Blue eyes are increasingly rare in America

[Aragorn]

Blue eyes are increasingly rare in America
Blame immigration patterns, intermarriage, and genetics


If the U.S. Census Bureau has it right, the 300 millionth American entered the United States kicking and screaming on Tuesday morning.The odds are that this milestone American is a boy, born to a white family in a California suburb. He will have a 1-in-4 shot of graduating from college, will probably marry, father two children, struggle with his weight, and live to see his 85th birthday.

What he will probably not have -- that his grandfather likely did -- is a pair of blue eyes.

Once a hallmark of the boy and girl next door, blue eyes have become increasingly rare among American children. Immigration patterns, intermarriage, and genetics all play a part in their steady decline. While the drop-off has been a century in the making, the plunge in the past few decades has taken place at a remarkable rate.

About half of Americans born at the turn of the 20th century had blue eyes, according to a 2002 Loyola University study in Chicago. By mid-century that number had dropped to a third. Today only about one 1 of every 6 Americans has blue eyes, said Mark Grant, the epidemiologist who conducted the study.

Grant was moved to research the subject when he noticed that blue eyes were much more prevalent among his elderly patients in the nursing home where he worked than in the general population. At first he thought blue eyes might be connected to life expectancy, so he began comparing data from early 20th- century health surveys. Turns out it has more to do with marriage patterns.

A

Today in Americas
Bold Colombia rescue built on rebels' disarrayJesse Helms, conservative force in U.S. Senate, diesChanging dynamics in Iraq pose challenge for Obamacentury ago, 80 percent of people married within their ethnic group, Grant said. Blue eyes -- a genetically recessive trait -- were routinely passed down, especially among people of English, Irish, and Northern European ancestry.

By mid-century, a person's level of education -- and not ethnicity -- became the primary factor in selecting a spouse. As intermarriage between ethnic groups became the norm, blue eyes began to disappear, replaced by brown.

The influx of nonwhites into the United States, especially from Latin America and Asia, hastened the disappearance. Between 1900 and 1950, only about 1 in 10 Americans was nonwhite. Today that ratio is 1 in 3.

With the exception of an increased risk of macular degeneration (blue eyes are at greater risk) , eye color is biologically indicative of almost nothing. Boys are 3 percent to 5 percent likelier to have blue eyes than girls, but beyond that it's a non-issue -- physiologically speaking. The cultural implications are another story.

Preferences for fair skin and blue eyes stretch back in Europe to at least the Middle Ages, according to Hema Sundaram , author of "Face Value," a book about the history of beauty. For women in particular, especially those of European descent, fair skin and light eyes have long been seen as indicators of fertility and beauty.

America adopted those biases early on, and Hollywood reinforced them by anointing a long line of blue-eyed blondes such as Marilyn Monroe as the nation's sex symbols.

In the 1930s, eugenicists used the disappearance of blue eyes as a rallying cry to support immigration restrictions. They went so far as to map the parts of the country with the highest and lowest percentage of blue-eyed people.

So consumed were Americans with this ideal that in the '70s and '80s the fashion models who exemplified the All-American look were typically Scandinavian, said Katie Ford, CEO of Ford Models in New York, which has been in business for 60 years. But in the past decade those standards have begun to change, and Madison Avenue has taken note. The look advertisers want today favors honey-colored skin, brown hair, and green or brown eyes. The most successful models are coming from Brazil.

"Advertisers want the idealized form of the general population," Ford said. "Someone with perfect features but who the everyday person can relate to."

But even as blue eyes give way to brown, lighter eyes will maintain a certain allure, said Carolyn Kaufman, who teaches evolutionary psychology at Otterbein College in Ohio. When people see something pleasurable, their eyes dilate, Kaufman said. Dilated pupils signal happiness and are, in turn, considered attractive. Since they are easier to see on lighter eyes, they have a natural appeal.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/18/news/web.1018eyes.php

[WinterMoon]

Down here just about everyone has blue or green eyes. (Even mexicans, native americans, and blacks.) I realize that my area is not representative of the nation as a whole. I don't believe that blue eyes will ever die out though. Even individuals with brown eyes can carry the genes for blue eyes, and if two individuals with brown eyes marry (who both carry the genes for blue) then they can give birth to a blue eyed child.

[Vulpix]

Down here just about everyone has blue or green eyes. (Even mexicans, native americans, and blacks.)

:eek::eek:... Where do you live?

[Aragorn]

Blacks with blue eyes, you saying? :confused:

[Beorn]

Blacks with blue eyes, you saying? :confused:

It tends to be the half-castes who possess the dark skin and eyes of blue.
I had one colleague from work who had the skin of an Arab and the most piercing blue eyes one could ever see.

His Mother was white and his Father black.

[Aragorn]

Understand, but I didn't mean mixures, but blacks as Africans, without white ancestry.

Mixures are differently cases, I agree on that though.

[WinterMoon]

:eek::eek:... Where do you live?


Around the western part of Texas. :)

[Beorn]

Understand, but I didn't mean mixtures, but blacks as Africans, without white ancestry.



Then surely it is impossible?! For a Negro to possess blue eyes, they must surely be 'mixed' along their line somewhere.

[Skandi]

Certainly here blue eyes are very common in fact they seem to be the most common colour in some areas, I've got blue eyes and nobody else that we have been able to trace in the family has, so I expect a total die off would take several hundred years

[Vulpix]

Interesting! Almost everyone in my family is blue-eyed :p.


Certainly here blue eyes are very common in fact they seem to be the most common colour in some areas, I've got blue eyes and nobody else that we have been able to trace in the family has, so I expect a total die off would take several hundred years

[Libertas]

This may be due to the large number of Hispanic, African and Asiatic immigrants to th USA.

[Arundel]

Blue Eyes
In my family, who are basically English, with a little French, blue eyes are very dominant.
They are very beautifully shaped, rather large, and definitely blue. On a whole my family (Sisson) have dark hair and are light complexioned. I did not inherit the blue eyes, but when my son was born, there he was, with the dominant blue eyes of my Sisson family.
The first time a relative saw him, she remarked that he had the Sisson eyes, which was true. As I said mine are brown and my husband's are hazel. I guess the dominant gene was lying dormant in my gene pool. I always wondered if they had been inherited from some ancient viking who was raiding in England and France.

[Stegura]

This may be due to the large number of Hispanic, African and Asiatic immigrants to th USA.

America has relatively few African immigrants compared to the amount of Asian and Hispanic immigrants we have.

The reasons for the decline of blue eyes in America are. . . . . . .

-Massive third-world immigration.
-low birth rates among European Americans.
-higher birthrates from Blacks and Hispanics (particularly Mexicans).
-Rising rates of miscegnation betweens European Americans and non-Whites.
-European Americans adopting non-White children rather then giving birth to their own kind.

[Jägerstaffel]

Blue eyes are beautiful and I don't think they'll ever be gone in America (I hope).

Most European Americans carry the trait for blue eyes; no matter their eye colour - and so as long as we stick to our own race we will keep our blue eyes.

My wife and I both have green eyes and have two sky and steel blue-eyed children respectively.

[Arundel]

Down here just about everyone has blue or green eyes. (Even mexicans, native americans, and blacks.) I realize that my area is not representative of the nation as a whole. I don't believe that blue eyes will ever die out though. Even individuals with brown eyes can carry the genes for blue eyes, and if two individuals with brown eyes marry (who both carry the genes for blue) then they can give birth to a blue eyed child.
You are right about blue eyes being dominant. In my Sisson family which is English/French, we have what we call the Sisson eyes, very lovely large blue eyes, and very dominant. I did not inherit them, I inherited the shape, but mine are brown, and my husbands are hazel. Guess what, when my son was born there were the Sisson eyes. He had black hair, with blue eyes, quite a combination. I always laughed and said they must be inherited from some raiding viking in England. But since I joined the forum I have learned that the vikings settled in Normandy, so perhaps they came from our french/norman side. What do you think?

[Gooding]

My eyes are a light blue, with some gray.My daughter's eyes are the cornflower blue of her mother's Swaney family and my wife's eyes have the steel-blue color of her Herriott family. I'll do my part to make sure at least a few people have the "Gooding blue eyes" of myself and my Dad.Dad's an interesting study in that, anyway.His father's eyes were brown, his mother's eyes were hazel.However, his uncle has and his grandfather had the same kind of blue eyes that he and I have today.Odd, really.:eek:;)

[Æmeric]

At the end of the 19th century, America's population was nearly 90% Europid, with the overwhelming majority being of Nordish racial stock. today Europids are around 66% of the population and falling. The Nordish element of the population is down to about 50%. So the decrease in the percentage of blueyed people in the population has much more to do with the substantial increase of non-Nordish Europids in the first part of the 20th century & the immigration of millions of non-Europids after 1968. The blueyed or Nordish population is not going to go extinct in America - numerically it's probably as high as it's ever been. It's more a matter of we will have to start fighting for our living space, something we have taken for granted. The current popualtion trends are not guaranteed to continue uninterrupted. They will probably be reversed in the chaos of thecoming years.

[Hors]

The Nordish element of the population is down to about 50%

So how come the blue eyed people are less than 20%?

[Æmeric]

Not all Nordish people have blue eyes. Many have grey or green eyes. And some even have brown eyes. I know brown eyes are not uncommon among German-Americans. I've even met Norwegian-Americans with brown eyes.

[Hors]

I can't accept your point of view. It's based on the ethnical basis of political inspiration. There are other ideas in this spectrum, such as Iranian/Indian "Aryans", Mexican Nazi, Arab "Whites" etc. The only reliable criterion (on the population level) is the colour of the iris. Eyes don't lie.

[Loyalist]

I can't accept your point of view. It's based on the ethnical basis of political inspiration. There are other ideas in this spectrum, such as Iranian/Indian "Aryans", Mexican Nazi, Arab "Whites" etc. The only reliable criterion (on the population level) is the colour of the iris. Eyes don't lie.

Æmeric is correct; brown eyes are to be found in all Germanic and Nordish nations. This is especially true, at least in my experience, in the British Isles, France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and the Netherlands (which also constitute the backbone of the old-stock American population). Though less common in Scandinavia, we have all seen examples of "atypical" subjects from said region, brown-eyed individuals among them. These traits were then exported to the dispoara of the aforementioned nations in Colonial lands. Phenotype, or any aspect of physical appearance, does not dictate ethnic origin as you suggest.

[Vargtand]

Not all Nordish people have blue eyes. Many have grey or green eyes. And some even have brown eyes. I know brown eyes are not uncommon among German-Americans. I've even met Norwegian-Americans with brown eyes.

We have a lot of brown-eyed ethnic Swedes.
I wonder where a mix of green grey and blue eyes would end up on the charts would I be classed as green eyed, grey eyed or blue eyed?

[Hors]

There are no "Nordish nations". There're Nordic nations. Nordish is a racial term, not ethnic one.

Scandinavians have only 5% of brown eyes, being thus almost completely Nordish. Other Germanics have higher frequencies of brown eyes, up to 40%, representing significant non-Nordish admixtures.

And if phenotype, or any aspect of physical appearance, does not dictate ethnic origin, then there is no reason not to consider culturally assimilated Pakis, Indians, Turks etc. as Germanics. Tha'ts not my idea of ethnic preservation.

[Vargtand]

There are no "Nordish nations". There're Nordic nations. Nordish is a racial term, not ethnic one.

Scandinavians have only 5% of brown eyes, being thus almost completely Nordish. Other Germanics have higher frequencies of brown eyes, up to 40%, representing significant non-Nordish admixtures.

And if phenotype, or any aspect of physical appearance, does not dictate ethnic origin, then there is no reason not to consider culturally assimilated Pakis, Indians, Turks etc. as Germanics. Tha'ts not my idea of ethnic preservation.

Alright fair enough, though.. My grandmother is brown eyed, yet my father is blue eyed? Would she not be nordish by your terms and he would be? How can a parents race differ from it's child’s?

[Aemma]

I can't accept your point of view. It's based on the ethnical basis of political inspiration. There are other ideas in this spectrum, such as Iranian/Indian "Aryans", Mexican Nazi, Arab "Whites" etc. The only reliable criterion (on the population level) is the colour of the iris. Eyes don't lie.

Are you then outrightly saying that unless you have blue eyes you can't possibly be Nordish, Hors?

:confused:...Aemma

[Vargtand]

Are you then outrightly saying that unless you have blue eyes you can't possibly be Nordish, Hors?

:confused:...Aemma

Seems Nordish is the new Aryan.


I wonder would green eyed people be considered Nordish, or grey eyed people be considered Nordish?

What if your parents have both dark blue eyes and you end up with brown eyes, as it is generically possible and has happened several times (or it might be a cheap excuse to save the mailman..) would the child be none Nordish because his eyes are not blue then? it seems very fishy..

I just find it strange that by his argument two twins could be of different races just depending on how they look.. one have to realise that all our genes do not effect what we look like and a clone does by no means look 100% identical to the original. Would then the clone not be the same race? :confused:

[Aemma]

Seems Nordish is the new Aryan.


I wonder would green eyed people be considered Nordish, or grey eyed people be considered Nordish?

What if your parents have both dark blue eyes and you end up with brown eyes, as it is generically possible and has happened several times (or it might be a cheap excuse to save the mailman..) would the child be none Nordish because his eyes are not blue then? it seems very fishy..

