saw “many slaves” in Charleston who were “only half black, the offspring of those white Sodomities who commint fornication with their black slave women.” Another pastor, Johann Bolzius, observed disapprovingly that “WHITE MEN LIVE IN SIN WITH NEGRESSES AND FATHER HALF-BLACK CHILDREN WHO WALK AROUND IN LARGE NUMBERS… And Ebenezer Hazard… wrote that “the number of mulattoes” testified to “a vitiated taste in their inhabitants.” THROUGHOUT THE SOUTH, MISCEGENATION REMAINED WIDESPREAD…

Sexual Revolution in Early America
http://books.google.es/books?id=Tngxrcg-kqEC


THOMAS BRANAGAN VISITED PHILADELPHIA IN 1805 AND AVERTED THAT HE HAD NEVER SEEN SO MUCH INTERMINGLING. “There are,” he wrote, “many, very many blacks who… will not be satisfied unless they get white women for wives… I solemnly swear, I have seen more white women married to… negroes in one year in Philadelphia, than for eight years I was visiting (West Indies and the southern states)… THERE ARE PERHAPS HUNDREDS OF WHITE WOMEN THUS FASCINATED BY BLACK MEN IN THIS CITY AND THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF BLACK CHILDREN BY THEM at present.” …

http://www.answers.com/topic/thomas-branagan


BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, IT IS SAID, WAS QUITE OPEN IN HIS RELATIONSHIPS WITH BLACK WOMEN. Carter Woodson, the careful historian, says Franklin “seems to have made no secret of his associations with Negro women”…

Miscegenation in America
http://books.google.es/books?id=EtcDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA95&vq=was%20quite%20open%20in%20his%20relationships&hl=es&pg=PA95#v=onepage&q&f=false


JEFFERSON'S FATHER-IN-LAW, JOHN WAYLES, HAD A LONG-TERM RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS SLAVE ELIZABETH HEMINGS, WHO BORE HIM SIX OFFSPRING… ONE OF ELIZABETH'S DAUGHTERS, SALLY HEMINGS, BECAME JEFFERSON'S LOVER AND GAVE HIM SEVERAL CHILDREN… Mary Hemings, another of Elizabeth's daughters, was leased to Thomas Bell in the 1780s, became his lover, and bore him two children… They lived together as a couple for the remainder of Bell's life.

Sexual Revolution in Early America
http://books.google.es/books?id=Tngxrcg-kqEC


Many believe that Sally was not the first slave-mistress of Thomas Jefferson. One candidate is Mary Hemings, the half-sister of Sally. Mary had a son named Joe Fossett, who was born in 1780. The descendants of Joe Fossett claim that Thomas Jefferson was his father…

Another candidate for the original slave mistress of Thomas Jefferson is Betty Brown… One of her sons was Burwell… there is suspicion that Burwell was also the son of Thomas Jefferson.

Finally, there was John Hemings, the younger half-brother of Sally... His father was said to be John Neilson, the architect who designed Poplar Forest, but it seems unlikely that this was true…

One thing was certain: That all three of them had white fathers. Possibly the real situation was that Thomas Jefferson suspected that he might be the father, but was not sure…

Was it beneath the personal dignity of Thomas Jefferson to consort with any black slave?
http://www.anusha.com/jclaims.htm


THOMAS JEFFERSON BEGGED AMERICANS TO CONSIDER “LETTING OUR SETTLEMENTS AND INDIANS’ MEET AND BLEND TOGETHER, TO INTERMIX, AND BECOME ONE PEOPLE”. American patriot Patrick Henry even proposed that intermarriage between whites and Indians be encouraged through the use of tax incentives and cash stipends…

BETWEEN 1850 AND 1860, THE MULATTO SLAVE POPULATION INCREASED BY 67 PERCENT; in contrast, the black slave population increased by only 20 percent…

Miscegenation in U.S. History
http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/question/may10/


WHITES AND AFRICANS PERSISTENTLY INTERMARRIED…

The free, light-skinned, mixed-race children of intermarriage made up the many ethnically diverse isolated communities in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio and Louisiana. Among those groups were the Melungeons.

Intermarriage in Colonial British-America
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gowenrf/article4.htm


Melungeons are an ethnically diverse group originating in early 1600s Virginia, Carolina, Maryland, and Delaware… The earliest Melungeon ancestors were white northern Europeans, Bantu Africans and North American Indians.

Among the northern Europeans, the Melungeon ancestors include English, Scot, Irish, Welsh, Dutch, and German parents. North American Indian ancestors include people from the tribes of Powhatan, Mattaponi, Monie, Nansemond, Rappahanock, Pamunkey, Chickahominie, Cherokee (Buffalo Ridge) and Choctaw.

FROM THE 1620S, IN SOUTHERN BRITISH COLONIES LIKE VIRGINIA, WHITE NORTHERN EUROPEANS INTERMARRIED WITH INDIANS. THEY ALSO INTERMARRIED WITH AFRICANS[/COLOR] who began entering the American colonies as early as 1619. Melungeons originate from these red, white and black peoples in this period of American history…

Malungu: The African Origin of the American Melungeons
http://www.eclectica.org/v5n3/hashaw.html


IN 1860, FOR EXAMPLE, OVER ONE-THIRD OF THE BLACK POPULATION IN PENNSYLVANIA WAS MULATTO… Moreover in the South, interracial relationships in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were common between some wealthy white planters and their slave mistresses…

In New Orleans, through a concubinage system known as “plaçage” free mulatto women attended “quadroon balls” where they would be introduced to wealthy white men… a white man would agree to support the woman for a period of years, or sometimes for life, providing her with a home and caring for any children that might result from their sexual relationship.

Interracial Marriages Between Black Women and White Men
http://books.google.es/books?id=GwTdHwXQGtIC


The first decade of Reconstruction (1865-1874) marked a brief period in American history when somewhat greater latitude emerged in forming interracial marriages. Research of records from this time period indicate that as some laws barring interracial marriages were repealed or declared void, HUNDREDS, PERHAPS EVEN THOUSANDS, OF THESE MARRIAGES TOOK PLACE BETWEEN WHITE MEN AND BLACK WOMEN…

Interracial Marriages Between Black Women and White Men
http://books.google.es/books?id=GwTdHwXQGtIC


Virtually all African Americans have some detectable European genetic admixture. Some carry few Euro DNA markers and some have many; but overall, about 17 percent of the collective African-American gene pool comes from Europe. (How Much of the European Contribution to the African-American Genome Comes From Females?).

http://essays.backintyme.biz/item/577

People take the hands to the head when some redneck as that nazi who wants to create a village only for whites is found 14% of black blood in him:lol:




16% ? LOL no more like 5% at most or maybe 6% and they are situated in three big cities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts#Race_and_ancestry
15,9% to be exact http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts#Razas_y_etnias


Wrong again! Puerto Rico is a territory not a state you fucking idiot.
Do you know even what are the quotation marks??? :picard1:

[Aviator]

Well that's true, actually since there are 200 million white Americans in the U.S., that would translate to about 10 million whites having some detectable degree of Sub-Saharan African DNA. But then we have to examine the amount. According to some studies out there, the amount is usually less than 1% on average, but there are some that exceed that and are 2-3% even as high as 5%. But they are much less common among that 10 million and most of them fall within range of less than 1%-1%. Which as you know is barely anything and you can find this in Europe. As for Native American DNA, yes that's true it's larger and more widespread than the SSA, but even that is small on average. Studies show the average for Native American among whites is at the 2-3% range on average, and only in a portion of the population. I can't remember how large the portion percentage of American whites was that had it. I'd have to go searching for the study. But don't get me wrong, there are some whites that have up to 5%, even a few with 10% Amerind DNA, but they are a tiny minority and can't be used as a mean average.


This also makes me wonder if half of the Americans with less than 1% SSA are actually showing noise, since it's so small. How accurate are those tests when it comes to minuscule fractions?