I just find it strange that by his argument two twins could be of different races just depending on how they look.. one have to realise that all our genes do not effect what we look like and a clone does by no means look 100% identical to the original. Would then the clone not be the same race? :confused:

Yes I wholly understand what you're saying Alexander. And this has me perplexed as well. Both of my parents had hazel eyes and I ended up with grey (with blonde hair as a kid) and my sister with brown eyes (and always has been a brunette)...and yes, we come from the same parents! :rolleyes:

:confused:...Aemma

[Jägerstaffel]

It's complete bullcrap that brown eyes mean someone is less 'nordish'. Brown eyes on a Germanic/Nordic person doesn't mean that person is less Germanic/Nordic - there's just a higher chance (luck of the draw) that blue eyes will occur in people of Germanic/Nordic peoples.

Let's not get started on misconceptions, Hors.

[Loyalist]

It's complete bullcrap that brown eyes mean someone is less 'nordish'. Brown eyes on a Germanic/Nordic person doesn't mean that person is less Germanic/Nordic - there's just a higher chance (luck of the draw) that blue eyes will occur in people of Germanic/Nordic peoples.

Let's not get started on misconceptions, Hors.

Well stated, and to use my mother as an example; her father, an Ulster-Scot, had blue eyes while her mother, a Colonial of Welsh, English, and German ancestry, had brown. Both my mother and her sister have bright blue eyes, despite a brown-eyed parent. Any logic which asserts that she, or anyone in her family, have fallen out of the Germanic/Nordish/Nordic (whichever term you prefer) spectrum over some random genetic variation is laughable.

[Psychonaut]

I'm actually inclined to agree with Hors here, since he's specifically using the term Nordish, not Nordic, Germanic, or anything else. From the SNPA's glossary:


Nordish
Northern European Europid para-group of Cro-Magnids and Nordids, all mostly tall-statured and depigmented, and cohabitant in relative intermixture. Not primarily a phylogenetic entity.

This is a specifically morphological term and not a cultural or ethnic one.

[Jägerstaffel]

He's implying that brown eyes are because of non-Nordish admixture, Psycho. Not that Nordish folks are more likey to have blue eyes. At least, that's how I read it.

[Rudy]

Blue eyes are a variation from brown eyes. They have the same base, but different allele endings.

I don't think it is mathematically possible to be in a 100% blue region even with natural selection.

[coldielox]

both me and my husband have a kind of Hazel eye color , yet we ended up with 3 out of our 5 kids having a kind of blue color to their eyes.. 2 of them are very bright blue, the other is a blue gray.. I always wanted blue eyes.. So I was sooooo happy when I realized soo many of my kids had blue eyes :)

[Mikey]

He's implying that brown eyes are because of non-Nordish admixture, Psycho. Not that Nordish folks are more likey to have blue eyes. At least, that's how I read it.
What else would cause brown eyes in a stable pure CENTRAL Nordish population? The admixture could come from Meds or Alpinids, or from Peripheral Nordish populations such as Paleo-Atlantid. And as the brown gene is the dominant color, the brown will spread faster than the blue eyes throughout the population.

A captive Paleo-Atlantid female or two from England bought into a Scandinavian population a thousand years ago by Viking raiders would have repercussions even today, such as leading someone to say, "I know this "pure" Norwegian guy with brown eyes". Well yes, he is almost completely Nordish, maybe 63/64ths or even more, but not pure Nordish. But he is surely more Nordish than say someone who is half Med who happens to have blue eyes.

Conversely, I met a Negro female in Seattle a few years ago, she was predominately Congoid rather than Capeoid if that matters to anyone, she had pale clear blue eyes and wavy light blond hair, and no, she was not Nordish, but no doubt had a recent Nordish ancestor.

So eyes are not an absolute indicator either way, just one very important indicator, of many.

[Psychonaut]

What else would cause brown eyes in a stable pure CENTRAL Nordish population?

What makes you think that there have ever been populations that were 100% blue eyed? Remember, blue eyes mutated from brown, there were always bound to be a handful of individuals who retained this, even in the most Nordish regions.

[Atlas]

My eyes are green, it really is becoming more and more rare...

[Gooding]

My eyes are green, it really is becoming more and more rare...

That I'll agree with you on.It seems only a very few blonds and redheads have green eyes..

[Jägerstaffel]

That I'll agree with you on.It seems only a very few blonds and redheads have green eyes..

Are you saying green eyes are rare in blondes and redheads? That's far from the truth.

Or are you saying that green eyes are only found in blondes and redheads?

[Jägerstaffel]

What else would cause brown eyes in a stable pure CENTRAL Nordish population? The admixture could come from Meds or Alpinids, or from Peripheral Nordish populations such as Paleo-Atlantid. And as the brown gene is the dominant color, the brown will spread faster than the blue eyes throughout the population.


That's just not true.

Brown eyes DO occur in 'Nordish' populations and are not the result of admixture from non-Nordish people.

[Gooding]

Are you saying green eyes are rare in blondes and redheads? That's far from the truth.

Or are you saying that green eyes are only found in blondes and redheads?

Okay.There are green eyed brunettes,yes, I've seen a few of them.I've seen a few more blondes and redheads with green eyes.Most people today fall into a spectrum of brown,hazel,gray and blue eyes.I stand by my agreement with Atlas that green eyes are rare to spot period.My own eyes,as stated before, are grayish blue, reflecting my own Germanic heritage.Truly green eyes,emerald green eyes, can be spotted, but it's not an everyday occurrance.To be perfectly honest with you, the phenotype I've seen with green eyes the most often are redheads, with blondes and brunettes following.

[Jägerstaffel]

Just wanted clarification.
Green eyes are the rarest eye colour - that's why you don't see much of them around.

As for me -
My wife and I have green eyes;
she's a brunette,
I have dirty blonde/light brown hair.
My father has green eyes, and he had blonde hair (now grey.)
My mother has green eyes, and she has brown hair.
Lots of green eyed brunettes in my extended family (as well as blue eyed brunettes)

I don't disagree with you that they are rare to spot, I was just curious as to what you meant by 'It seems only a very few blonds and redheads have green eyes.. '

[Gooding]

LOL, I hear you.What I actually meant to say was it seems that the few green eyed people I've seen were either blondes or redheads.:D

[Taheen]

What makes you think that there have ever been populations that were 100% blue eyed? Remember, blue eyes mutated from brown, there were always bound to be a handful of individuals who retained this, even in the most Nordish regions.

From Coon and SNPA.


The Nordid eye is typically light-mixed blue, with a large pure light-eyed minority. Here also there is a small dark-pigmented minority.


The Nordic race is a partially depigmented branch of the greater Mediterranean racial stock. It is probably a composite race made up of two or more basic Mediterranean strains, depigmented separately or in conjunction by a progressive evolutionary process.

Although on the color of hair, it gives an indication.


Thus we may, from this material, specify that the typical hair color of the living examples of the Iron Age Nordic race ranges from a medium brown to an ash-blond, with a minimum of rufosity, and a small brunet minority.

[Psychonaut]

From Coon and SNPA.

Neither of your quotes says anything about historical populations being 100% blue eyed. It certainly would've been the norm in areas radiating out from the Baltic, where the mutation originated, but by no means would so recent of a mutation's frequency have been 100%.

[Taheen]

Neither of your quotes says anything about historical populations being 100% blue eyed. It certainly would've been the norm in areas radiating out from the Baltic, where the mutation originated, but by no means would so recent of a mutation's frequency have been 100%.

No, but it is general popular believe on forums like these that the Nordid race is a (the) complete light pigmented type, so by clarifying this, the indication is set that very possibly no northern european population was ever 100% anything if considered the mutation of pigmentation.

[Hors]

Even now some smaller territorial groups (Vepses, Setu, Northern Russians, Eastern Finns etc.) have <1% frequency of brown eyes. A lot of Northern ethnic groups (Swedes, Norses, Finns, Latvians, Russians etc.) have <5% frequency of brown eyes (mostly in contact zones). This fact suggests that the brown eye colour isn't inherent for Northern Europeans.

[Psychonaut]

No, but it is general popular believe on forums like these that the Nordid race is a (the) complete light pigmented type, so by clarifying this, the indication is set that very possibly no northern european population was ever 100% anything if considered the mutation of pigmentation.

Right, and I don't think many folks seriously hold the view that there were at any point in time populations where every single individual belonged to one morphotype.

[Loki]

Even now some smaller territorial groups (Vepses, Setu, Northern Russians, Eastern Finns etc.) have <1% frequency of brown eyes. A lot of Northern ethnic groups (Swedes, Norses, Finns, Latvians, Russians etc.) have <5% frequency of brown eyes (mostly in contact zones). This fact suggests that the brown eye colour isn't inherent for Northern Europeans.

That depends what is meant by Northern European. The extreme light eye spectrum in those nations you mentioned seems to come from the Finno-Ugric substratum.

[Taheen]

Even now some smaller territorial groups (Vepses, Setu, Northern Russians, Eastern Finns etc.) have <1% frequency of brown eyes. A lot of Northern ethnic groups (Swedes, Norses, Finns, Latvians, Russians etc.) have <5% frequency of brown eyes (mostly in contact zones). This fact suggests that the brown eye colour isn't inherent for Northern Europeans.

That is very questionable, areas like the Norwegian coast or the Danish islands have a 30% brunet rate, I believe that is also the number for Scotland. And with all do respect for your population and root, to express it very conservative these former regions have endured much less of non european alien invasion or interaction, there is no need to question the inherent or indigenousness of their appearances.

Either way small, more or less isolated fractions or populations don't represent objectively something as broad as northern europeans, be them very brunet or very blond.

[Taheen]

Right, and I don't think many folks seriously hold the view that there were at any point in time populations where every single individual belonged to one morphotype.

Indeed there is no such thing as a healthy biological population without minor variations.

[Hors]

That depends what is meant by Northern European. The extreme light eye spectrum in those nations you mentioned seems to come from the Finno-Ugric substratum.

10% FU contribution in the genepool of some of those nations in question is apparently not enough to explain the absence of brown eyes.

[Hors]

That is very questionable, areas like the Norwegian coast or the Danish islands have a 30% brunet rate, I believe that is also the number for Scotland.

I haven't mentioned neither Denmark nor Scotland. Apparently, they have siginificant infusion of non-Northern blood.


And with all do respect for your population and root, to express it very conservative these former regions have endured much less of non european alien invasion or interaction, there is no need to question the inherent or indigenousness of their appearances.

Do you suggest that tens of millions of brown eyed Spaniards, Italians, Serbs, the French etc. is the result of "non european alien invasion or interaction"?



Either way small, more or less isolated fractions or populations don't represent objectively something as broad as northern europeans, be them very brunet or very blond.

With this approach we may declare Northenr Europeans an isolated fraction... Remember, the absolute majority of Europeoids are brown eyed, black haired and have olive skin...

[Taheen]

I haven't mentioned neither Denmark nor Scotland. Apparently, they have siginificant infusion of non-Northern blood.

You referred to northern europeans, and they are. They are indigenous as a result the are northern by blood.


Do you suggest that tens of millions of brown eyed Spaniards, Italians, Serbs, the French etc. is the result of "non european alien invasion or interaction"?

Nop, its you that makes the assertion that brown eyes are atypical or an infusion in northern europe so I simply compared the historical situations and past events between the regions mentioned by you.


With this approach we may declare Northenr Europeans an isolated fraction... Remember, the absolute majority of Europeoids are brown eyed, black haired and have olive skin...

Im only interested in European Europids, and this category doesn't fit your described characteristics.

"Southern Europeans (measures taken from Spaniards) show a skin pigmentation in parts of the body not exposed to the sun similar to that of Northern Europeans and, in some cases, even lighter."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people

http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/chem/faculty/leontis/chem447/PDF_files/Jablonski_skin_color_2000.pdf

[Hors]

You referred to northern europeans, and they are. They are indigenous as a result the are northern by blood.

How long does it take to become indigenous Northern European?

Could a Swedish/Turkish or /Italian or /Serb person be considered Northern European?


Nop, its you that makes the assertion that brown eyes are atypical or an infusion in northern europe so I simply compared the historical situations and past events between the regions mentioned by you.

And you failed to back your claim.


Im only interested in European Europids, and this category doesn't fit your described characteristics.

"Southern Europeans (measures taken from Spaniards) show a skin pigmentation in parts of the body not exposed to the sun similar to that of Northern Europeans and, in some cases, even lighter."

Really?

http://anthro.palomar.edu/adapt/images/map_of_skin_color_distribution.gif

[Taheen]

How long does it take to become indigenous Northern European?

Pre History


Could a Swedish/Turkish or /Italian or /Serb person be considered Northern European?

The former not, the later two under certain conditions could.


And you failed to back your claim.

Basic knowledge of history supports it, what non europeans - pre-modern immigration - did get to Denmark, Norway or Scotland that could have effected these populations?


Really?

Apparently so.

On the map you presented, which seems to be an offshoot of this map

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c4/Map_of_skin_hue_equi3.png


Though the von Luschan scale was used extensively throughout the first half of the twentieth century in the study of race and anthropometry, it was considered problematic, even by its practitioners, because it was very inconsistent. In many instances, different investigators would give different readings of the same person. It was largely abandoned by the early 1950s, replaced instead by methods utilizing reflectance spectrophotometry.

[Hors]

Why Southern Swedes and Norses do not have brown eyes, while the English and the Dutch have up to 30% of brown eyes? Apparently, the latter have different ethnic make-up, have an apparently non Northern European component.


Pre History

What's about Saami?


Basic knowledge of history supports it, what non europeans - pre-modern immigration - did get to Denmark, Norway or Scotland that could have effected these populations?

I've never claimed it were non Europeans. Apparently, the Danes and the British have a significant non Northern european component, be it Central or Southern European, it does not matter. But it's THERE.

[Taheen]

Why Southern Swedes and Norses do not have brown eyes, while the English and the Dutch have up to 30% of brown eyes? Apparently, the latter have different ethnic make-up, have an apparently non Northern European component.

I don't share your opinion that brown eyes are non northern, I don't see the slightest need to do so.

That light eyes are northern is not a dilemma for the existence of indigenous brown eyes, indigenous to Northern Europe. The Northern Europeans are predominantly blond, but that is not absolute.

You tend to hold a peculiar definition on the meaning of what ethnicity composes. Ethnicity is common and shared roots, genetic testing has demonstrated that ethnic populations cluster together regardless of eye color, as we don't see part of a population shift drastically towards a blond zone and another one to a darker one.

There still exists something as convergent evolution. Thus a brown eyed Dutch guy will be genetically much, much closer to a Dutch blue eyed individual, instead of being near a blue eyed Russian living 4500 km away.

Not to mention that the differences overall of psychical appearances of a Dutch and a Russian contains more then the color of the eye.


What's about Saami?

Europeans, though racially distinct.


I've never claimed it were non Europeans. Apparently, the Danes and the British have a significant non Northern european component, be it Central or Southern European, it does not matter. But it's THERE.

Eye pigmentation is one mutation, not an overall genotype, just as lactose tolerance.

There is not one mysterious single blue eyed ethnicity or culture at the root of all modern blue eyed individuals that popped up at some given time in northern europe.

Blue eyes are an indication but certainly not an ethnicity.

[Hors]

I don't share your opinion that brown eyes are non northern, I don't see the slightest need to do so.

If brown eyes are Northern, why Swedes, Norses, Finns, Latvians, Russians etc. don't have them?


That light eyes are northern is not a dilemma for the existence of indigenous brown eyes, indigenous to Northern Europe. The Northern Europeans are predominantly blond, but that is not absolute.

It's not a coincidence, that the highest percentage of brown eyes in Sweden is in Stockholm, the most alien influenced city...



You tend to hold a peculiar definition on the meaning of what ethnicity composes. Ethnicity is common and shared roots, genetic testing has demonstrated that ethnic populations cluster together regardless of eye color, as we don't see part of a population shift drastically towards a blond zone and another one to a darker one.

I wonder, what are you talking about? We see that significantly brown eyed Germanic populations differ drastically from purely blue eyed Germanic populations. Same with Slavs.


There still exists something as convergent evolution. Thus a brown eyed Dutch guy will be genetically much, much closer to a Dutch blue eyed individual, instead of being near a blue eyed Russian living 4500 km away.

Sure, but only because he shares common blue/brown eye genes with that guy. But he's different from a blue eyed Swede, 'cos there is no gene for brown eye in his genepool.



Europeans, though racially distinct.

Northern Europeans?



Eye pigmentation is one mutation, not an overall genotype, just as lactose tolerance.



There is not one mysterious single blue eyed ethnicity or culture at the root of all modern blue eyed individuals that popped up at some given time in northern europe.

Blue eyes are an indication but certainly not an ethnicity.

There are 2 or 3 such ethnicities or cultures. And, no, they didn't pop up in Northern Europe (at least, in the contemporary sense).

[Gwynyvyr]

One of my sons had a friend with the most incredible blue/green eyes.
Around the pupil they were an amazing shade of green and then it turned BRIGHT blue away from the middle of the iris.

I call my eyes *hazel-green*, but they seem to shift color...a lot of the time depending on my mood or my health or what I am wearing.

[Sigurd]

If brown eyes are Northern, why Swedes, Norses, Finns, Latvians, Russians etc. don't have them?

They don't? ;)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44028000/jpg/_44028120_colour_416.jpg
Ingmar Bergman, Swedish director.

http://www.expressen.se/polopoly_fs/1.859452!slot100slotWide75ArticleFull/3447786819.jpg
Anja Pärson, Swedish skiier

http://d.yimg.com/i/ng/sp/ap_photo/20090209/all/l3634957.jpg
Aksel Lund Svindal, Norwegian skier

http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/1900/kornilov3jq5.jpg
Denis Kornilov, Russian ski jumper

[Hors]

Only ~5%

[Sigurd]

Only ~5%

Really? Scientific maps would suggest different, especially in regards to Russia. ;)

http://pages.globetrotter.net/peter_frost61z/Eye-color.jpg

To refute the claim that Scotland is predominantly dark-eyed:

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/7131/lundracesmap5lo6.jpg

[Hors]

Really? Scientific maps would suggest different, especially in regards to Russia.

No, they don't.

1. It's about light eyes, not brown. I'm sure you realize there're light mixed eyes between "lights" and "browns".
2. The map is plotted on the basis of "cumulative points". The lines are drawn between the points and thus pretty much meaningless. You should check anthropological stats.


To refute the claim that Scotland is predominantly dark-eyed:

Who claimed it?

[Sigurd]

1. It's about light eyes, not brown. I'm sure you realize there're light mixed eyes between "lights" and "browns".

And I'm sure you realise that the map says "light eyes" and not "blue eyes". Scientifically as well as practically seen, "light eyes" by definition are blue, grey and green. Some even include Hazel in that definition.

Also, I would agree that 50-79% of Austrians have light eyes, but I wouldn't agree that 50-79% have blue eyes. If I gave you a sample of 100 people back home, I could bet that whilst only about 30-40 had brown eyes, but that this wouldn't mean that 60-70 had blue eyes --- that pointer would perhaps account for about half of that number. Blue/brown/intermediate appears to all be rather equally spread out back home.

Therefore - and shared by empirical observation - anything not included in this is brown-eyed.


2. The map is plotted on the basis of "cumulative points". The lines are drawn between the points and thus pretty much meaningless.

Even then, Russia at large would be outside the larger area. Of course "cumulative points" are used for map creation. But at large, I'd be curious to see a study which includes Russia amongst the lightest-pigment nations. :rolleyes:


You should check anthropological stats.

Which are for the most part also done by small samples, empirical obsrevation & estimation ... I yet have to see a census in most of the countries in question which registers anthropological matters. Some countries perhaps do ask for eye colour (I've only undertaken a census in one country, duh!) --- but none usually ask for hair colour (not even your passport states that) ... nor any further measures.

And even where such a census may exist --- People are still undecided whether my eyes are Grey/Green, Blue/Green or just Plain Green, so there is always space for interpretation: What may be "Hazel but leaning towards Green" may be "Hazel but leaning towards brown" for another. ;)

[ReichGirl]

Down here just about everyone has blue or green eyes. (Even mexicans, native americans, and blacks.) I realize that my area is not representative of the nation as a whole. I don't believe that blue eyes will ever die out though. Even individuals with brown eyes can carry the genes for blue eyes, and if two individuals with brown eyes marry (who both carry the genes for blue) then they can give birth to a blue eyed child.


thats hte craziest thing i have ever heard LOL :D:D:D

[Mikey]

What makes you think that there have ever been populations that were 100% blue eyed? Remember, blue eyes mutated from brown, there were always bound to be a handful of individuals who retained this, even in the most Nordish regions.
If you believe the PC theory that we all came from kindly capable Africans, who when they migrated Northward, stopped grubbing around on all fours for roots and bugs, suddenly developing blue eyes and blond hair because of the snow:rolleyes:, invented stuff like the wheel, and turned into a-holes and began oppressing people of color.

And no, I don't want to get into what I believe, as it would send the thread off on a tangent:cool::)

[Psychonaut]

If you believe the PC theory that we all came from kindly capable Africans, who when they migrated Northward, stopped grubbing around on all fours for roots and bugs, suddenly developing blue eyes and blond hair because of the snow:rolleyes:, invented stuff like the wheel, and turned into a-holes and began oppressing people of color.

And no, I don't want to get into what I believe, as it would send the thread off on a tangent:cool::)

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Even the proponents of the Multiregional Origin Hypothesis, like Coon, admit that the ancestors of Homo sapens originated in Africa. The main difference between the Single Origin and Multiregional Hypothesis is that with the latter the mutation to Homo sapiens occurred in several primate groups after they left Africa, rather than in one group still on the continent. Blue eyes are most definitely a mutation from the original brown color, and a rather recent one, only having occurred some seven to ten thousand years ago.

[Hors]

And I'm sure you realise that the map says "light eyes" and not "blue eyes". Scientifically as well as practically seen, "light eyes" by definition are blue, grey and green. Some even include Hazel in that definition.


Therefore - and shared by empirical observation - anything not included in this is brown-eyed.



Even then, Russia at large would be outside the larger area. Of course "cumulative points" are used for map creation. But at large, I'd be curious to see a study which includes Russia amongst the lightest-pigment nations. :rolleyes:

Let's cut the crap.

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/6653/eyel.jpg

Russians have 5.1% of "dark" eyes

the "dark" colour includes all kinds of brown/hazel, yellow and amber shades

[Taheen]

If brown eyes are Northern, why Swedes, Norses, Finns, Latvians, Russians etc. don't have them?

They have them, and even if they wouldn't have them, other western northern europeans have them, and unless you can provide substantial prove for substantial migration into those regions of some sort of magical brown eyed population, it will make brown eyes northern.

Light eye mutation has its center around the Baltic, whatever direction you take from there the numbers will decrease regardless of ethnicity or historic population movements in those areas.

A mutation that had its course after the populating of northern europe, so populations with brown eyes appeared before light eyes popped up.


It's not a coincidence, that the highest percentage of brown eyes in Sweden is in Stockholm, the most alien influenced city...


Cities are always darker then rural areas, it has to do with natural selection, it is true for all living beings.

And the highest number for Norway is the Atlantic coast, unless you claim brown eyed alien individuals have been swimming through the North Sea from Central or Southern Europe?


I wonder, what are you talking about? We see that significantly brown eyed Germanic populations differ drastically from purely blue eyed Germanic populations. Same with Slavs.

The Netherlands have been always Germanic, regardless of popular believe of them being Celtic, and according to you we have a 30% brown eyed population.

Regardless of it, Germanic has its root in Denmark, the Nordic Bronze Age, including those darker Danish islands and the Norwegian coast.


Sure, but only because he shares common blue/brown eye genes with that guy. But he's different from a blue eyed Swede, 'cos there is no gene for brown eye in his genepool.

You are making assertions.

There is not one poplulation with a rate of 0% brown eyed native individuals within its collective genepool.

And he may be different from a blue eyed Swede on one single locus, but that brown eyed Dutch guy is closer to Germanic Scandinavians then blue eyed Finns or Russians.

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x271/Eveliina-Valo/Eveliina%20Valo/Lauri%20Ylonen/LD1.jpg

He would not fit in any western and germanic population, regardless of his geographic origin and his light eyes. That provides the prove that there is more to a population and its roots then the color of its eyes.


Northern Europeans?

Yes


There are 2 or 3 such ethnicities or cultures. And, no, they didn't pop up in Northern Europe (at least, in the contemporary sense).

There are not.


Russians have 5.1% of "dark" eyes

the "dark" colour includes all kinds of brown/hazel, yellow and amber shades


5% is absurdly low for a nation as historically diverse as Russia.

[Hors]

They have them, and even if they wouldn't have them, other western northern europeans have them, and unless you can provide substantial prove for substantial migration into those regions of some sort of magical brown eyed population, it will make brown eyes northern.


Light eye mutation has its center around the Baltic, whatever direction you take from there the numbers will decrease regardless of ethnicity or historic population movements in those areas.

http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/images/LastIceAgeMap.gif

I don't believe any explanaitions needed.

[Hors]

There is not one poplulation with a rate of 0% brown eyed native individuals within its collective genepool.

Vepses and some other Russian Finnic groups.


5% is absurdly low for a nation as historically diverse as Russia.

Such is life...

[Taheen]

http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/images/LastIceAgeMap.gif

I don't believe any explanaitions needed.

Sure it does. Europe was repopulated after the last ice age, did they bring blue eyes with them?

What do you indicate with the event of the ice age during this debate, there are several possibilities.


Vepses and some other Russian Finnic groups.

0% will certainly not be true.

"The Vepses, who live in a more northerly habitat, are close to the Carelian means in these two criteria, with 164.0 cm. for stature, and 81.9 for the cephalic index.77 Observations on a small series of Vepses,78 however, show a majority of brown hair shades, of gray eyes, of broad noses, and of oblique eyes, with a weak beard development in many cases, indicating a higher Mongoloid content in this group exposed to Lappish and Samoyed influences, than in most other Finnic samples."

Racial Characters of the Eastern Finns. SNPA


Such is life...

Life is reality, as in modern science, as in provided to you by Sigurd.

[Hors]

Sure it does. Europe was repopulated after the last ice age, did they bring blue eyes with them?

Naturally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_period


0% will certainly not be true.

Proof?


Life is reality, as in modern science, as in provided to you by Sigurd.

It seems you don't follow the discussion closely.

Here's official stats.

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/6653/eyel.jpg

Russians have 5.1% of brown and yellow and amber eyes

Probably they're lighter eyed than Swedes...

[Taheen]

Naturally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_period


Nop, the mutation is taken to Northern Europe during the Neolithic, Europe was resetteld during the Paleolithic.


The mutations responsible for the blue eye color most likely originate from the neareast area or northwest part of the Black Sea region, where the great agriculture migration to the northern part of Europe took place in the Neolithic periods about 6–10,000 years ago (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994).