[Isleño]

Yes some from here find the south fascinating but think the KKK is still around. But the KKK is here too but mostly in rural Connecticut area. Here there were many racial clashes in the past and most blacks were shunned even during the civil war, they came here but ended up traveling to canada via the trains to find work or went out west to build the rail road [which alot of them did do]. But yes to answer your other question here many blacks came here after 2005.This is so true of Northerners, they think race is a big issue here and they come down here wanting to know about the racial history or this or that. I saw a show of Anthony Bourdain that went down to Mississippi to make a show about the food there, but wound up making the whole show about Mississippi's racial past. I mean wtf??? Northerners think the south is a racist place or something, but we just go about our business and live our lives and don't even think about race. This is not 1814, it's 2014. That is very annoying when they do that. And they act so innocent like they're region didn't have slaves or racial problems and that's nonsense.

And yeah I figured you guys got some New Orleans blacks after Katrina. Like I said, I think they are more crime inclined than average American blacks according to crime facts about them.

[Anthropologique]

This also makes me wonder if half of the Americans with less than 1% SSA are actually showing noise, since it's so small. How accurate are those tests when it comes to minuscule fractions?

Anything 1% or less is considered genetic noise or "static." However, I believe other studies have shown that a percentage of American whites carry more than 1% black markers, resulting from recent admixture. Extensive genetic studies in the old slave states may open some eyes.

[Isleño]

Do you know how many Spaniards were to America? I guess the answer is no. Very, very, very few, nothing to do with Anglos. And in a bigger area. People believe that any Latino has certain amount of Spanish blood but thats is bullshit. Most of them are purely Natives, or/and mixed with slave blacks mainly. People like the Bolivian Evo Morales is a good example what I am telling.
This is very true. The numbers of Spanish/Spanish-Americans in the USA is very low. I think I live in the largest Spanish community in the country here in Louisiana and we have about 150,000 total for Louisiana and there are about 40,000 to 60,000 in my immediate community. there are about 3 areas with slightly smaller amounts than we have. There are some Spanish-American communities in California, Nevada, Arizona, Texas and Florida, but I believe they are smaller. The southern portions of Mississippi and Alabama has a lot of people that are mixed French/Spanish, but no Spanish communities. Florida has a Spanish immigrant community in Miami as well as Spanish-American communities in places such as Tampa and St. Augustine.

Mainly Spanish-American/Spanish communities in the U.S. are in former Spanish colonies on the Westcoast, Southwest and the Gulfcoast (along the U.S. side of the Gulf of Mexico). But if you look at the amount of Spanish/Spanish-Americans in the USA compared to other ethnicities, they are very small having less than 1 million people in a country of over 300 million. Most Spaniards that arrived in the Americas went to Latin America, not North America. That's why many of us here in the USA have connections to Latin American countries. For instance, my family left Canary Islands, Spain and went to Cuba first, living there for a few short years then immigrating to the USA. A branch of my family stayed in Cuba and did not leave for the USA and because of that, today I have many Cuban distant cousins living in both Cuba and Miami, while not being Cuban myself.

[Isleño]

This also makes me wonder if half of the Americans with less than 1% SSA are actually showing noise, since it's so small. How accurate are those tests when it comes to minuscule fractions?
It's possible, but from the sheer number of same ancestry reports for this admixture, it would seem to hold true for it and not being noise. Noise is random, not consistent like in those test results featured in studies or genetic databases. And of the 10 million with detectable African, I'm guessing more of those are from the south where there were sizable African populations. It would only make sense. But that doesn't make it absolute.

But less than 1% is nothing and you can find that among some populations in Europe. I don't think it's nothing to take seriously unless it exceeded 5% and even then, many times there will be no sign of it in a phenotype at 5%.

[Isleño]

Anything 1% or less is considered genetic noise or "static." However, I believe other studies have shown that a percentage of American whites carry more than 1% black markers, resulting from recent admixture. Extensive genetic studies in the old slave states may open some eyes.
Well I don't believe it to be noise because the same ancestry is consistent in a sizable number of people (possibly 10 million) and there are cases of it being as high as 5% in a very small number of them. So I think it's actually SSA that they picked up within the last 500 years. I believe if it were noise, it would be tiny amounts of random ethnicities popping up in such a large number of people (possible 10 million). But being it's consistently SSA, I believe it to be actual SSA.

[Also]

You are on a forum that specializes in genetic examination of DNA results and genetic studies and you say things like that? Don't you know true purity is a fairytale?

Big liberal lies. Those genetic ancestry tests are based on statistical learning algorithms applied and tested on a database of individuals that are assumed to pure representatives of their groups, which they are not necessarily, and if they were, like any bayesian method it is intrisic to them they will have a margin of error. So specially when talking about "admixture" that is small enough, the level of trust we place on that admixture being real is insignificant. Then mixed people who want to feel white and blur the lines will say there are no pure races and put on some arbitrary definition they find convenient, that is neither better mine nor than the definition that says mulatos are white by any objective standard, it is just their own preference speaking.

If your ancestors haven't been all white for at least 40.000 years, you are not white. Those "white" americans had a pure black or indian ancestor within 10 generations back, big difference.

[Smeagol]

Butthurt is what is happening to you. I post FACTS.


You talked about European colonies telling nonsense about your clean British colonies which were free of admixture. Jaaaaaaaa

When that does not interest to you, then you talk about genetics :rolleyes: ok



30% of Americans have black blood. 30%!
btw have you not 3% or something so of Amerindian blood?
I remember McCauley had that percentage.


Facts are facts.

Yeah, facts are facts, and it's too bad you completely ignore them, and misrepresent a country whose history you know nothing about.

Lol, the Shriver study. I disproved that so many times. Shriver at one time claimed that 30% of white Americans have detectable levels of black admixture. He has since retracted that statement twice. From 30% to 10% then finally to 5%. Shriver was using Autosomal DNA testing and working with the company DNAprint to get his results. Such testing has been shown to be deeply flawed when analyzing low level admixture in populations.


As more information has come out about DNAprint's "AncestryByDNA" test (Shriver is affiliated with DNAprint, and his findings mentioned above were made using a version of the ABD test), it has become clear that the ABD test absolutely DOES NOT accurately determine low level admixture in individuals. Thus, any statement from Shriver concerning "admixture" in American whites is meaningless. Recent research on Y-chromosomes and mtDNA detected NO black admixture in American whites (Kayser et al. 2003):

. . . African-American genetic contribution to European-Americans is below the limits of detection with these methods.
The sample included 628 European-American Y-chromosomes and mtDNA from 922 European-Americans, and the fact that there was no evidence for black admixture whatsoever is significant. The findings here also provide further indication that the ABD test is worthless for estimating "minor admixture"."

And most Indian-White mixes were considered as Indians.

[Smeagol]

They are not white if they have a drop of non-white blood. Thus white americans non-caucasoid admixture is an oxymoron.

That's pretty stupid. Even having a nigger, or Indian ancestor 300 years ago doesn't make someone non-White.

[Smeagol]

Big liberal lies. Those genetic ancestry tests are based on statistical learning algorithms applied and tested on a database of individuals that are assumed to pure representatives of their groups, which they are not necessarily, and if they were, like any bayesian method it is intrisic to them they will have a margin of error. So specially when talking about "admixture" that is small enough, the level of trust we place on that admixture being real is insignificant. Then mixed people who want to feel white and blur the lines will say there are no pure races and put on some arbitrary definition they find convenient, that is neither better mine nor than the definition that says mulatos are white by any objective standard, it is just their own preference speaking.

If your ancestors haven't been all white for at least 40.000 years, you are not white. Those "white" americans had a pure black or indian ancestor within 10 generations back, big difference.

40,000 years ago there were Australoid-like, and Silvid like types running around Europe according to skeletal evidence. Probably no one is purely White going back 40,000 years. Also, I'm curious if you, being Portuguese by blood, consider yourself White, considering Portuguese score around 2% SSA on average, while the average White American scores none, and for the Whites who do score some, it only averages around 1-2%.

[Also]

40,000 years ago there were Australoid-like, and Silvid like types running around Europe according to skeletal evidence. Probably no one is purely White going back 40,000 years. Also, I'm curious if you, being Portuguese by blood, consider yourself White, considering Portuguese score around 2% SSA on average, while the average White American scores none, and for the Whites who do score some, it only averages around 1-2%.

I am dark-haired so I am not white.

[Smeagol]

I am dark-haired so I am not white.

Hmm, so are you following blogen's definition of White? strictly only light haired, light eyes, and pale skinned?