The high frequency of blue-eyed individuals in the Scandinavia and Baltic areas indicates a positive selection for this phenotype (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994; Myant et al. 1997). Several theories has been suggested to explain the evolutionary selection for pigmentation traits which include UV expositor causing skin cancer, vitamin D deficiency, and also sexual selection has been mentioned. Natural selection as suggested here makes it difficult to calculate the age of the mutation.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/2045q6234h66p744/fulltext.html


Proof?

You claim, burden of proof is on you.

The Vepses have clear non europid admixture, that makes it statistically near to impossible to be completely light pigmented, a Europid characteristic.


It seems you don't follow the discussion closely

What is the source. Science is not something static, new information is included when considered true.

What Sigrud provided is modern and from Université Laval (Canada) and St. Andrews University (Scotland).

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Frost_06.html

[Hors]

Nop, the mutation is taken to Northern Europe during the Neolithic, Europe was resetteld during the Paleolithic.

Listen... There was no "Northern Europe" 10K years ago, when the blue eyed mutation appeared. It means that "blue eyes" were brought to the Baltic region from somewhere else.

Anyway, my question stands unanswered: why Swedes don't have brown eyes (ok, only 5%) while the English and the Dutch have 30%?


You claim, burden of proof is on you.

The Vepses have clear non europid admixture, that makes it statistically near to impossible to be completely light pigmented, a Europid characteristic.

It's just your speculation.

The point is that there are groups with 0% of brown eyes, that's just for your information...

Many Russian groups have 0%, as could be seen from the table I posted (the 0-14% range)


What is the source.

Происхождение и этническая история русского народа по антропологическим данным, М.: Наука, 1965 (под ред. В.В. Бунака)


What Sigrud provided is modern and from Université Laval (Canada) and St. Andrews University (Scotland).

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Frost_06.html

No, it is not. And, no, it's not in condradiction with the data I posted.

[Ilsa Von Kitten Katten]

Truly green eyes,emerald green eyes, can be spotted, but it's not an everyday occurrance.To be perfectly honest with you, the phenotype I've seen with green eyes the most often are redheads, with blondes and brunettes following.

I have red hair and green eyes. That skips around in my Mom side of the family, my Grandmother had red hair and green eyes, but none of her 13 children had them, They all had blue eyes, but some had very very light blond hair and some had medium brown hair, but their children had some red and green kids. Some of my cousins have that combination. My Mother has medium brown hair and clear blue eyes. My brother has medium brown hair and beautiful clear blue eye, his wife has light brown hair and blue eyes and their son has red hair and green eyes, just like me, and just like my Grandmother.

When growing up I wished I had blue eyes and not so noticeable red hair*, but now I like my unique look, people pay lots of money to get my hair color and I can grow it myself without having to pay for it. Same with my eye color, people buy green contact lenses just for the look, I have my own natural green eyes.

The foolishness of youth... Like what you have and don't try to change what you are.

*a point of teasing about my coloring, plus I went to predominantly negro schools (95% negro), so I stood out like the proverbial sore thumb.

[Taheen]

Listen... There was no "Northern Europe" 10K years ago, when the blue eyed mutation appeared. It means that "blue eyes" were brought to the Baltic region from somewhere else.

Exactly my point, that means brown eyes were the norm before the mutation, as repopulating Europe happened before the arrival of the mutation, and the mutation is clearly prominent, though its not absolute.


Anyway, my question stands unanswered: why Swedes don't have brown eyes (ok, only 5%) while the English and the Dutch have 30%?

They are further away from the Baltic area, I already wrote that whatever direction you take from there the numbers will decrease regardless of ethnicity or historic population movements in those areas.


It's just your speculation.

Mongoloid admixture in Finnic groups is not speculation.


Many Russian groups have 0%, as could be seen from the table I posted (the 0-14% range)

I don't read Russian so why don't you start with one.

The Finns are the most light eyed and they don't go below 5%

The eye color of the Finns is, as one would expect, prevailingly light, with blue commoner than gray. Westerlund finds but 7 per cent of brown eyes, and 15 per cent of mixed, while Luther's mixed group comprises 15 per cent. Since the eye color of the Finns and of the Swedes in the coastal regions is equally distributed, it is reasonable to suppose that Finland, in this respect, is about equal to Scandinavia. Blue eyes, with a regional maximum of 53 per cent, are commonest in southern Ostrobothnia; while gray eyes, attaining 37 per cent, are concentrated in Finland Proper. In four-fold correlation tables blue eyes go especially with brown, and gray eyes with ash-blond hair. The regional distribution of eye color, while following faithfully that of stature, head form, and hair color, is not as strongly marked as is the case with the metrical characters; the maximum of Westerlund's blue + gray classes combined is 83 per cent in Finland Proper, the minimum 71.8 per cent in northern Ostrobothnia; dark eyes vary only from 5.7 per cent to 9.1 per cent, in the same counties.


Происхождение и этническая история русского народа по антропологическим данным, М.: Наука, 1965 (под ред. В.В. Бунака)

Right, in English if you wish.


No, it is not. And, no, it's not in condradiction with the data I posted.

Yes it is, if the majority of Europid Russia according to that map is either between 50 - 79% or 20 - 49 %, 5% on a whole - as you claim - is absurd.

[Hors]

Exactly my point, that means brown eyes were the norm before the mutation, as repopulating Europe happened before the arrival of the mutation, and the mutation is clearly prominent, though its not absolute.

Oh, no, it's exactly my point. And the point is that there weren't brown eyed people among ancestors of the Swedes, that's Germanics, who moved into un-inhabited Northern Europe from southern regions.



They are further away from the Baltic area, I already wrote that whatever direction you take from there the numbers will decrease regardless of ethnicity or historic population movements in those areas.

Geographic location does not influence eye colour. The Saami are in the Baltic area, yet they have a long way more dark eyes than Black Sea Russians.


Mongoloid admixture in Finnic groups is not speculation.

I was talking about your unsubstantiated correlation between Mongoloid admixture and the eye colour.



I don't read Russian so why don't you start with one.



The Finns are the most light eyed and they don't go below 5%

It's the coast.


Right, in English if you wish.

The origin and ethnic history of the Russian people according to anthropological data. Moscow: Science. 1965 (rev. by V.V. Bunak)



Yes it is, if the majority of Europid Russia according to that map is either between 50 - 79% or 20 - 49 %, 5% on a whole - as you claim - is absurd.

Are you retarded or what? I've posted the stats published by the Soviet Academy of Sciences and explained already how the maps in question are drawn. What's your problem?

[Jägerstaffel]

Geographic location does not influence eye colour. The Saami are in the Baltic area, yet they have a long way more dark eyes than Black Sea Russians.

He's not saying that location influences eye colour, don't be a fool.

He's saying that they have developed different ethnic populations most likely due to their geographic isolation and their eye colour has more to do with their breeding population and very little to do with 'non-nordic' blood being thrown into the mix.

[Hors]

He's saying a lot of things, except why the English and the Dutch have 30% of brown eyes and the Swedes don't.

Care to explain? not mentioning the geographic location, of course.

[Jägerstaffel]

eh, screw it. whats the point.

[Taheen]

Oh, no, it's exactly my point. And the point is that there weren't brown eyed people among ancestors of the Swedes, that's Germanics, who moved into un-inhabited Northern Europe from southern regions.

Nop, its mine, I will repeat to you: you acknowledge that brown eyes were the norm in the population of northern europe before the mutation, as repopulating Europe happened before the arrival of the mutation.

And the above very simplified for you:

Paleolithic: repopulating northern europe after last ice age
Mesolithic: Still brown eyed northern european population
Neolithic: arrival of the mutation
Equals: Brown eyed northern european populations before blue eyed once, equals brown eyes are northern, equals your assertion that started this discussion (brown eyes being supposedly non northern of central or south european origin) is a corrupted one.

Secondly Germanics equals Indo Europeans that brought their culture to Jutland, southern Sweden and the Norwegian coast (brown eyed individuals being present, one example the tydal race) and dissolved into the already since Paleolithic native population, as 80% European genetics is of a paleolithic root.


Geographic location does not influence eye colour. The Saami are in the Baltic area, yet they have a long way more dark eyes than Black Sea Russians.

It does involve the spread of whatever mutation you have in mind, its basic evolutionary theory.

You can read the map and see that in any given direction the decrease will take place, regardless of ethnicity.

That the Lapps are darker is because the mutation is one inherent to the Europid race, to which they don't belong, not to mention that they are an isolated population in regards of the Europids of Europe..


I was talking about your unsubstantiated correlation between Mongoloid admixture and the eye colour.


Its not unsubstantiated its called logic, and it has validation through the means of mendel's laws.

Statistically it is impossible to be completely light pigmented, at a rate of 0%, more over since they show strong Mongoloid characteristics, they will not pass on something as genetically dominant as brown eyes.


Are you retarded or what? I've posted the stats published by the Soviet Academy of Sciences and explained already how the maps in question are drawn. What's your problem?

You displayed already a lack for argumentation and consideration of what is truth within basic science, I will not have to explain that you writing one line of text on how a map is pointless makes it reality.

The map is designed after the statistically acquired numbers, meaning that the map is secondary, the numbers still are 50 - 79% / 20 - 49 %.


He's saying a lot of things, except why the English and the Dutch have 30% of brown eyes and the Swedes don't.

Care to explain? not mentioning the geographic location, of course.

You should read up one convergent evolution, next to it, all mutations spread and fade out in a geographical meaning and along a gradient.

Its not because something is selected for on one place, it will be selected at the same rate in a different place.

Its a single mutation don't you get that? "A permanent change in a gene that can be passed on to offspring"

Phenotype: genotype plus environment and all the bunch of sexual and natural selection.

[Hors]

Nop, its mine, I will repeat to you: you acknowledge that brown eyes were the norm in the population of northern europe before the mutation, as repopulating Europe happened before the arrival of the mutation.

I acknowledge that there was no population in Scandinavia (at least in the main regions of settlement of Germanics) before arrival of ancient Germanics who, going by near absence of brown eyes in contemporary Scandinavians were LIGHT EYED.

As there is no reason to believe that they had to be different from other Germanics in this regards I acknowledge that all ancient Germanics were LIGHT EYED,

Thus I have to acknowledge that presence of brown eyes in contemporary Germanic population outside Scandinavia is the undisputable proof of non-Germanic/non-Northern admixture.




Secondly Germanics equals Indo Europeans that brought their culture to Jutland, southern Sweden and the Norwegian coast (brown eyed individuals being present, one example the tydal race) and dissolved into the already since Paleolithic native population, as 80% European genetics is of a paleolithic root.

Post the stats showing that coastal Norses are brown eyed, please.


You can read the map and see that in any given direction the decrease will take place, regardless of ethnicity.

The map is not precise. For example, in Russia light eyes are a bit more frequent in the south.


That the Lapps are darker is because the mutation is one inherent to the Europid race, to which they don't belong, not to mention that they are an isolated population in regards of the Europids of Europe..

I thought you acknowledge the fact that the mutation appeared somewhere else, and not in Scandinavia. It simply means that Lapps have a southern Europid component. And Lapps DO belong to the Europid race.



Its not unsubstantiated its called logic, and it has validation through the means of mendel's laws.

You know nothing about %% of Mongoloid admixture in them, so all your speculations are unsubstantiated.


Statistically it is impossible to be completely light pigmented, at a rate of 0%, more over since they show strong Mongoloid characteristics, they will not pass on something as genetically dominant as brown eyes.

But they aren't COMPLETELY light pigmented. They just don't happen to have brown eyes.


You displayed already a lack for argumentation and consideration of what is truth within basic science, I will not have to explain that you writing one line of text on how a map is pointless makes it reality.

Stop trolling and start dealing with the facts.


The map is designed after the statistically acquired numbers, meaning that the map is secondary, the numbers still are 50 - 79% / 20 - 49 %.

Nothing is wrong with the map, the problem is that you don't understand that there is no contradiction between it and the stats I posted.

The stats for Russians collected from all over Russia I posted is "acumulated" in one point - in the geographical coordinates of Moscow. Acc. to the map, Moscow is in the lightest zone. So are all the Russians.

And the lines are drawn between various accumulated points, that's between Moscow and Kazan and Caucasus and the Ural.

Got it? If not, I just refer you to the official stats I posted again.

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/6653/eyel.jpg

If you need help with translation ask Oswiu.


You should read up one convergent evolution, next to it, all mutations spread and fade out in a geographical meaning and along a gradient.

Its not because something is selected for on one place, it will be selected at the same rate in a different place.

Its a single mutation don't you get that? "A permanent change in a gene that can be passed on to offspring"

Phenotype: genotype plus environment and all the bunch of sexual and natural selection.

after a dozen posts my question is still unanswered

[Taheen]

I acknowledge that there was no population in Scandinavia (at least in the main regions of settlement of Germanics) before arrival of ancient Germanics who

No one speaks of Germanics until the late Iron Age.

Northern Europe was settled during the Upper Paleolithic, the hunter gatherers in Europe, does it ring a bell?

Ever heard of the Germanic substrate hypothesis? How do you suggest it came along with no prior germanic population in Scandinavia?


As there is no reason to believe that they had to be different from other Germanics in this regards I acknowledge that all ancient Germanics were LIGHT EYED,

Did you meet up with them and proceeded with a survey on their eye color?

You are talking nonsense, and you make your story along the debate progresses.


Post the stats showing that coastal Norses are brown eyed, please.