[Also]

Hmm, so are you following blogen's definition of White? strictly only light haired, light eyes, and pale skinned?

I'm not sure who blogen is, the mongoloid shifted hungarian? But you're about right.

[LightHouse89]

This is very true. The numbers of Spanish/Spanish-Americans in the USA is very low. I think I live in the largest Spanish community in the country here in Louisiana and we have about 150,000 total for Louisiana and there are about 40,000 to 60,000 in my immediate community. there are about 3 areas with slightly smaller amounts than we have. There are some Spanish-American communities in California, Nevada, Arizona, Texas and Florida, but I believe they are smaller. The southern portions of Mississippi and Alabama has a lot of people that are mixed French/Spanish, but no Spanish communities. Florida has a Spanish immigrant community in Miami as well as Spanish-American communities in places such as Tampa and St. Augustine.

Mainly Spanish-American/Spanish communities in the U.S. are in former Spanish colonies on the Westcoast, Southwest and the Gulfcoast (along the U.S. side of the Gulf of Mexico). But if you look at the amount of Spanish/Spanish-Americans in the USA compared to other ethnicities, they are very small having less than 1 million people in a country of over 300 million. Most Spaniards that arrived in the Americas went to Latin America, not North America. That's why many of us here in the USA have connections to Latin American countries. For instance, my family left Canary Islands, Spain and went to Cuba first, living there for a few short years then immigrating to the USA. A branch of my family stayed in Cuba and did not leave for the USA and because of that, today I have many Cuban distant cousins living in both Cuba and Miami, while not being Cuban myself.

When people think of traditional 'Anglo-America' the truth is that area of the country is much smaller than what they realize......WASP Yankeeland [New England] and Southern Virginia.....that is the heartland of Anglo-America both culturally and ethnically. Mind you we had waves of catholics here especially the Irish which are the second largest group here.

[LightHouse89]

Not 320, hell. We are talking only about the "white" population.


Do you know how many Spaniards were to America? I guess the answer is no. Very, very, very few, nothing to do with Anglos. And in a bigger area. People believe that any Latino has certain amount of Spanish blood but thats is bullshit. Most of them are purely Natives, or/and mixed with slave blacks mainly. People like the Bolivian Evo Morales is a good example what I am telling.


You should, before accusing other for racial mix. Also you should taking account that your country was part of them, and racial mix happened in. Damn, even your president Thomas Jefferson had negro descendants... is not funny that an American user talked me some posts ago about purity laws in US taking Thomas Jefferson in his avatar? :laugh2:

Here you have a bit more information, read and comment (Jim Crow will be happy with the news about Massachussets):



People take the hands to the head when some redneck as that nazi who wants to create a village only for whites is found 14% of black blood in him:lol:




15,9% to be exact http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts#Razas_y_etnias


Do you know even what are the quotation marks??? :picard1:

You do realize that 97% of that 'black and afro-mestizo' genetic garbage are recent immigrants right? DING DING DING! Use that brain if you have one idiot. You include Afro-Mestizos....that doesnt even count...those subhumans began coming here in recent years in the hundreds of thousands....now will if you excuse me for making you look like an idiot.

Puerto Rico is a territory not a state again you fucking idiot.

[Oneeye]

Not 320, hell. We are talking only about the "white" population.

Sure, but what are there, about 200 million whites in America? It's still a drop in the pond.



Do you know how many Spaniards were to America? I guess the answer is no. Very, very, very few, nothing to do with Anglos. And in a bigger area. People believe that any Latino has certain amount of Spanish blood but thats is bullshit. Most of them are purely Natives, or/and mixed with slave blacks mainly. People like the Bolivian Evo Morales is a good example what I am telling.

They certainly seem very mixed, and so many are of partial European ancestry. What is it if not Spanish?



You should, before accusing other for racial mix. Also you should taking account that your country was part of them, and racial mix happened in.


Have you forgotten that you were the one who was mocking my kin as mixed, putting "white" in parentheses, and not the other way around? It's a fact that the Latin Americans are much more racially mixed than us. Doesn't happen without mixing at a much higher rate. Does that irk you? Why? You're a Spaniard living in Spain. Why would you care who was riding a Criollo's dick?


And you're not seeing the forest for the trees. White Americans overwhelming lack non-European genes. It is not a leap of faith to say that our ancestors were opposed to interracial relationships. Especially since it's been taboo until a generation or two ago. You know that Natives were made to live on reservations and that blacks were segregated from us into the 20th century, right? And race mixers were not bringing home their lovers to white society. They and their offspring joined the minorities.




From Dienekes' blog:



http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dViY-OVquN4/VBs9Txr7KjI/AAAAAAAAJzA/8S6V3ym95ng/s1600/ea.jpg

Overall, it seems that relatively few (less than 5%) of European Americans have more than 2% of either African or Native American ancestry in any of the states, so the breakdown of European ancestry into various subgroups is perhaps more interesting.


http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/09/23andme-mega-study-on-different.html



Amusingly, the state with the most Iberian Americans, Louisiana, also has the highest percentage of white Americans with minor non-white admixture. I think it's those Creoles instead, tbh, but it made my day.




People take the hands to the head when some redneck as that nazi who wants to create a village only for whites is found 14% of black blood in him:lol:


I find it more likely that his results were faked to gain higher ratings for the show.

[Isleño]

Amusingly, the state with the most Iberian Americans, Louisiana, also has the highest percentage of white Americans with minor non-white admixture. I think it's those Creoles instead, tbh, but it made my day.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dViY-OVquN4/VBs9Txr7KjI/AAAAAAAAJzA/8S6V3ym95ng/s1600/ea.jpg


Yes, Louisiana has the most Iberian ancestry and Spanish-American communities, but we are not the ones where you find more than 2% SSA like you see on that chart. If anything, it would be among some of the white creoles (pre-USA colonial French descendants, some have some Spanish admixture also) that may have possibly 0%-5% SSA, but they would still be at least 95%-100%white. I'm not talking about black creoles (black creoles are mulattoes), but white creoles. And even then, I think most of them don't even have that. I have a white creole friend that tested with 23andme, and he was 98.4% European, 1.3% SSA and 0.3% Native American. His cousin tested and didn't get any SSA and got 0.9% Native American. I don't know about you, but 98.4% European, that's white in my book.

[Isleño]

When people think of traditional 'Anglo-America' the truth is that area of the country is much smaller than what they realize......WASP Yankeeland [New England] and Southern Virginia.....that is the heartland of Anglo-America both culturally and ethnically. Mind you we had waves of catholics here especially the Irish which are the second largest group here.
Actually when I think of "traditional Anglo-America" I think of the original 13 colonies, so yeah I think of places like Massachusetts or Pennsylvania. Yeah, Virginia has lots of English ancestry. Actually the northern half of the south has lots of English descent too, but I don't think the south is the "traditional America" like the Eastcoast is. Many in the south would change back to the Confederacy given the chance. To many of them, "traditional America" is the Union. But not everyone in the south thinks like that. The state I live in went from a French colony to a Spanish colony, then back to a French colony and then Napoleon sold Louisiana to the U.S. and it became a U.S. state in 1803. Louisiana was never a British colony.

[Isleño]

Big liberal lies. Those genetic ancestry tests are based on statistical learning algorithms applied and tested on a database of individuals that are assumed to pure representatives of their groups, which they are not necessarily, and if they were, like any bayesian method it is intrisic to them they will have a margin of error. So specially when talking about "admixture" that is small enough, the level of trust we place on that admixture being real is insignificant. Then mixed people who want to feel white and blur the lines will say there are no pure races and put on some arbitrary definition they find convenient, that is neither better mine nor than the definition that says mulatos are white by any objective standard, it is just their own preference speaking.

If your ancestors haven't been all white for at least 40.000 years, you are not white. Those "white" americans had a pure black or indian ancestor within 10 generations back, big difference.

No way bro. Population references are taken from modern populations today and yes many of them have tiny admixtures, but these admixtures are identified. But there have also been autosomal studies using prehistoric samples as well. But even then, Europeans are not one type of "white" ancestry to begin with (white being a social race rather than scientific, but that's another story). There was a big Neolithic migration from the Eastern Mediterranean area around the Levant/Turkey that spread into Europe 10,000 years ago and mixed into the European populations. Both Southern Europeans and Northern Europeans have this admixture, so there is no pure anything in Europe. And light skin didn't even develop until after 40,000 years ago, so no one was even white back then. Evolution had not taken place yet to create "white people". I think you need to rethink some of the theories you subscribe to.

[Isleño]

I am dark-haired so I am not white.

Hair color has nothing to do with being white. White usually means a person of full or near full European ancestry. It was a word that was created in the New World by Spaniards in the late 16th century to distinguish themselves in contrast to black Africans and red/brown Native Americans. It had nothing to do with hair color or even fair skin vs. olive skin since Spaniards come in both skin shades as well as both light and dark hair colors. You can really upgrade your knowledge on this forum :)

[Cristiano viejo]

You do realize that 97% of that 'black and afro-mestizo' genetic garbage are recent immigrants right? DING DING DING! Use that brain if you have one idiot. You include Afro-Mestizos....that doesnt even count...those subhumans began coming here in recent years in the hundreds of thousands....now will if you excuse me for making you look like an idiot.
Irrelevant.
And racial mix is happening in Massachussets since colonial times, as I have showed.
READ, FUCK. IT´S NOT A BAD THING.


Puerto Rico is a territory not a state again you fucking idiot.
And again, I put quotable marks. I never said that Puerto Rico was a American state. I said that Puerto Rico is "part" of US. If you dont know see the things it´s your fault.
Do you know even what is the goal of the quotable marks? :blink:


Sure, but what are there, about 200 million whites in America? It's still a drop in the pond.
That drop grows and grows unceasingly. Add the immigration and you will have a mongrel country very quickly.



They certainly seem very mixed, and so many are of partial European ancestry. What is it if not Spanish?
lol mixed? Evo Morales must have like 0% Spanish blood. Countries like Perú, Bolivia, Paragüay, Honduras etc look absolutely Native to me.


Have you forgotten that you were the one who was mocking my kin as mixed, putting "white" in parentheses, and not the other way around?
And where are we, if not in a thread about mixed Americans??


It's a fact that the Latin Americans are much more racially mixed than us. Doesn't happen without mixing at a much higher rate. Does that irk you? Why? You're a Spaniard living in Spain. Why would you care who was riding a Criollo's dick?
Countries like Uruguay or Argentina, with a great Spanish immigration unlike the other Latino countries, are not much more racially mixed than you.



And you're not seeing the forest for the trees. White Americans overwhelming lack non-European genes. It is not a leap of faith to say that our ancestors were opposed to interracial relationships. Especially since it's been taboo until a generation or two ago. You know that Natives were made to live on reservations and that blacks were segregated from us into the 20th century, right? And race mixers were not bringing home their lovers to white society. They and their offspring joined the minorities.
You also need read what I posted. Stop nonsensical comments about US purity laws which it were not materialized in any way.
The Spanish system caste also supposedly look for these things... that does not means a shit.




Amusingly, the state with the most Iberian Americans, Louisiana, also has the highest percentage of white Americans with minor non-white admixture. I think it's those Creoles instead, tbh, but it made my day.

Yeah, together Caroline, one of the more ancient British colonies :rolleyes:
Iberians in Lousiana are Canarians. They show a bit of Northern African genes. Certainly they are not the best example that you can put.


And most Indian-White mixes were considered as Indians.
This discussion with 1eye started because he accused the Spanish colonies for racial mix, "unlike British colonies", which it´s false. I just refused his theory with proofs. I dont care what these products were considered.

[Leto]

They are not white if they have a drop of non-white blood. Thus white americans non-caucasoid admixture is an oxymoron.
Strict-ass racialist bullshit. White = phenotype.

[Tooting Carmen]

lol mixed? Evo Morales must have like 0% Spanish blood. Countries like Perú, Bolivia, Paragüay, Honduras etc look absolutely Native to me.

Even those countries do have some White/quasi-White people, though admittedly the percentage is well into single figures. Here are some Bolivians for you: http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?126472-Classify-two-light-haired-Bolivian-male-politicians
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?123422-Classify-a-Bolivian-woman


Countries like Uruguay or Argentina, with a great Spanish immigration unlike the other Latino countries, are not much more racially mixed than you.

Not sure about Uruguay, but Argentina still has a good number of Mestizos, even though Whites are at least 2/3s of the country's population. Here is an Argentine mestiza for you:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?137639-Classify-three-deceased-South-American-folk-singers

[Cristiano viejo]

Even those countries do have some White/quasi-White people, though admittedly the percentage is well into single figures. Here are some Bolivians for you: http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?126472-Classify-two-light-haired-Bolivian-male-politicians
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?123422-Classify-a-Bolivian-woman



Not sure about Uruguay, but Argentina still has a good number of Mestizos, even though Whites are at least 2/3s of the country's population. Here is an Argentine mestiza for you:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?137639-Classify-three-deceased-South-American-folk-singers
You must clarify your ideas... because making cherrypicking is not the solution. Is there whites in ex-Spanish colonies or not? is there whites in ex-Spanish colonies or all of you are mestizos like 1eye claim?

Many mestizos in Argentina are recent immigrants of Bolivia, Paragüay or Chile btw, and my point about Argentina is that where there was mass Spanish migration (Argentina, Uruguay) the racial mix is not deep.
For any Argentinian mestizo that you can show I can show ten American mulatos.

[Leto]

That drop grows and grows unceasingly. Add the immigration and you will have a mongrel country very quickly.

The number and percentage of whites will be decreasing, but they aren't likely to disappear completely anytime soon.

[Tooting Carmen]

You must clarify your ideas... because making cherrypicking is not the solution. Is there whites in ex-Spanish colonies or not? is there whites in ex-Spanish colonies or all of you are mestizos like 1eye claim?

Many mestizos in Argentina are recent immigrants of Bolivia, Paragüay or Chile btw, and my point about Argentina is that where there was mass Spanish migration (Argentina, Uruguay) the racial mix is not deep.
For any Argentinian mestizo that you can show I can show ten American mulatos.

In Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador and Guatemala the order from most to least common is: Indigenous>Mestizo>White. El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Paraguay are overwhelmingly Mestizo, with few people who are either fully Indigenous or fully White. The Dominican Republic is mostly Mulatto, with smaller numbers of both full Blacks and full Whites. In the remaining Latin American countries Whites are at least 10% of the population (and like you say, they are the dominant group in Uruguay, Argentina and Southern Brazil), although other races and mixes can be found in abundance too.

[Leto]

El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Paraguay are overwhelmingly Mestizo, with few people who are either fully Indigenous or fully White.
But Paraguay is remarkable, because it has retained the Guarani language. It's spoken by 60% of the population. Of course those people feel indigenous.

[Samanta Fabris]

So...

Afro Americans are 25% Anglo and 75% West African.
Hispanics (mostly Mexicans) are 70% Iberian, 25% Amerindian and 5% West African.

Really?

[Oneeye]

So...

Afro Americans are 25% Anglo and 75% West African.
Hispanics (mostly Mexicans) are 70% Iberian, 25% Amerindian and 5% West African.

Really?

YES

[LightHouse89]

The number and percentage of whites will be decreasing, but they aren't likely to disappear completely anytime soon.

Yes because our government is doing this. We need a Maiden here really bad and every politician should be hanged for treason.

[LightHouse89]

Actually when I think of "traditional Anglo-America" I think of the original 13 colonies, so yeah I think of places like Massachusetts or Pennsylvania. Yeah, Virginia has lots of English ancestry. Actually the northern half of the south has lots of English descent too, but I don't think the south is the "traditional America" like the Eastcoast is. Many in the south would change back to the Confederacy given the chance. To many of them, "traditional America" is the Union. But not everyone in the south thinks like that. The state I live in went from a French colony to a Spanish colony, then back to a French colony and then Napoleon sold Louisiana to the U.S. and it became a U.S. state in 1803. Louisiana was never a British colony.

The east coast here is lost though it will be mostly non white in three decades.

[Oneeye]

Irrelevant.
And racial mix is happening in Massachussets since colonial times, as I have showed.
READ, FUCK. IT´S NOT A BAD THING.