They are not a brown eyed people, they have a higher rate of it.

Coon on both hair and eyes


This is the partial blondism of the Danish islands, of parts of the Norwegian coast, of Iceland, and of the southwestern tip of Ireland. This inner nucleus apparently coincides with the survival of the oldest, immediately post-glacial population.

Read it well, Coon acknowledged that the repopulating of northern europe was done by darker pigmented populations, prior the mutation. I've put that part in bold for your ease. :)


The map is not precise. For example, in Russia light eyes are a bit more frequent in the south.

If you say so


I thought you acknowledge the fact that the mutation appeared somewhere else, and not in Scandinavia. It simply means that Lapps have a southern Europid component. And Lapps DO belong to the Europid race

And? How did I contradict that?

Lapps have mongoloid racial characteristics, they could be intermediate, but they aren't just Europid.

The results of the STRUCTURE analysis are quite interesting. When Finland is included (B), it is the first one to be separated from other Northern Europeans
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/03/genetic-structure-in-northern-europe.html
http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/bilder/troe011.jpg

Most Saudi Arabians are more Europid then them.


You know nothing about %% of Mongoloid admixture in them, so all your speculations are unsubstantiated.

http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/bilder/troe011.jpg

Keep up living the lie.


But they aren't COMPLETELY light pigmented. They just don't happen to have brown eyes

You claim. Mendel's laws say otherwise, brown eyes are the most dominant, so 0% of them is nonsense.


Nothing is wrong with the map, the problem is that you don't understand that there is no contradiction between it and the stats I posted.

The stats for Russians collected from all over Russia I posted is "acumulated" in one point - in the geographical coordinates of Moscow. Acc. to the map, Moscow is in the lightest zone. So are all the Russians.
And the lines are drawn between various accumulated points, that's between Moscow and Kazan and Caucasus and the Ural.

Got it? If not, I just refer you to the official stats I posted again.


Absolute nonsense, not all of European Russia is in the lightest zone.


Got it? If not, I just refer you to the official stats I posted again.

? You don't really believe some screenshot on some russian page, according to you from a certain book out 1965 will do against modern objective science?(meaning not out of a time when totalitarian marxism ruled the so adored truth presented by the soviets.)

You clearly lack some basics on what is to be truth in science, read Popper before you ramble on.


after a dozen posts my question is still unanswered

It is not, you simply aren't able to grasp the understanding of what is inherent to mutations, that is not my problem.

[Hors]

No one speaks of Germanics until the late Iron Age.

Northern Europe was settled during the Upper Paleolithic, the hunter gatherers in Europe, does it ring a bell?

Ever heard of the Germanic substrate hypothesis? How do you suggest it came along with no prior germanic population in Scandinavia?

That's interesting. So the real IE Germanics have subjugated light eyed Scandinavians and partially brown eyed Continentals. Even better :thumb001:

So anyway Germanic are heterogenous.




Did you meet up with them and proceeded with a survey on their eye color?

No, I didn't. But you sound like you did.


You are talking nonsense, and you make your story along the debate progresses.

You're a BS artist who keeps clogging this thread with inane rubbish.




They are not a brown eyed people, they have a higher rate of it.

Post the stats, finally.





Read it well, Coon acknowledged that the repopulating of northern europe was done by darker pigmented populations, prior the mutation. I've put that part in bold for your ease. :)

I don't see it. Anyway, Coon is outdated and proved to be wrong many a time.





Lapps have mongoloid racial characteristics, they could be intermediate, but they aren't just Europid.

The results of the STRUCTURE analysis are quite interesting. When Finland is included (B), it is the first one to be separated from other Northern Europeans
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/03/genetic-structure-in-northern-europe.html
http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/bilder/troe011.jpg

Most Saudi Arabians are more Europid then them.

BS




You claim. Mendel's laws say otherwise, brown eyes are the most dominant, so 0% of them is nonsense.

inconsistent BS




Absolute nonsense, not all of European Russia is in the lightest zone.

Yeah, you ARE retarded.



? You don't really believe some screenshot on some russian page, according to you from a certain book out 1965 will do against modern objective science?(meaning not out of a time when totalitarian marxism ruled the so adored truth presented by the soviets.)

It will not. Doesn't have to. Your modern objective science is BASED on the stats from the book in question.

And, by the way, I'm in position to post additional data which shows essentially the same level of pigmentation of North-Western Russians, who ARE in the lightest zone, and South-Eastern Russians, who are well outside it... Oh, no, it even says that SE Russians are lighter.

But it all will be just Marxist lies from 60s,aimed to ridicule a certain Taheen, BS artist by trade...



It is not, you simply aren't able to grasp the understanding of what is inherent to mutations, that is not my problem.

Your problem is that you cannot accept the fact that Germanics are heterogenous, as apparent not only from pigmentation, but also metrical data and genetics.

[Taheen]

That's interesting. So the real IE Germanics have subjugated light eyed Scandinavians and partially brown eyed Continentals. Even better


Your logic fails, there is no Germanic without Scandinavia, the Nordic bronze age etc..

Germanics didn't come to Scandinavia, they are rooted in Scandinavia, do you understand the difference?


So anyway Germanic are heterogenous.


Newsflash to you, one mutation doesn't equal a complete genotype nor phenotype.


No, I didn't. But you sound like you did.

Ignoratio elenchi.

I don't claim absolute data on them, its you that claim ALL of them had light eyes.


You're a BS artist who keeps clogging this thread with inane rubbish.


Unless you can provide the slightest support that all real germanics, whomever they are had light eyes it will be you that will be considered spreading crap.


Post the stats, finally.


What stats you toddler?

If Coon writes:

"This is the partial blondism of the Danish islands, of parts of the Norwegian coast, of Iceland, and of the southwestern tip of Ireland. This inner nucleus apparently coincides with the survival of the oldest, immediately post-glacial population."

Then that is substantial evidence.


I don't see it. Anyway, Coon is outdated and proved to be wrong many a time.

Fallacy


BS

Your argumentation is as empty as your ideas.


inconsistent BS

Brown is dominant, a brown eye allele is dominant over a light one.

I can't help it if you can't handle what is considered reality.

To make it more easy for you a drawing so you could understand.

http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/cm/cmt/agarwal/Genetics/eyes.jpg


Yeah, you ARE retarded.

Because you don't know the first thing of either history and genetics?

Insult is the last argument from ignorance.


It will not. Doesn't have to. Your modern objective science is BASED on the stats from the book in question.


lol


And, by the way, I'm in position to post additional data which shows essentially the same level of pigmentation of North-Western Russians, who ARE in the lightest zone, and South-Eastern Russians, who are well outside it... Oh, no, it even says that SE Russians are lighter.


How simple are you? If Finns don't go beneath 5%, and they are in the lightest group, how can Russians not go higher? Its basic statistics, unless the rest of Russia is unpopulated, the number will go up you brainiac.


But it all will be just Marxist lies from 60s,aimed to ridicule a certain Taheen, BS artist by trade...

Read Popper if you want to debate with grownups.


Your problem is that you cannot accept the fact that Germanics are heterogenous, as apparent not only from pigmentation, but also metrical data and genetics.

Listen you uneducated chap, I never said anything like that. :)

Do you even blink before writing down your corrupt argumentation?

If I write that both brown eyes as blue ones are inherent in northern europeans then that is heterogeneous by definition.

Perhaps you don't know, or perhaps you know it too well if you can grasp its meaning, but a population that is completely homogeneous in genetics, is unhealthy and at a micro level considered inbred.

[Hors]

Your logic fails, there is no Germanic without Scandinavia, the Nordic bronze age etc..

Germanics didn't come to Scandinavia, they are rooted in Scandinavia, do you understand the difference?

My logic is ok. The true Germanics came to Scandinavia from somewhere else (most likely Eastern Ukraine/Southern Russia - the cradle of Indo-Europeans) and subjugated the local population and forced their language on them. But as the true Germanics were fewer innumbers than the local population they left but a trace of their genes in thus formed ancient Germanics. Who were, as contemporary Scandinavian Germanics, all light eyed, as both the local population and true Germanics were Northern European in race.

When 100% light eyed ancient Germanics moved out from Scandinavia they, in turn, met and assimilated other groups, who were at least partially non Northern European in race. Thus mixed light eyed - brown eyed Continental Germanics appeared.


Newsflash to you, one mutation doesn't equal a complete genotype nor phenotype.

Irrelevant.




Ignoratio elenchi.

I don't claim absolute data on them, its you that claim ALL of them had light eyes.


Oh, yeah, let's suppose for the sake of argument they had a lot of brown eyes.... where are they now, when even after centuries of interaction with the Wallons, Saami and other alien groups brown eyes make up no more than 5% in Sweden? And those could be correlated with regions of RECENT intermixture.


Unless you can provide the slightest support that all real germanics, whomever they are had light eyes it will be you that will be considered spreading crap.

Unless you provide the slightest explanaition how come contemporary Scandinavian Germanics are so non brown eyed it will be YOU who will be considered spreading BS.




What stats you toddler?

If Coon writes:

"This is the partial blondism of the Danish islands, of parts of the Norwegian coast, of Iceland, and of the southwestern tip of Ireland. This inner nucleus apparently coincides with the survival of the oldest, immediately post-glacial population."

I want to know the percentage of brown eyes in the allegedly "dark" parts of Scandinavia.


Then that is substantial evidence.

Post the stats. If you don't have the data just shut up finally, please.


Fallacy

Yeah, Coon = Fallacy.


Your argumentation is as empty as your ideas.

It's not argumentation. It's observation referring to "quality" of your posts.


Brown is dominant, a brown eye allele is dominant over a light one.

I can't help it if you can't handle what is considered reality.

To make it more easy for you a drawing so you could understand.

Irrelevant.





Because you don't know the first thing of either history and genetics?

Insult is the last argument from ignorance.



No, because you're an arrogant and ignorant troll.



How simple are you? If Finns don't go beneath 5%, and they are in the lightest group, how can Russians not go higher? Its basic statistics, unless the rest of Russia is unpopulated, the number will go up you brainiac.

The study in question sampled recruits from the rural area and towns alike, while the accepted methodology in contemporary anthropology is to sample only the rural population. Naturally, city dwellers tend to be different from the ethnic core of the country, having absorbed alien elements.

Contemporary studies of the Finnish rural population show only 0-2.9% of brown eyes.


Read Popper if you want to debate with grownups.

When you have solid data post it. Until then it'd be better for you to keep your big mouth shut.




Listen you uneducated chap, I never said anything like that. :)

Do you even blink before writing down your corrupt argumentation?

If I write that both brown eyes as blue ones are inherent in northern europeans then that is heterogeneous by definition.

LOL

Anyway, it all comes to one question you fail to answer for days: if Northern Europeans are siginificantly brown eyed, how come Scandinavan Germanics have no brown eyes (or very, very little of them) and other Germanics have 30%?


Perhaps you don't know, or perhaps you know it too well if you can grasp its meaning, but a population that is completely homogeneous in genetics, is unhealthy and at a micro level considered inbred.

Cut the crap.

[Taheen]

My logic is ok. The true Germanics came to Scandinavia from somewhere else (most likely Eastern Ukraine/Southern Russia - the cradle of Indo-Europeans) and subjugated the local population and forced their language on them. But as the true Germanics were fewer innumbers than the local population they left but a trace of their genes in thus formed ancient Germanics. Who were, as contemporary Scandinavian Germanics, all light eyed, as both the local population and true Germanics were Northern European in race.


No, its kindergarten logic

Several historical linguists have pointed towards the apparent material and social continuity connecting the cultures of the Nordic Bronze Age (1800-500 BCE) (Explanation for you Hors, Scandinavia was populated before the Indo Europeans (Ertebolle culture (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/European_Middle_Neolithic.gif)), and you can't speak of an arrival of Germanic, since Germanic is rooted in Scandinavia) and the Pre-Roman Iron Age (500 BCE - 1 CE) as having implications in regard to the stability and later development of the Germanic language group.[1] The emerging consensus among scholars is that the First Germanic Sound Shift - long considered to be the defining mark in the development of Proto-Germanic - happened as late as 500 BCE.[2] Research conducted over the past few decades displays a notable interest in exploring the linguistic and sociohistorical conditions under which this sound shift occurred, and often formulates theories and makes reconstructive efforts regarding the periods immediately preceding Proto-Germanic as traditionally characterised.[3] The notion of the Germanic Parent Language is thus used to encompass both the Pre-Proto-Germanic stage of development preceding the First Germanic Sound Shift (i.e. that assumed to be contemporary with the Nordic Bronze Age) and that stage traditionally identified as Proto-Germanic up to the beginning of the Common Era.[4]


When 100% light eyed ancient Germanics moved out from Scandinavia they, in turn, met and assimilated other groups, who were at least partially non Northern European in race. Thus mixed light eyed - brown eyed Continental Germanics appeared.

You should write a book on it.

The Netherlands according you 30% brown eyed, is Northern Europe, its part of the Northern European Plain so unless you can provide that those people aren't native, those brown eyes will be Northern European.


Irrelevant.

For you it is, for people that actually care it isn't.


Oh, yeah, let's suppose for the sake of argument they had a lot of brown eyes.... where are they now, when even after centuries of interaction with the Wallons, Saami and other alien groups brown eyes make up no more than 5% in Sweden? And those could be correlated with regions of RECENT intermixture.

Its called evolution, mutations are selected for. I know you find this irrelevant, but again for people that care about reality.