And again, I put quotable marks. I never said that Puerto Rico was a American state. I said that Puerto Rico is "part" of US. If you dont know see the things it´s your fault.
Do you know even what is the goal of the quotable marks? :blink:


That drop grows and grows unceasingly. Add the immigration and you will have a mongrel country very quickly.



lol mixed? Evo Morales must have like 0% Spanish blood. Countries like Perú, Bolivia, Paragüay, Honduras etc look absolutely Native to me.


And where are we, if not in a thread about mixed Americans??


Countries like Uruguay or Argentina, with a great Spanish immigration unlike the other Latino countries, are not much more racially mixed than you.



You also need read what I posted. Stop nonsensical comments about US purity laws which it were not materialized in any way.
The Spanish system caste also supposedly look for these things... that does not means a shit.



Yeah, together Caroline, one of the more ancient British colonies :rolleyes:
Iberians in Lousiana are Canarians. They show a bit of Northern African genes. Certainly they are not the best example that you can put.


This discussion with 1eye started because he accused the Spanish colonies for racial mix, "unlike British colonies", which it´s false. I just refused his theory with proofs. I dont care what these products were considered.


Don't put "unlike British colonies" in quotations talking about me. I didn't say that. I said, "We're not en mass interracials like the former Spanish and Portuguese colonies are."


You're putting words into my mouth.


Your read is a snoozefest, and doesn't show anything other than that many of the most prominent native American chiefs were mixed.


Your first post here called white Americans "a joke".


This thread isn't about mixed Americans. It is about non-caucasiod admixture in white Americans, which is damned near nonexistent. The genetic results speak for themselves, as well as the attitudes of older Americans about race.


Latin Americans are much more mixed than white Americans. Even the whitest are likely to have non-caucasiod segments. Look at the most populous countries: Columbia, Mexico, Brazil... triracials make up a significantly larger portion of their populations, biracials as well...


The funniest thing is that you deny this while claiming that immigration, which is mostly from Latin American countries, is going to make us mongrels. xD

[Also]

Strict-ass racialist bullshit. White = phenotype.

Not at all, phenotype does not determine race. In nature sometimes even different species have the same phenotype because of parallel and convergent evolution. I use race in a sense of a pure group, not of a social construct relying on appearence.

White == phenotype :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
If that was the case we ought to consider people who had a full native grandparent but yet look white to be white. You guys at the TA are hilarious. You give your opinion in a civilized way and you get thumbs down because you've hurt people's entitlement to a label.

Btw, I am not and never was a racialist.

[Leto]

Not at all, phenotype does not determine race. In nature sometimes even different species have the same phenotype because of parallel and convergent evolution. I use race in a sense of a pure group, not of a social construct relying on appearence.

White == phenotype :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
If that was the case we ought to consider people who had a full native grandparent but yet look white to be white. You guys at the TA are hilarious. You give your opinion in a civilized way and you get thumbs down because you've hurt people's entitlement to a label.

You never know a person's genetic composition. You see a white-looking person and assume that he/she is white. That's it. I doubt everyone will tell you about their distant Amerindian/Asian/black ancestors.

[Cristiano viejo]

In Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador and Guatemala the order from most to least common is: Indigenous>Mestizo>White. El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Paraguay are overwhelmingly Mestizo, with few people who are either fully Indigenous or fully White. The Dominican Republic is mostly Mulatto, with smaller numbers of both full Blacks and full Whites. In the remaining Latin American countries Whites are at least 10% of the population (and like you say, they are the dominant group in Uruguay, Argentina and Southern Brazil), although other races and mixes can be found in abundance too.
Saying that Rep. Dominican has a small number of blacks is not serious. And thanks to give me the reason with the first four countries, and about Argentina, Uruguay and Southern Brazil (countries with true mass European immigration). I would add Isleños in Lousiana and Basques in Northern USA, who were not mixed with other races since they arrived.
Thats the true Spanish migration in America. It´s not serious claiming that thanks to 500.000 fucking Spaniards (some of them not even Spaniards but Jews and Moriscos) 500 years ago a whole continent with hundreds of millions of persons can has people with still a visible European phenotype (ie mulatos or mestizos and not fully blacks or Natives).


Don't put "unlike British colonies" in quotations talking about me. I didn't say that. I said, "We're not en mass interracials like the former Spanish and Portuguese colonies are."


You're putting words into my mouth.
Perhaps USA was not a British colony?? :rolleyes: come on, dont fuck me, Jack the Oneye.



Your read is a snoozefest, and doesn't show anything other than that many of the most prominent native American chiefs were mixed.

Native American chiefs haha that you would wish. You are 500 years living in harmony with all kind of races, man.
Who do you want to deceive??


Your first post here called white Americans "a joke".
This thread isn't about mixed Americans. It is about non-caucasiod admixture in white Americans, which is damned near nonexistent. The genetic results speak for themselves, as well as the attitudes of older Americans about race.
Thats an euphemism. Try it with other thing.
And yes, for me white Americans are a joke, in all respects.


Latin Americans are much more mixed than white Americans. Even the whitest are likely to have non-caucasiod segments. Look at the most populous countries: Columbia, Mexico, Brazil... triracials make up a significantly larger portion of their populations, biracials as well...


The funniest thing is that you deny this while claiming that immigration, which is mostly from Latin American countries, is going to make us mongrels. xD

Being from Latin American countries does not mean mestizo. Many of them are fully blacks and fully Natives.

But you will be, dont worry. Maybe in your dreams you think that the 70 millions of immigrants that USA has will dissapear magically.
In 2100 we speak hehe

[Leto]

Cristiano, I'm against Obama and his warlords too, but it seems that you want the destruction of American people. Why? That was a nice country and it still is, aside form its politics and attempt to dominate globally. I don't support what you're posting here.:icon_no: In 2010 Europe will be no better than the US, if not worse.

[LightHouse89]

Cristiano, I'm against Obama and his warlords too, but it seems that you want the destruction of American people. Why? That was a nice country and it still is, aside form its politics and attempt to dominate globally. I don't support what you're posting here.:icon_no: In 2010 Europe will be no better than the US, if not worse.

America is already a lost cause because of people like JFK who opened the door to these brown and black immigrants. He also got rid of racial laws.

[LightHouse89]

Not at all, phenotype does not determine race. In nature sometimes even different species have the same phenotype because of parallel and convergent evolution. I use race in a sense of a pure group, not of a social construct relying on appearence.

White == phenotype :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
If that was the case we ought to consider people who had a full native grandparent but yet look white to be white. You guys at the TA are hilarious. You give your opinion in a civilized way and you get thumbs down because you've hurt people's entitlement to a label.

Btw, I am not and never was a racialist.

I am a racialist :cool:

[Longbowman]

Practically all southern blacks have a good deal of Euro admixture. So where are Boston's blacks from if not the south? They should have the same origins if not from some Caribbean country. :confused:

Actually black slaves were imported to New England as early as the first half of the 17th century.

That said, they'd still likely be just as mixed, if not more, considering that [many] New England states were among the few never to penalise miscegenation.

[LightHouse89]

Actually black slaves were imported to New England as early as the first half of the 17th century.

That said, they'd still likely be just as mixed, if not more, considering that [many] New England states were among the few never to penalise miscegenation.

:rolleyes: very few blacks ever came here. New England is not known for its soil for growing large plantations that would have required many hands to tend. Not to mention we did not have racial laws but we did not allow racial mixing. Why? Because it was seen as disgusting to race mix. Infact blacks here especially free blacks from the south were encouraged to join the rail road service and this is how they ended up in Chicago and to the far west.

I am telling you after the civil war there were no blacks here because businesses refused to hire them and no one would rent them property. Do not believe me look it up. But yes there were no strict race laws here which is why many of the blacks either intermarried with each other or some native americans here and that is it. Frederick Douglass was the only famous black person in the north east as a whole and his second wife was white as to what happened to those descendants I am not sure but race mixing was not really socially acceptable here. For a long while and even today we do not respect people who race mix.

Imagine owning one of those animals and deciding to mix with it? You would have lost alot of respect from the community and they would not want anything to do with you. In the south it happened alittle bit but not often. Here slaves were mostly house servants for rich landowners and business owners....the common farmer did not own slaves here. Infact many slaves died because of the cold and diseases here.

No niggers in my family tree or anyone else that I am aware of. I can assure you that New Englanders never mixed with this slave race. But yes we are all brown and mulattoo here :rolleyes: We are whiter and more Saxon than all of England LOL

[Longbowman]

:rolleyes: very few blacks ever came here. New England is not known for its soil for growing large plantations that would have required many hands to tend. Not to mention we did not have racial laws but we did not allow racial mixing. Why? Because it was seen as disgusting to race mix. Infact blacks here especially free blacks from the south were encouraged to join the rail road service and this is how they ended up in Chicago and to the far west.

I am telling you after the civil war there were no blacks here because businesses refused to hire them and no one would rent them property. Do not believe me look it up. But yes there were no strict race laws here which is why many of the blacks either intermarried with each other or some native americans here and that is it. Frederick Douglass was the only famous black person in the north east as a whole and his second wife was white as to what happened to those descendants I am not sure but race mixing was not really socially acceptable here. For a long while and even today we do not respect people who race mix.

Imagine owning one of those animals and deciding to mix with it? You would have lost alot of respect from the community and they would not want anything to do with you. In the south it happened alittle bit but not often. Here slaves were mostly house servants for rich landowners and business owners....the common farmer did not own slaves here. Infact many slaves died because of the cold and diseases here.

No niggers in my family tree or anyone else that I am aware of. I can assure you that New Englanders never mixed with this slave race. But yes we are all brown and mulattoo here :rolleyes: We are whiter and more Saxon than all of England LOL

I'm not accusing you of anything. I doubt white yanks have any/much negroid ancestry. I'm just saying there have been blacks in [coastal] New England for almost 400 years.

I doubt sincerely you are more Saxon than England. You yourself are not a pure Saxon. At least the majority of Britishers are pure British.

[LightHouse89]

I'm not accusing you of anything. I doubt white yanks have any/much negroid ancestry. I'm just saying there have been blacks in [coastal] New England for almost 400 years.

I doubt sincerely you are more Saxon than England. You yourself are not a pure Saxon. At least the majority of Britishers are pure British.

British is an artificial term created in the 1700s.... by British to me the only real Brits are the Welsh peoples.

The blacks were encouraged to leave [as in the blacks who came here during the civil war]....believe me there were probably more 'racists' in the North east at one time than down south in that period of time. Infact the Nativist movement was founded in the North East not the south [except groups like the Klan]. I would say pure New Englanders are...they are mostly East Anglians. I am not a pure Saxon no.....but I have the background to prove it. Besides the English ancestry....I have North Western German :p So maybe I am more Saxon than the Saxons in England today :rolleyes::D:coffee:

[Cristiano viejo]

Not to mention we did not have racial laws but we did not allow racial mixing. Why? Because it was seen as disgusting to race mix.
Do you really believe this shit that you are telling? :picard1:

[Longbowman]

British is an artificial term created in the 1700s.... by British to me the only real Brits are the Welsh peoples.

The blacks were encouraged to leave [as in the blacks who came here during the civil war]....believe me there were probably more 'racists' in the North east at one time than down south in that period of time. Infact the Nativist movement was founded in the North East not the south [except groups like the Klan]. I would say pure New Englanders are...they are mostly East Anglians. I am not a pure Saxon no.....but I have the background to prove it. Besides the English ancestry....I have North Western German :p So maybe I am more Saxon than the Saxons in England today :rolleyes::D:coffee:

The word British is older than Jesus Christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_(place_name)

[African Lion]

Whites have more of our blood than they admit,,, these studies are false and made up, most whites have a lot of our blood. But they fear to admit this fact

[Tooting Carmen]

Whites have more of our blood than they admit,,, these studies are false and made up, most whites have a lot of our blood. But they fear to admit this fact

Believe me when I say that I'm one of the least racist people in this forum, but that is bullshit.

[Longbowman]

Again, white people were the ones who created south africa, and yes, they have every right to be in south africa as much as blacks do as well. I never claimed that they should accept white rule, but at the same time, south africa is a hell hole where many whites and other blacks are killed through tribal warfare and crime. NAs for example, never accepted to be ruled under white rule, but at the same time, they are living with whites in Oklahoma with no problems, and the government gave them certain rights for them to live in peace. Blacks in south africa may be discriminated against, but at the same time, they were given free education, health care, and etc, while israel on the other hand, destroys hospitals, schools, and etc, and treat the palestinians there FAAR worst than how whites treated blacks there. Comparing white south africa to israel is like comparing a BB gun to a nuclear bomb just because they're both weapons. Its not the same thing.

How is America's dispossession and massacre of the Natives better than Israel's? If you were consistent you'd demand White Americans returned to Europe.

[Watch_Owl]

There were a lot of black people who intermixed with whites thus getting absorbed into the population. Black genes got spread around thus causing some minor ancestry among white people which is what I speculate. Anyways I'm against favoritism towards certain groups. Wouldn't it be better if everyone treated other people equally as they can? I have a theory on why blacks and past white ethnic groups didn't get along. I think people with darker skin tone are somehow unsympathetic causing negative feelings thus having fight and clashes. I don't necessarily agree with that.

[Longbowman]

when did your ancestors come here? mine have been here in the north since the country was founded. Hell the first boat load of euros here one of my ancestors was on. Ancestry from the Puritan expulsion from eastern England.

There was no expulsion, Jim. The migration was voluntary. Hell, Puritans took over England within 2 decades from the creation of Massachusetts.

[Longbowman]

What surprises me is the small percentage of Scandinavian that many have, though it probably shouldn't, given their presence throughout US history. I was of the notion that it would be a more regional input, rather than as widespread as it seems.

You're mainly of Eastern English descent, and if not Eastern English then Scottish, and as such you come with 3-6% Scandinavian blood anyway. Mystery solved.

[LightHouse89]

The word British is older than Jesus Christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_(place_name)

Yes but then came the mighty Saxons, Angles, Jutes, and Frisians and they changed that. :cool:

[Longbowman]

Yes but then came the mighty Saxons, Angles, Jutes, and Frisians and they changed that. :cool:

The island was still known as Britain. The Angles et al called the Britons 'Welsh' (Wallach, Vlachs, foreigners).

[LightHouse89]

There was no expulsion, Jim. The migration was voluntary. Hell, Puritans took over England within 2 decades from the creation of Massachusetts.

I thought the King when he returned after Cromwell died that Puritans were expelled? Anyway historians claim that New Englanders of English origin mostly came from East Anglia and Southerners [mostly Cavaliers] came from all over England but mostly the North? Scots settled in Maine, and Scotch Irish in rural New York. So the Mayflower people [we call them Pilgrims but in England they were Puritans] were really just volunteers who came here?

[LightHouse89]

There were a lot of black people who intermixed with whites thus getting absorbed into the population. Black genes got spread around thus causing some minor ancestry among white people which is what I speculate. Anyways I'm against favoritism towards certain groups. Wouldn't it be better if everyone treated other people equally as they can? I have a theory on why blacks and past white ethnic groups didn't get along. I think people with darker skin tone are somehow unsympathetic causing negative feelings thus having fight and clashes. I don't necessarily agree with that.

No they were seen as bottom of the barrel and no one mixed with them [majority did not]. The one drop rule and jim crow laws kept America pure for a long time. A shame we do not go back to that good old system....no crime, no drugs and no gangs....problem solved.

[LightHouse89]

The island was still known as Britain. The Angles et al called the Britons 'Welsh' (Wallach, Vlachs, foreigners).

Yes but then it became Angleland. Why was it named just after the Angles and not Saxons or Frisians who possibly made a larger genetic impact?

[Longbowman]

I thought the King when he returned after Cromwell died that Puritans were expelled? Anyway historians claim that New Englanders of English origin mostly came from East Anglia and Southerners [mostly Cavaliers] came from all over England but mostly the North? Scots settled in Maine, and Scotch Irish in rural New York. So the Mayflower people [we call them Pilgrims but in England they were Puritans] were really just volunteers who came here?

They were not, Jim. Additionally, that was 1661. Massachusetts was founded in 1630 and immigration post-1640 was limited, as you know.

Yes, religious volunteers who wanted to create Puritan colonies apart from close government control.