Unless you provide the slightest explanaition how come contemporary Scandinavian Germanics are so non brown eyed it will be YOU who will be considered spreading BS.

Mutations are selected for.

http://i40.tinypic.com/aoovsx.jpg


I want to know the percentage of brown eyes in the allegedly "dark" parts of Scandinavia.

Same here, yet Coon's book and map are secondary, the numbers come first.


Post the stats. If you don't have the data just shut up finally, please.

What I posted is data

Data: Data (singular: datum) are collected of natural phenomena descriptors including the results of experience, observation or experiment, or a set of premises. This may consist of numbers, words, or images, particularly as measurements or observations of a set of variables.


Yeah, Coon = Fallacy.


:)


Irrelevant

Not really, how are the laws of mendel irrelevant debating genetics and inheritance?

There is hardly anything more relevant, you just don't get it.


No, because you're an arrogant and ignorant troll.

Its not me that confuses Indo European with Germanic.


The study in question sampled recruits from the rural area and towns alike, while the accepted methodology in contemporary anthropology is to sample only the rural population. Naturally, city dwellers tend to be different from the ethnic core of the country, having absorbed alien elements.

I will take your word for it, not.


Contemporary studies of the Finnish rural population show only 0-2.9% of brown eyes.

Give them, scan them or whatever, until then:

The eye color of the Finns is, as one would expect, prevailingly light, with blue commoner than gray. Westerlund finds but 7 per cent of brown eyes, and 15 per cent of mixed, while Luther's mixed group comprises 15 per cent. Since the eye color of the Finns and of the Swedes in the coastal regions is equally distributed, it is reasonable to suppose that Finland, in this respect, is about equal to Scandinavia. Blue eyes, with a regional maximum of 53 per cent, are commonest in southern Ostrobothnia; while gray eyes, attaining 37 per cent, are concentrated in Finland Proper. In four-fold correlation tables blue eyes go especially with brown, and gray eyes with ash-blond hair. The regional distribution of eye color, while following faithfully that of stature, head form, and hair color, is not as strongly marked as is the case with the metrical characters; the maximum of Westerlund's blue + gray classes combined is 83 per cent in Finland Proper, the minimum 71.8 per cent in northern Ostrobothnia; dark eyes vary only from 5.7 per cent to 9.1 per cent, in the same counties.


When you have solid data post it. Until then it'd be better for you to keep your big mouth shut.

You just have to learn what the definition is of data, I've posted above.

Here: Data: Data (singular: datum) are collected of natural phenomena descriptors including the results of experience, observation or experiment, or a set of premises. This may consist of numbers, words, or images, particularly as measurements or observations of a set of variables.


LOL

Nothing LOL :D


Listen you uneducated chap, I never said anything like that.

Do you even blink before writing down your corrupt argumentation?

If I write that both brown eyes as blue ones are inherent in northern europeans then that is heterogeneous by definition.

Perhaps you don't know, or perhaps you know it too well if you can grasp its meaning, but a population that is completely homogeneous in genetics, is unhealthy and at a micro level considered inbred.

:D


Anyway, it all comes to one question you fail to answer for days: if Northern Europeans are siginificantly brown eyed, how come Scandinavan Germanics have no brown eyes (or very, very little of them) and other Germanics have 30%?

Mutation.

[Hors]

Several historical linguists have pointed towards the apparent material and social continuity connecting the cultures of the Nordic Bronze Age (1800-500 BCE) (Explanation for you Hors, Scandinavia was populated before the Indo Europeans (Ertebolle culture (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/European_Middle_Neolithic.gif)), and you can't speak of an arrival of Germanic, since Germanic is rooted in Scandinavia) and the Pre-Roman Iron Age (500 BCE - 1 CE) as having implications in regard to the stability and later development of the Germanic language group.[1] The emerging consensus among scholars is that the First Germanic Sound Shift - long considered to be the defining mark in the development of Proto-Germanic - happened as late as 500 BCE.[2] Research conducted over the past few decades displays a notable interest in exploring the linguistic and sociohistorical conditions under which this sound shift occurred, and often formulates theories and makes reconstructive efforts regarding the periods immediately preceding Proto-Germanic as traditionally characterised.[3] The notion of the Germanic Parent Language is thus used to encompass both the Pre-Proto-Germanic stage of development preceding the First Germanic Sound Shift (i.e. that assumed to be contemporary with the Nordic Bronze Age) and that stage traditionally identified as Proto-Germanic up to the beginning of the Common Era.[4]

cut the crap: Germanic languages have 40% of non IE words, indicating extensive assimilation of non IE populations


You should write a book on it.

stop trolling, please


For you it is, for people that actually care it isn't.

It's irrelevant for the topic of this discussion


Its called evolution, mutations are selected for. I know you find this irrelevant, but again for people that care about reality.

Ah, I see.... God's will :D



Mutations are selected for.

http://i40.tinypic.com/aoovsx.jpg

The text is too small and blind (to be a decent reading)

Anyway, why mutations were selected for only in Scandianavia? While they appeared somewhere else?


Same here, yet Coon's book and map are secondary, the numbers come first.

You claim that certain regions of Scandinavia are darker eyed than the others, allegedly reflecting the fact of pre-Nordic population. Yet you're not inposition to back your claim with relevant stats, right?


What I posted is data

Data: Data (singular: datum) are collected of natural phenomena descriptors including the results of experience, observation or experiment, or a set of premises. This may consist of numbers, words, or images, particularly as measurements or observations of a set of variables.

Cut the crap and post the stats, finally. If you don't have them, shut up, finally.



Not really, how are the laws of mendel irrelevant debating genetics and inheritance?

There is hardly anything more relevant, you just don't get it.

Ok, how come they work in one place (Scandinavia) and don't work in other places (other Germanic regions)


Its not me that confuses Indo European with Germanic.

:confused:



Give them, scan them or whatever, until then:

The eye color of the Finns is, as one would expect, prevailingly light, with blue commoner than gray. Westerlund finds but 7 per cent of brown eyes, and 15 per cent of mixed, while Luther's mixed group comprises 15 per cent. Since the eye color of the Finns and of the Swedes in the coastal regions is equally distributed, it is reasonable to suppose that Finland, in this respect, is about equal to Scandinavia. Blue eyes, with a regional maximum of 53 per cent, are commonest in southern Ostrobothnia; while gray eyes, attaining 37 per cent, are concentrated in Finland Proper. In four-fold correlation tables blue eyes go especially with brown, and gray eyes with ash-blond hair. The regional distribution of eye color, while following faithfully that of stature, head form, and hair color, is not as strongly marked as is the case with the metrical characters; the maximum of Westerlund's blue + gray classes combined is 83 per cent in Finland Proper, the minimum 71.8 per cent in northern Ostrobothnia; dark eyes vary only from 5.7 per cent to 9.1 per cent, in the same counties.

Unlike you, I'm always in position to post facts backing what I say... :p




You just have to learn what the definition is of data, I've posted above.

Here: Data: Data (singular: datum) are collected of natural phenomena descriptors including the results of experience, observation or experiment, or a set of premises. This may consist of numbers, words, or images, particularly as measurements or observations of a set of variables.

cut the crap, and post something of value (of course you won't, as you don't have anything)



Mutation.

I advise you to refer to God's will. God wanted Scandinavians to be light eyed and thus allowed Mendel mutations to work, but inthe same timeHe didn't want otherGermanic to be 100% light eyed and thus denied the Mendel mutations to work :D

[Hors]

BS artist wrote:


This is the partial blondism of the Danish islands, of parts of the Norwegian coast, of Iceland, and of the southwestern tip of Ireland. This inner nucleus apparently coincides with the survival of the oldest, immediately post-glacial population.
Read it well, Coon acknowledged that the repopulating of northern europe was done by darker pigmented populations, prior the mutation. I've put that part in bold for your ease.



BS artist wrote:

You just have to learn what the definition is of data, I've posted above.

Here: Data: Data (singular: datum) are collected of natural phenomena descriptors including the results of experience, observation or experiment, or a set of premises. This may consist of numbers, words, or images, particularly as measurements or observations of a set of variables.



BS artist wrote:

What stats you toddler?

This stats, Mr. Big Mouth:

http://carnby.altervista.org/troe/09-07.htm


What appears to be the most accurate division of eye colors is that of Bardenfleth, who finds 38 per cent of light, 59 per cent of mixed, and 3 per cent of dark eyes on Samsш. This is comparable to the eye color situation elsewhere in Scandinavia. Samsш is one of the darker-eyed sections of Denmark, and regional eye color variations, though not great, follow those of hair color.

Is it the end for our BS artist? I doubt... I bet he'll simply manage to produce even more BS.

[Jägerstaffel]

Here's a recap of the thread thus far.

Hors makes a claim. People say 'okay you're wrong' - he gets upset and demands someone state some facts to refute him.
Then someone presents facts he says 'BS you're retarded.'
Lather, rinse, repeat.

In case anyone needing catching up without reading the whole thing.

[Hors]

You don't follow the thread.

Read it carefully:

What appears to be the most accurate division of eye colors is that of Bardenfleth, who finds 38 per cent of light, 59 per cent of mixed, and 3 per cent of dark eyes on Samsш. This is comparable to the eye color situation elsewhere in Scandinavia. Samsш is one of the darker-eyed sections of Denmark, and regional eye color variations, though not great, follow those of hair color.

[Elveon]

It tends to be the half-castes who possess the dark skin and eyes of blue.
I had one colleague from work who had the skin of an Arab and the most piercing blue eyes one could ever see.

His Mother was white and his Father black.

That's true! in France, you can see in the streets some blacks with curly blond hair and blue eyes... Awful!

[safinator]

That I'll agree with you on.It seems only a very few blonds and redheads have green eyes..
Well real green eyes(not hazel) are the least common light shade.
Probably Red Heads have a big percentage of them.

[Sandman]

Meanwhile, in northern Europe according to the map http://shrani.najdi.si/?1H/pY/13tEz8Dc/europe-eyes3.pngblue eyes are still dominant.:thumb001:http://shrani.najdi.si/?1H/pY/13tEz8Dc/europe-eyes3.pnghttp://shrani.najdi.si/?1H/pY/13tEz8Dc/europe-eyes3.png

[StonyArabia]

Blue eyes are just an adaptation to see better in the dark and damp climate, hence why it became selected for in Scandinavia. The majority of Europeans are not blue eyed but brown eyed. As for the U.S having less and less of blue eyes, well that's not true, and even then such trait will always exist. In Canada brown eyes among the White population does dominate rather than blue, actually hazel to be more accurate.

[Benacer]

This whole thing seems like a bit of an overreaction.

[Vatanen]

Meanwhile, in northern Europe according to the map http://shrani.najdi.si/?1H/pY/13tEz8Dc/europe-eyes3.pngblue eyes are still dominant.:thumb001:http://shrani.najdi.si/?1H/pY/13tEz8Dc/europe-eyes3.pnghttp://shrani.najdi.si/?1H/pY/13tEz8Dc/europe-eyes3.png

What is a source for this biased map?

[StonyArabia]

This whole thing seems like a bit of an overreaction.

It is, it's similar to how people think that blond hair and such will disappear, no they don't they will always reappear, the reason for that is because the genes will be carried on and will always be expressed. This why you might find people who would get blue eyed or blond hair despite being of mixed stock. Anyways blue eyes are still more common in the U.S than they are in Canada, as the majority are hazel eyed. Blue eyes are an advantage over brown eyes in dark and damp climates, but they are disadvantage in bright climates which would explain why it's selection was minimal in the first place.

[Sandman]

What is a source for this biased map?

Here is a link to the maphttp://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/4581457/1/

[Sandman]

What is a source for this biased map?

http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/4581457/1/

[Osprey]

That's why in our traditional fantasy worlds, elves are often associated with forests AND light eyes/hair.
Because the ancient Nordids are the original elves.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Blue eyes are just an adaptation to see better in the dark and damp climate, hence why it became selected for in Scandinavia. The majority of Europeans are not blue eyed but brown eyed. As for the U.S having less and less of blue eyes, well that's not true, and even then such trait will always exist. In Canada brown eyes among the White population does dominate rather than blue, actually hazel to be more accurate.

US, excluding slaves, had almost 90% blue eyes in 1800. Higher than any country that exists today. Dark eyes are not european.

[Grace O'Malley]

US, excluding slaves, had almost 90% blue eyes in 1800. Higher than any country that exists today. Dark eyes are not european.

Are you sure Melonhead? From what I've read blue eyes have only existed in the last 6,000 - 10,000 years. I don't think brown or hazel eyed people are any less European than blue eyed people. Brown eyes have always been a majority in Southern Europe obviously because that is the case today. Blue eyes are more suited to places with less sunlight and cloudy environments. Your eye colour doesn't make you less or more European.

[Black Wolf]

US, excluding slaves, had almost 90% blue eyes in 1800. Higher than any country that exists today. Dark eyes are not european.

Dark eyes are just as European as blue eyes are. There are native Europeans with every possible eye colour pretty much.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Are you sure Melonhead? From what I've read blue eyes have only existed in the last 6,000 - 10,000 years. I don't think brown or hazel eyed people are any less European than blue eyed people. Brown eyes have always been a majority in Southern Europe obviously because that is the case today. Blue eyes are more suited to places with less sunlight and cloudy environments. Your eye colour doesn't make you less or more European.

All the ancient european DNA so far has blue eyes. Brown eyes seem to have come in neolithic.

As for the age of genes, that is bogus estimate. It used to be 5k years but we have found blue eyes 8k+ years back now. These estimates change all the time because they just backsolve it to the oldest instance they have found....completely pointless.

But regardless the fact it's declined so much says how much mixing is going on, both in US and UK.

[Black Wolf]

All the ancient european DNA so far has blue eyes. Brown eyes seem to have come in neolithic.

As for the age of genes, that is bogus estimate. It used to be 5k years but we have found blue eyes 8k+ years back now. These estimates change all the time because they just backsolve it to the oldest instance they have found....completely pointless.

But regardless the fact it's declined so much says how much mixing is going on, both in US and UK.

The Neolithic was a very long time ago. If the majority of the brown eyed ancestors of Europeans arrived during the Neolithic then that still makes their descendants European. We are talking thousands and thousands of years here.

[Styrian Mujo]

US, excluding slaves, had almost 90% blue eyes in 1800. Higher than any country that exists today. Dark eyes are not european.
I highly doubt it. Most Americans where of Anglo-Celtic ancestry back than so I would say somewhere between 75% maximum is more realistc. Where did you get those statistics?

[Not a Cop]

US, excluding slaves, had almost 90% blue eyes in 1800. Higher than any country that exists today. Dark eyes are not european.

That's impossible, even Swedes have only 67% percent of pure light eyes, and beside of that Grey, and blue-grey eyes are also counted as pure light.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

That's impossible, even Swedes have only 67% percent of pure light eyes, and beside of that Grey, and blue-grey eyes are also counted as pure light.

That's the case today, but the implication is obviously that europe has changed. This comes from census data....

[Sikeliot]

There's still colored contacts :D

[Not a Cop]

There's still colored contacts :D

I've never seen a realistic blue contacts btw

[Sikeliot]

I've never seen a realistic blue contacts btw

I have some.

[Atlantic Islander]

There's still colored contacts :D


There's a surgery to remove pigment from the eyes, (http://www.medicaldaily.com/brown-eyes-turn-blue-new-laser-procedure-may-permanently-change-eye-color-video-245514) you end up with whatever shade of blue or grey you would have had if there wasn't the extra pigment.

It's the way of the future, nothing will be natural. It's a good thing, people with stop trying to act as if blue eyes are special.

[Atlantic Islander]

I have some.

Maybe they're better in person? They look very fake in the photos you've posted.

[Atlantic Islander]

This whole thing seems like a bit of an overreaction.

Yep.

[Roy]

I've never seen a realistic blue contacts btw
I confirm. I knew a girl who ''had'' blue eyes but of smurf-like (like my friend commented and it also looked unnatural to me initally) shade with no differences inside iris. Few years later it turned out that her natural eye colour is green-hazel - closer to green when she changed her contact to transparent ones.

[McCauley]

There's a surgery to remove pigment from the eyes, (http://www.medicaldaily.com/brown-eyes-turn-blue-new-laser-procedure-may-permanently-change-eye-color-video-245514) you end up with whatever shade of blue or grey you would have had if there wasn't the extra pigment.

It's the way of the future, nothing will be natural. It's a good thing, people with stop trying to act as if blue eyes are special.

They are special, 95% of the world has shit-colored brown eyes. The people who say blue eyes aren't special are the same ones who wear colored contacts because they feel inferior.

And surgery, artificial means, are never a substitute for the real thing.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

I highly doubt it. Most Americans where of Anglo-Celtic ancestry back than so I would say somewhere between 75% maximum is more realistc. Where did you get those statistics?

US census. If you look at frequencies of dark eyes in britain it spreads out from london area. The dark eyes in UK are only native in a tiny minority of survivors from neolithic and possibly neanderthal times. It obviously was once much higher.

[SobieskisavedEurope]

They are special, 95% of the world has shit-colored brown eyes. The people who say blue eyes aren't special are the same ones who wear colored contacts because they feel inferior.

And surgery, artificial means, are never a substitute for the real thing.

You sound very indigenous American here. LOL!

Good facade.

[Atlantic Islander]

They are special, 95% of the world has shit-colored brown eyes. The people who say blue eyes aren't special are the same ones who wear colored contacts because they feel inferior.

And surgery, artificial means, are never a substitute for the real thing.

The only contacts I wear are clear contacts, so I can see where the heck I'm going, so strike one.

You only think blue eyes are special because they are less typical in general, the moment something becomes common it's no longer "special". If it were the reverse and blue eyes dominated the world, brown eyes the less typical, you'd be waxing poetics about how superior brown eyes are.

[Anglojew]

This is a great example of how improper use of statistics leads to an incorrect conclusion.

Blue eyes aren't suddenly disappearing amongst white Americans nor is there a huge increase in mixed-racial people which is currently only about 5% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_United_States

The ONLY reason for the apparent decrease in percentage terms of blue eyes is immigration which comes mainly from non-white hispanic countries where blue eyes are rare.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

The ONLY reason for the apparent decrease in percentage terms of blue eyes is immigration which comes mainly from non-white hispanic countries where blue eyes are rare.

There was no southern euro immigration allowed to US until about 1912 or something. After that the percentage of light eyes tanked. So at 16% that means in reality truly white percentage of US is 30% or so, max. Even if you count all southern euros as white.

[Atlantic Islander]

There was no southern euro immigration allowed to US until about 1912 or something.

Dude, Portuguese were some of the first pioneers of the wild-west.

http://imageshack.us/a/img692/1094/mgyp.jpg


“The Portuguese pioneered everywhere on the western frontier. Their stories…have never been told, that is, not until this sensitive, pathbreaking book.”—Richard Orsi, Editor, California History

“Unique, then, and pioneering too, the book is also magnetically readable throughout.”—Frederick Nolan, author of The West of Billy the Kid

[Svipdag]

Among the "blue-eyed" adults whom I know, almost all have a greenish tinge, as do I, yet, as a child, my eyes were turquoise blue and they have changed color quite noticeably twice in my lifetime, to hazel at 9, which I hated so that I went about with downcast eyes for several years . This evolved slowly into a muddy military-equipment green. At 50, my eye color started turning blue again, to its present rather dark cyan-tinged blue.

[Rædwald]

Yeah, the genes aren't going anywhere. There have been studies to say the same about blonde, and red haired people in the last few years.

[Atlantic Islander]

Among the "blue-eyed" adults whom I know, almost all have a greenish tinge, as do I, yet, as a child, my eyes were turquoise blue and they have changed color quite noticeably twice in my lifetime, to hazel at 9, which I hated so that I went about with downcast eyes for several years . This evolved slowly into a muddy military-equipment green. At 50, my eye color started turning blue again, to its present rather dark cyan-tinged blue.

Yeah, I think I've read something about how eye color can slowly change as you age.

[Dandelion]

White people are also becoming fewer in numbers. Obvious conclusion of course.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Dude, Portuguese were some of the first pioneers of the wild-west.

http://imageshack.us/a/img692/1094/mgyp.jpg

Yeah, obviously many came before there was a USA. Until around then only a tiny amount of immigration was allowed from each country, which made for lots of euro immigrants.

[Atlantic Islander]

Yeah, obviously many came before there was a USA. Until around then only a tiny amount of immigration was allowed from each country, which made for lots of euro immigrants.

Yeah, little known fact: in the fifties there was a volcanic eruption in the Azores, and Kennedy (JFK) pushed for an act to allow more immigration from the Azores.

[Anglojew]

Askenazi Jews have 50% blue eyes so no one can blame us for a change

[SobieskisavedEurope]

Askenazi Jews have 50% blue eyes so no one can blame us for a change

Source!?

I would have guessed that maybe 30% of Ashkenazi Jews have light eyes.

[Anglojew]

Source!?

I would have guessed that maybe 30% of Ashkenazi Jews have light eyes.


http://kurdishdna.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/the-color-of-eyes-7-herc2-variants-in_27.html

#1 #2 are the genes most relevant for blue eyes. Ashkenazi Jews 45% compared to Belarussians 100% or Turks 29%

[Prisoner Of Ice]

http://kurdishdna.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/the-color-of-eyes-7-herc2-variants-in_27.html

#1 #2 are the genes most relevant for blue eyes. Ashkenazi Jews 45% compared to Belarussians 100% or Turks 29%

I think they are for basically "very light" eyes. So grey and green could come from those as well if you have the others. But generally the light comes from all the same places so blue eyes are the most common light type by far.

[Styrian Mujo]

US census. If you look at frequencies of dark eyes in britain it spreads out from london area. The dark eyes in UK are only native in a tiny minority of survivors from neolithic and possibly neanderthal times. It obviously was once much higher.
I don't think there was much foreign influence in Britain before 1965 with the exeption of a few Jews here and there...Romans probably darkened up Britain but that was not as strong as the later Nordic-Germanic migrations wich reversed some of the damage the Romans did.

[Styrian Mujo]

I think they are for basically "very light" eyes. So grey and green could come from those as well if you have the others. But generally the light comes from all the same places so blue eyes are the most common light type by far.
What are the stats for blue eyes in Ireland?

[LightHouse89]

well why we increase the influx of brown immigration we as a people will disappear entirely in America. Its projected to be within 5 decades and if immigration and reform on it is made maybe sooner. The American government wants a majority brown population of subhumans.

[LightHouse89]

What are the stats for blue eyes in Ireland?

Who cares they are being Africanized. In 200 years the UK and Ireland will be an african colony.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

What are the stats for blue eyes in Ireland?

I forget now but it's about 70% blue eyes and 80+% light eyes. England is about 20% less.

And if you take out 10% of recent immigrants ireland would be higher.

[Styrian Mujo]

I forget now but it's about 70% blue eyes and 80+% light eyes. England is about 20% less.

And if you take out 10% of recent immigrants ireland would be higher.
So we can conclude that the maximum is 80% light eyes for early colonial Americans.

[LightHouse89]

I forget now but it's about 70% blue eyes and 80+% light eyes. England is about 20% less.

And if you take out 10% of recent immigrants ireland would be higher.

Well I read that every British/Irish person carries the traits for red hair, green eyes or blue eyes and varying of hair color. I cannot remember where I read this but it was from a link to an anthro-site. Irish people are more Nordic looking than most Austrians or Swiss people which shocked me.

[larali]

As the mother of two beautiful blue eyed girls, I guess I've done my part. ;)

[LightHouse89]

So we can conclude that the maximum is 80% light eyes for early colonial Americans.

Probably but its in all of our DNA. I have brownish green eyes and blonde hair, well when I had hair it was dark blonde...it darkened over time from light blonde to a darer shade of blonde.

[Anglojew]

I don't think there was much foreign influence in Britain before 1965 with the exeption of a few Jews here and there...Romans probably darkened up Britain but that was not as strong as the later Nordic-Germanic migrations wich reversed some of the damage the Romans did.

Roman Britian was probably not any fairer than Roman "Italia". Don't forget it was basically Welsh and Pictish then. Romans were also fairer than today as they lacked later admixture from their colonies.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

So we can conclude that the maximum is 80% light eyes for early colonial Americans.

No, that's not true, either. US had lots of immigration from scando countries early on. It also had a lot of immigration from more remote areas, which tend to have way higher level of light eyes.

The fact the census puts the blue eyes so high shows how much UK has swarthed up. It's been a major world city for many centuries.

[LightHouse89]

Roman Britian was probably not any fairer than Roman "Italia". Don't forget it was basically Welsh and Pictish then. Romans were also fairer than today as they lacked later admixture from their colonies.

Well the Welsh were sort of inferior..... they invited the Saxons over and it is rightful of the Saxons to have slaughtered them. A people who cannot defend themselves are inferior and should be destroyed. However the Picts and Hibernians were always unruly and hostile towards foreigners. No group of people really ever fully conquered them. They became more Anglo-Saxonized.

[Anglojew]

As the mother of two beautiful blue eyed girls, I guess I've done my part. ;)

Not demographically as you've just reproduced your husband and yourself in population terms. You'd need to have 3 or 4 to have statistically impact (as do other whites). This is exactly the problem as the white population is stable but declining in percentage terms due to Hispanic and other birthrates and immigration.

I personally blame the sex-fiend miscegenist Spanish for impregnating any native they came across.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Well I read that every British/Irish person carries the traits for red hair, green eyes or blue eyes and varying of hair color. I cannot remember where I read this but it was from a link to an anthro-site. Irish people are more Nordic looking than most Austrians or Swiss people which shocked me.

Yeah, swiss people are mainly a big surprise in that respect, though some are more nordic looking.

[LightHouse89]

No, that's not true, either. US had lots of immigration from scando countries early on. It also had a lot of immigration from more remote areas, which tend to have way higher level of light eyes.

The fact the census puts the blue eyes so high shows how much UK has swarthed up. It's been a major world city for many centuries.

Look up the racial immigration laws of the 1920s.....only people of Northern European descent were allowed to live in America.....they allowed some other groups from Europe but barred Slavs entirely.

[LightHouse89]

Yeah, swiss people are mainly a big surprise in that respect, though some are more nordic looking.

true some are. Northern Italians are too. The French are the most overrated for being Nordic looking because they definitely are not. I live in New England and many of them are just different groups of Meds. Some can be Nordic looking but that is as often as finding someone who is Nordic Italian.....I have seen both by the way.

[LightHouse89]

Not demographically as you've just reproduced your husband and yourself in population terms. You'd need to have 3 or 4 to have statistically impact (as do other whites). This is exactly the problem as the white population is stable but declining in percentage terms due to Hispanic and other birthrates and immigration.