[Longbowman]

Yes but then it became Angleland. Why was it named just after the Angles and not Saxons or Frisians who possibly made a larger genetic impact?

Only part of Britain became Anglaland, and then England. Why? Perhaps because it sounds better, perhaps the Angles were richer - they were definitely more stable. The Frisians and Jutes didn't make as much of an impact. The Saxons, on the other hand, left a lot of the country named after them - Wessex, Sussex, Middlesex.

Bear in mind England wasn't united until 937. Until then it was a collection of smaller kingdoms, like Mercia. Ultimately though, they were united under Aethelstan of Wessex, a Saxon kingdom, so I don't truly understand why I'm not a proud Sexian. Perhaps we should start a movement to change the name?

In Gaelic, the English are called Saessenach, in Welsh, Saeson, but England itself is called Lloegyr.

[LightHouse89]

Do you really believe this shit that you are telling? :picard1:

Because it isnt bullshit. You really do not know America at all if you claim people here did not mind the thought of mixing with black animals. Yes afew abolitionists mixed with them but that is it....they were about as popular as the organizations today trying to legalize pedophilia. Not very many.

I do believe what I am saying because I live here and know the history of where I live. I live 25 minutes from where the 'shot heard around the world' was and also my house is on top of a battle that drove the Natives from my area. [well not my house but my town]. I can assure you that I am not lying. We did not have lynching laws or anything like that but we discouraged blacks from living here.....one can say we are liberally conservative. However it is well known here blacks were not allowed to own property, vote, or work. So this being said how could have they survived here? Europe did this many times with the Jews and Gypsies yet zero inter mingling occurred with them.

Not to mention the race riots that occurred here especially during the civil wars! LOL entire mobs slaughtered Negroes who tried to settle in the cities. Irish and Italian immigrants became so fanatical about it in most new england cities the national guard had to be called to go in and save the blacks from being slaughtered entirely. This is why they were encouraged to go west and build the rail roads.

You really do not know about our history. Maybe the history the liberal education system where you live taught you?

[LightHouse89]

They were not, Jim. Additionally, that was 1661. Massachusetts was founded in 1630 and immigration post-1640 was limited, as you know.

Yes, religious volunteers who wanted to create Puritan colonies apart from close government control.

Yes immigration was limited here in the North for some time not so sure about Virginia though. The Puritans here were fruity....they had a large settlement in Salem which create the local horror stories with the witch trials here. But most immigrants who came here came from East Anglia right?

[Longbowman]

Most/many Natives are mixed, most Europeans are not. In fairness there were never any more than 30 million natives in the continental US. Their genetic impact simply couldn't have been that big.

[Longbowman]

Yes immigration was limited here in the North for some time not so sure about Virginia though. The Puritans here were fruity....they had a large settlement in Salem which create the local horror stories with the witch trials here. But most immigrants who came here came from East Anglia right?

Yes, I'm talking about East Anglia. The climate in Britain disincentivised mass migration from the 1640s. And yes, most New Englanders come from East Anglia or if not East Anglia Eastern or at least coastal England. In many cases entire communities up and left for America for religious reasons. Interestingly the Pilgrims weren't quite as Puritan as the later migrants.

[Longbowman]

Christiano is a good example of a guy with zero knowledge of American history. He has no response to the genetic tests, so he just copies, and pastes information, a lot of which has nothing to do with Americans, but with the British in India. Lol.

My family were British Indian and I have 0% South Asian on any genetic run.

[Watch_Owl]

No they were seen as bottom of the barrel and no one mixed with them [majority did not]. The one drop rule and jim crow laws kept America pure for a long time. A shame we do not go back to that good old system....no crime, no drugs and no gangs....problem solved.

White Americans didn't commonly mate with blacks hundreds of years ago and now. However, Spaniards did create an Island full of Mulattoes even though Spaniards were just as racist and strongly believed in racial superiority. Whether blacks were bottom of the barrel isn't the reason but rather a social construct people built amongst themselves. I don't know anything about Jim Crow laws and the social science behind it so I can't argue on that point.

[LightHouse89]

White Americans didn't commonly mate with blacks hundreds of years ago and now. However, Spaniards did create an Island full of Mulattoes even though Spaniards were just as racist and strongly believed in racial superiority. Whether blacks were bottom of the barrel isn't the reason but rather a social construct people built amongst themselves. I don't know anything about Jim Crow laws and the social science behind it so I can't argue on that point.

Jim Crow laws prevented blacks from inter mixing with whites be it in public, schools, buses etc.....blacks were segregated into different communities [almost no crime back in those days too]. Our belief of them being bottom of the barrel has to do with the crime they committed when in the north states. There is a reason they left here and left for good until the 1970s when they came here because of welfare reform. Jim Crow laws protected whites from black on white crime which is why I am all for it.

[LightHouse89]

Yes, I'm talking about East Anglia. The climate in Britain disincentivised mass migration from the 1640s. And yes, most New Englanders come from East Anglia or if not East Anglia Eastern or at least coastal England. In many cases entire communities up and left for America for religious reasons. Interestingly the Pilgrims weren't quite as Puritan as the later migrants.

Yes very true Massachusetts became more liberal as a result of the later waves of Migrants. But there to this day are pockets of very religious people throughout New England. Some of my dad's relatives are an example of this.

[Smeagol]

My family were British Indian and I have 0% South Asian on any genetic run.

Probably because it's more British admixture in Indians than the other way around most of the time.

[Tooting Carmen]

Probably because it's more British admixture in Indians than the other way around most of the time.

Not that there was a lot of mixture anyway - Anglo-Indians barely make up even 1% of the Indian population.

[Longbowman]

Probably because it's more British admixture in Indians than the other way around most of the time.

I know two Britons, one 1/16, one 1/8, with Indian ancestry. It's more common than you think. Even Prince William has some.

[Smeagol]

Irrelevant.
And racial mix is happening in Massachussets since colonial times, as I have showed.
READ, FUCK. IT´S NOT A BAD THING.


And again, I put quotable marks. I never said that Puerto Rico was a American state. I said that Puerto Rico is "part" of US. If you dont know see the things it´s your fault.
Do you know even what is the goal of the quotable marks? :blink:


That drop grows and grows unceasingly. Add the immigration and you will have a mongrel country very quickly.



lol mixed? Evo Morales must have like 0% Spanish blood. Countries like Perú, Bolivia, Paragüay, Honduras etc look absolutely Native to me.


And where are we, if not in a thread about mixed Americans??


Countries like Uruguay or Argentina, with a great Spanish immigration unlike the other Latino countries, are not much more racially mixed than you.



You also need read what I posted. Stop nonsensical comments about US purity laws which it were not materialized in any way.
The Spanish system caste also supposedly look for these things... that does not means a shit.



Yeah, together Caroline, one of the more ancient British colonies :rolleyes:
Iberians in Lousiana are Canarians. They show a bit of Northern African genes. Certainly they are not the best example that you can put.


This discussion with 1eye started because he accused the Spanish colonies for racial mix, "unlike British colonies", which it´s false. I just refused his theory with proofs. I dont care what these products were considered.

Even with some mixing, the British Colonials remained much purer than the Spanish ones though, especially because when there was mixing, the product of that mixing was almost never considered White, or accepted by Whites. America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are all still predominantly White countries. The only two Pred. White countries in Spanish America are Argentina, and Uruguay, but the rest are way more mixed than countries like the United States, where only 4% of people have a tiny percent of SSA that doesn't matter at all in the racial sense.

[Smeagol]

You are 500 years living in harmony with all kind of races, man.
Who do you want to deceive??

Lol, living in harmony. Give it up dude, you clearly have no knowledge of American history.

[Smeagol]

I know two Britons, one 1/16, one 1/8, with Indian ancestry. It's more common than you think. Even Prince William has some.

Prince William has like less than 1%. I'm sure Indian admixture in ethnic English people is pretty much insignificant, even if a few have an Indian great great grandparent or something.

[Longbowman]

Prince William has like less than 1%. I'm sure Indian admixture in ethnic English people is pretty much insignificant, even if a few have an Indian great great grandparent or something.

No doubt.

[Cristiano viejo]

Even with some mixing, the British Colonials remained much purer than the Spanish ones though, especially because when there was mixing, the product of that mixing was almost never considered White, or accepted by Whites. America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are all still predominantly White countries. The only two Pred. White countries in Spanish America are Argentina, and Uruguay, but the rest are way more mixed than countries like the United States, where only 4% of people have a tiny percent of SSA that doesn't matter at all in the racial sense.
Not only Argentina and Uruguay, also Cuba, which was predominantly white until well into the twentieth century.
What about the rest of British colonies? talk me about them, pls. India, South Africa (Kazimiera posted a lot of dna test of "White" Afrikaners and all of them scored a good amount of black blood), Jamaica etc? :rolleyes:


Lol, living in harmony. Give it up dude, you clearly have no knowledge of American history.
Yes, in harmony. So much so that many blacks and Natives occupied important positions after the American Civil War. You should blame Carpetbaggers of that.

[Smeagol]

Not only Argentina and Uruguay, also Cuba, which was predominantly white until well into the twentieth century.
What about the rest of British colonies? talk me about them, pls. India, South Africa (Kazimiera posted a lot of dna test of "White" Afrikaners and all of them scored a good amount of black blood), Jamaica etc?

Yes, Cubans, Argentineans, and Uruguayans, but anyway, they don't have any less admixture than White Americans. Afrikaners have some black ancestry, but are descended from predominantly Dutch settlers, not English. And India, and Jamaica were never predominantly White in the first place.


Yes, in harmony. So much so that many blacks and Natives occupied important positions after the American Civil War. You should blame Carpetbaggers of that.

Some occupied important positions in the South briefly during Reconstruction, but no they weren't living in harmony with the Whites. This was the era when groups like the Ku Klux Klan were formed. You should read Gone With The Wind to see how blacks were viewed in the South after the Civil War.

[Isleño]

Iberians in Lousiana are Canarians. They show a bit of Northern African genes. Certainly they are not the best example that you can put.

True, most Spanish descent in Louisiana is Canarian, but there is also a large amount of ancestry from the peninsula. There is an area of Louisiana called "New Iberia", and there are descendants there of people from Málaga, Andalucía. They call themselves the "Malagueños" here in Louisiana. Also, many in the area around New Orleans (in the areas not known for Canarians) there is Iberian descent from all over the Iberian Peninsula, both northern and southern. In the Northwest of Louisiana, there is a community of people that are of Spanish descent from the peninsula.

[Isleño]

Not sure about Uruguay, but Argentina still has a good number of Mestizos, even though Whites are at least 2/3s of the country's population.
I think Argentina's percentages are the most similar to the U.S.'s percentages out of all of Latin America. The U.S. is about 2/3 white, just like Argentina, and their next largest group is mestizo, just like Argentina. Just Argentina doesn't have the significant black population the U.S. has (13% of the U.S. total).

[Isleño]

In Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador and Guatemala the order from most to least common is: Indigenous>Mestizo>White. El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Paraguay are overwhelmingly Mestizo, with few people who are either fully Indigenous or fully White. The Dominican Republic is mostly Mulatto, with smaller numbers of both full Blacks and full Whites. In the remaining Latin American countries Whites are at least 10% of the population (and like you say, they are the dominant group in Uruguay, Argentina and Southern Brazil), although other races and mixes can be found in abundance too.
Cuba used to be 74% white before Castro (1959), but even after large white flight of the island to Florida in the U.S., Cuba still has 37% of it's population as whites.

[Isleño]

I use race in a sense of a pure group, not of a social construct relying on appearence.You totally used race in a social construct relying on appearance when you said "white=blonde". If that's not relying on appearance, then I don't know what is.

[Isleño]

You never know a person's genetic composition. You see a white-looking person and assume that he/she is white. That's it. I doubt everyone will tell you about their distant Amerindian/Asian/black ancestors.That's absolutely correct. That's the only way race is ever used in society. When was the last time you heard someone identifying if a person was white in a crowd of people such as "I wonder if their DNA results are 100% European". Never. White like black, is used in a social way in society and if you look white, then you are seen as white and are identified as such. Many white Americans don't even know their ancestors past their great-grandparents.

[Cristiano viejo]

Yes, Cubans, Argentineans, and Uruguayans, but anyway, they don't have any less admixture than White Americans. Afrikaners have some black ancestry, but are descended from predominantly Dutch settlers, not English. And India, and Jamaica were never predominantly White in the first place.
WTF! and what Spanish colony was predominantly white, Argentina, Cuba and Uurguay aside, which are precisely where people have remained being white?????

I am pretty sure that white Uurguayans, Argentinians and Cubans are whiter than "White" Americans, because they belong to recent migrations, overall if they are compared with Colonial Americans.




Some occupied important positions in the South briefly during Reconstruction, but no they weren't living in harmony with the Whites. This was the era when groups like the Ku Klux Klan were formed. You should read Gone With The Wind to see how blacks were viewed in the South after the Civil War.
KKK still alive. Does it mean that curenlty whites and blacks do not live harmoniously in the USA? :rolleyes:

[Smeagol]

WTF! and what Spanish colony was predominantly white, Argentina, Cuba and Uurguay aside, which are precisely where people have remained being white?????

Okay, good point.


I am pretty sure that white Uurguayans, Argentinians and Cubans are whiter than "White" Americans, because they belong to recent migrations, overall if they are compared with Colonial Americans.

Many White Americans belong to recent migrations, especially during the early 20th century. Anyway, genetics prove you wrong on this, if you look at 23andme results for these countries, you'll see that their non-White admixture is if anything, a bit higher than Americans on average.


KKK still alive. Does it mean that curenlty whites and blacks do not live harmoniously in the USA? :rolleyes:

You missed my point entirely. The Southerners during Reconstruction hated blacks for the most part. They were enslaved for hundreds of years, and then segregated from Whites until the 1960s. How is that living harmoniously?

[Isleño]

Perhaps USA was not a British colony??
Only the eastern part of what is now the USA was a British colony. Most of what we know as the U.S. today was not a British colony. Take a look at the total Spanish colonies in the Americas during the height of Spain's colonial power:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Spanish_America_XVIII_Century_%28Most_Expansion%29 .png

Some of those Spanish areas in the U.S. changed back and forth between Spain and France also. Such as Louisiana and the midwest (middle section of the modern USA).

[Cristiano viejo]

Many White Americans belong to recent migrations, especially during the early 20th century. Anyway, genetics prove you wrong on this, if you look at 23andme results for these countries, you'll see that their non-White admixture is if anything, a bit higher than Americans on average.
I would say that white Cubans are veeeery white.
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?112969-Cuban-23andme-Results


You missed my point entirely. The Southerners during Reconstruction hated blacks for the most part. They were enslaved for hundreds of years, and then segregated from Whites until the 1960s. How is that living harmoniously?
Maybe because Southerners were not the only ones existent Americans? :lightbul:
I understood you perfectly, just it happen that excuse of Klan is very weak. As I say, today still is alive, and blacks and whites live in harmony in USA. The existence of KKK means nothing, and again, Dixie does not means entire USA neither.

[Cristiano viejo]

Only the eastern part of what is now the USA was a British colony. Most of what we know as the U.S. today was not a British colony. Take a look at the total Spanish colonies in the Americas during the height of Spain's colonial power:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Spanish_America_XVIII_Century_%28Most_Expansion%29 .png

Some of those Spanish areas in the U.S. changed back and forth between Spain and France also. Such as Louisiana and the midwest (middle section of the modern USA).

That is irrelevant, what matters is how many Spaniards lived there, and how many Anglos.

[Smeagol]

I would say that white Cubans are veeeery white.
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?112969-Cuban-23andme-Results

Mostly, yes. And these results are all typical for White Americans as well, except Americans have more Northern European than Southern European.


Maybe because Southerners were not the only ones existent Americans? :lightbul:
I understood you perfectly, just it happen that excuse of Klan is very weak. As I say, today still is alive, and blacks and whites live in harmony in USA. The existence of KKK means nothing, and again, Dixie does not means entire USA neither.

Most Northerners didn't like blacks either, and they definitely didn't live in harmony with them, they were seen as inferior. However there were more abolitionists in the North, probably because most Northerners didn't have experience with blacks in real life. Blacks were viewed as inferior for most of American history, but that has been changing since the 60s.