I personally blame the sex-fiend miscegenist Spanish for impregnating any native they came across.

yes in North American it was the opposite we just give the natives part of their lands back for their own control. Also historical sites belong to them. They are mostly all out west and some areas of the rural south.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

true some are. Northern Italians are too. The French are the most overrated for being Nordic looking because they definitely are not. I live in New England and many of them are just different groups of Meds. Some can be Nordic looking but that is as often as finding someone who is Nordic Italian.....I have seen both by the way.

There's plenty of nordic looking french people in canada and some parts of the USA. France today is basically 1/3 jewish 1/3 berber 1/3 recent immigrant. People who come to US from France today are not remotely white. DanishBerber is half actual berber...and he's still whiter than the ones I meet nowadays.

[Anglojew]

There's plenty of nordic looking french people in canada and some parts of the USA. France today is basically 1/3 jewish 1/3 berber 1/3 recent immigrant. People who come to US from France today are not remotely white. DanishBerber is half actual berber...and he's still whiter than the ones I meet nowadays.

Yes, ethnic French are even a minority of whites there. Most are Italian, Armenian, Jewish, Corsican, Breton, Spanish or something else.

I'm surprised when in meet an actual Frenchman. They were demographically devastated by WW1 and never recovered.

[PolishAmerican190]

There is always blue contacts, easily said by a blue eyed devil.

[Argang]

There is always blue contacts, easily said by a blue eyed devil.

Contacts are not hardcore enough (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2535992/I-surgery-Panama-change-eye-colour-ended-temporarily-blind-8-000-unregulated-op-went-horribly-wrong-London-student.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490).

[Chieftain]

I might move to the Great White North(Canada) or the States after I get my degree on University here in Europe, so just count a slight increase with a couple of blue eyes in some state in the Mid-West or North-West, in a dull, peaceful, uninteresting pred. white neighboorhood ;)

[LightHouse89]

yes it will continue to happen as more brown is added to the country. America may even end up black as a matter of fact.

[LightHouse89]

There's plenty of nordic looking french people in canada and some parts of the USA. France today is basically 1/3 jewish 1/3 berber 1/3 recent immigrant. People who come to US from France today are not remotely white. DanishBerber is half actual berber...and he's still whiter than the ones I meet nowadays.

There women are very attractive. The most attractive in New England. They are classy for American women while most girls you meet in the city are skanky Italian, Irish, English Americans.....I have never been interested in any of them. Dated afew and that was enough for me. But French Canadian girls are pretty hot. I worked with several since moving to Northern Mass.... they are everywhere. I just got to quit smoking as none of them smoke to my knowledge.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

There women are very attractive. The most attractive in New England. They are classy for American women while most girls you meet in the city are skanky Italian, Irish, English Americans.....I have never been interested in any of them. Dated afew and that was enough for me. But French Canadian girls are pretty hot. I worked with several since moving to Northern Mass.... they are everywhere. I just got to quit smoking as none of them smoke to my knowledge.

Nah, they are fugly as sin and have room temp IQ, I have no idea how you can stomach middle eastern women. The phony french chicks are even worse because they have the manly looks of swarty folk and the pretentiousness of french people and arrogance of both which makes for a completely hilarious combo.

Inner city wigger is not appealing whatever the race but there's plenty of hot white women in the US. East coast sucks though, everyone is short fat and ugly, probably because there's so many guidos.

[LightHouse89]

Nah, they are fugly as sin and have room temp IQ, I have no idea how you can stomach middle eastern women. The phony french chicks are even worse because they have the manly looks of swarty folk and the pretentiousness of french people and arrogance of both which makes for a completely hilarious combo.

Inner city wigger is not appealing whatever the race but there's plenty of hot white women in the US. East coast sucks though, everyone is short fat and ugly, probably because there's so many guidos.

I know some that are blonde haired and blue eyed. They can tan but look like Germans. Most French Canadian girls here are recent immigrants or their parents were. They look European to me. Also rurally a lot of Polish girls [which are known to be stupid], German girls [which can be annoying or too quiet], or British/Irish girls [attractive but independent anti man and some are self loathing] this is for my racial group where I live. I find it frustrating to be honest. Some Rural white girls of the mentioned are normal though and traditional woman just somewhat more modern as well. I don't mind if they are somewhat independent this is 1812 but I refuse to date another feminist.

[Chieftain]

I am interested in knowing, what would WASP/Celtic American-Canadians think of a blue eyed, tall, dark blond haired guy like me who speaks in an undistingiushable British accent?

[Prisoner Of Ice]

I am interested in knowing, what would WASP/Celtic American-Canadians think of a blue eyed, tall, dark blond haired guy like me who speaks in an undistingiushable British accent?

You'd get laid like crazy.

Whatever people say about liking 'manly' dark haired tan types, almost all women go for guys like this if they can. Same goes for guys seeking after real blonde women.

Especially now that we are surrounded by swarty folk at every turn, it gets old very quickly.

[LightHouse89]

I am interested in knowing, what would WASP/Celtic Americans think of a blue eyed, tall, dark blond haired guy like me who speaks in an undistingiushable British accent?

They may like it? It depends on the type of woman really.

[LightHouse89]

You'd get laid like crazy.

Whatever people say about liking 'manly' dark haired tan types, almost all women go for guys like this if they can. Same goes for guys seeking after real blonde women.

Especially now that we are surrounded by swarty folk at every turn, it gets old very quickly.

Usually here city women are the darkest unless your in the WASP part of town. But everyone where I live is dark unless they are Irish or Anglo-Saxon. Like I said most light Europeans live in rural places, down South or out West. My guess is he will end up on the East coast as its the most urban area with the most amount of work unless he wants to be a farm hand.....then he will meet a rural white woman from a conservative religious family. But hey the quality of woman will be good but expect a conservative family that you will be around. They may be like my cousins who do not allow alcohol in their house and they pray on every religious day.....they view other Christians as heretics or heathens too. When I last stayed with them I had to go to church and when I was younger they would not allow me to play Lord of the Rings for my cousins because their parents said it was devil worship. That's rural New Hampshire for you.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Usually here city women are the darkest unless your in the WASP part of town. But everyone where I live is dark unless they are Irish or Anglo-Saxon. Like I said most light Europeans live in rural places, down South or out West. My guess is he will end up on the East coast as its the most urban area with the most amount of work unless he wants to be a farm hand.....then he will meet a rural white woman from a conservative religious family. But hey the quality of woman will be good but expect a conservative family that you will be around. They may be like my cousins who do not allow alcohol in their house and they pray on every religious day.....they view other Christians as heretics or heathens too. When I last stayed with them I had to go to church and when I was younger they would not allow me to play Lord of the Rings for my cousins because their parents said it was devil worship. That's rural New Hampshire for you.

Farms are all big business now. Farmers are rich and educated, or long since out of business.

As for the mythical good christian woman who will cook and clean and wash your balls and never causes problems, that has only ever existed on television. Women cause problems, they are like having a full time job, even the ones who cook and clean like crazy which somehow I have often gotten.

[TheForeigner]

Is this study real though? I've seen some stats at Razib Khan's blog for american whites born between late 50s and early 60s having 35 % blue eyes and 15 % or so green eyes and in all a little over half pure light eyes and another 15 % or more ''hazel'' which I think they meant mixed colored eyes. There wasn't enough time and I think enough mixing to effect such a massive change. Basically it barely gives you some 20 something % blue eyes for whites. Seems like a dubious study. Are there any others?

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Is this study real though? I've seen some stats at Razib Khan's blog for american whites born between late 50s and early 60s having 35 % blue eyes and 15 % or so green eyes and in all a little over half pure light eyes and another 15 % or more ''hazel'' which I think they meant mixed colored eyes. There wasn't enough time and I think enough mixing to effect such a massive change. Basically it barely gives you some 20 something % blue eyes for whites. Seems like a dubious study. Are there any others?

The study is real. It's nothing to do with 'mixing'. The internal population growth of the US is 0% since it hit the 100 million mark. The over 230 million are all people who immigrated since then. Over 2/3 of the country. 100 million mexicans and south americans and 100 million mostly southern european came since then. Plus black population doubled while colonial white population slightly shrunk.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

It's just like compound interest - population keeps doubling over time and everything becomes more shit.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GxnM-0onvs&list=RD07So_lJQyqw

[TheForeigner]

The study is real. It's nothing to do with 'mixing'. The internal population growth of the US is 0% since it hit the 100 million mark. The over 230 million are all people who immigrated since then. Over 2/3 of the country. 100 million mexicans and south americans and 100 million mostly southern european came since then. Plus black population doubled while colonial white population slightly shrunk.
Statistics actually show 2/3 or so non-hispanic white population out of the total US population and only 15% hispanic of any race and almost 14% blacks and 4 or 5 % east and south asian. The non-hispanic whites include some millions of brownish near&middle easterners and such though, even though the overwhelming majority are european-americans(including a few millions of askhenazi and sephardic jews) and probably some are part ''hispanic''(mestizo or even white or near white) or maybe even some part east or south asian and who knows how many. Also maybe those classed as hispanic by the US census includes people who are only part ''hispanic'' and many genuine white hispanics too. But apparently half or so of the total US population still is predominantly, in large part or fully celto-germanic, going by reported ancestry in previous censuses. There hasn't been mass south european immigration since the 1924 immigration act. I doubt the study is accurate or maybe it's not reported correctly by the press at least. Maybe it only referred to the newborn population as having such a low percentage of blue eyes, at least. That is certainly more believable and somewhat sad really for it's long term implications on the future of european-americans.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Statistics actually show 2/3 or so non-hispanic white population out of the total US population and only 15% hispanic of any race and almost 14% blacks and 4 or 5 % east and south asian. The non-hispanic whites include some millions of brownish near&middle easterners and such though, even though the overwhelming majority are european-americans(including a few millions of askhenazi and sephardic jews) and probably some are part ''hispanic''(mestizo or even white or near white) or maybe even some part east or south asian and who knows how many. Also maybe those classed as hispanic by the US census includes people who are only part ''hispanic'' and many genuine white hispanics too. But apparently half or so of the total US population still is predominantly, in large part or fully celto-germanic, going by reported ancestry in previous censuses. There hasn't been mass south european immigration since the 1924 immigration act. I doubt the study is accurate or maybe it's not reported correctly by the press at least. Maybe it only referred to the newborn population as having such a low percentage of blue eyes, at least. That is certainly more believable and somewhat sad really for it's long term implications on the future of european-americans.

Whatever stats you go off are not right. In US they have taken out a lot of ethnicities and combined them into white but even so nothing I see has that little hispanic. Hispanic is at least 30% admitted in everything I see.

With 50% 'white' which counts millions of Indians who come to work in IT and medicine every year, everyone from the middle east, jews, etc.

Like I said earlier in the thread US used to have about 80% light eyes for its white population, according to census. Most people don't realize we had a ton of scando colonization of the super cold areas of the USA where most people can't handle life until modern times. I also think that blue eyes are being washed out of europe as well.

I've been all over the country and no way I would say that it is half white or even close. Most colonial whites don't think of anyone remotely dark as white either, if you don't look like you come from north atlantic they won't think of you as white.

I think there was just under 100 million people in the US when I was born...believe me the difference is shocking. Of course when I grew up there were no mexicans around me in california, and only one black guy who was the son of a pro football player. I think california is less white than brazil now. It just has a lot more police or the whole thing would tear apart. It's kind of like Svipdag's signature - this is not my world, these are not my people.

[TheForeigner]

Whatever stats you go off are not right. In US they have taken out a lot of ethnicities and combined them into white but even so nothing I see has that little hispanic. Hispanic is at least 30% admitted in everything I see.

With 50% 'white' which counts millions of Indians who come to work in IT and medicine every year, everyone from the middle east, jews, etc.

Like I said earlier in the thread US used to have about 80% light eyes for its white population, according to census. Most people don't realize we had a ton of scando colonization of the super cold areas of the USA where most people can't handle life until modern times. I also think that blue eyes are being washed out of europe as well.

I've been all over the country and no way I would say that it is half white or even close. Most colonial whites don't think of anyone remotely dark as white either, if you don't look like you come from north atlantic they won't think of you as white.

I think there was just under 100 million people in the US when I was born...believe me the difference is shocking. Of course when I grew up there were no mexicans around me in california, and only one black guy who was the son of a pro football player. I think california is less white than brazil now. It just has a lot more police or the whole thing would tear apart. It's kind of like Svipdag's signature - this is not my world, these are not my people.
I get your pov, but as usual your opinions contradict official statistics,studies etc When the hell were you born? The US allready had 100 million people around 1914 or so and 150 million in early 50s and at least 200 million by the 70s.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

I get your pov, but as usual your opinions contradict official statistics,studies etc When the hell were you born? The US allready had 100 million people around 1914 or so and 150 million in early 50s and at least 200 million by the 70s.

I am pretty sure I remember seeing US population is only 125 million when I was a kid so I doubt that, maybe I am wrong though. People have displayed the graphics that show at least 30% hispanic plus "white hispanic". That comes from official census data. Even those are skewed however.

Looks like there was something around 175 million when I was born. I must have been misremembering or gotten it from an old encycopedia. Still a hell of a lot of people coming in in that time.

[Isleño]

Among my family, we have variety. We have brown, hazel, green and blue. Brown and hazel seem dominant, but some of us have green and some even blue.

[Swarthy_Syndicate]

America is an interesting case considering every other Western country's dominant source of non-whites is from Muslim countries, while in USA it's Latin America. Canada, Australia and Europe have virtually no "Latinos" and are being "brownified" by Muslims.