Acceptable amount of non-European admixture in a spouse

[jerney]

Is any amount acceptable? If so, how much? Is admixture from particular populations more "acceptable" than others? (f.e. Asian over African).

[Skandi]

That all depends on what type of admixture is being considered, I can only give my personal opinion, and that is that any percent of mixture within these groups is allowed, Celtic Germanic, Slavic etc.

I am less fond of Mediterranean admixture but it is not a tragedy, i.e a person with 1/4 Italian would be acceptable by my standards

When it comes to other ethnicities, like the Africans I would say that it must be so far back that no trace remains probably at the 1/64th level or somewhere near it, Asian Admixture is similar but it seems to vanish faster, so maybe somewhere at the 1/32nd level would be acceptable

[Bloodeagle]

My wife is 1/2 Greek, 1/4 Swede and 1/4 American Heinz 57 sauce.

She is at one moment a sweet lady and the next it is like she has taken some sort of Greek blood vendetta out on me.

But being Germanic, I can take whatever she dishes at me!

[Atlas]

0%

[Vulpix]

Zero for me.

[chap]

I don't want to produce mixed-race offspring so I guess 0%... I view all Western Europeans as compatible.

[Manifest Destiny]

A question for the folks who voted "None":

If you found out that your significant other had a non-white ancestor, say, 2500 years ago, would you break up with him or her?

[Gooding]

1/64.My wife is 1/64 Tejano and that doesn't bother me.She still looks British.

[chap]

A question for the folks who voted "None":

If you found out that your significant other had a non-white ancestor, say, 2500 years ago, would you break up with him or her?

That would be insane.

[Loki]

1/64.My wife is 1/64 Tejano and that doesn't bother me.She still looks British.

Tejano in what sense? The term sounds ambiguous to me. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tejano):



The region's Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Danes, Dutch, Swedes, Irish (see also Irish Mexican), Scots, Welsh, and Anglo Americans - who arrived in the nineteenth century – were also considered Tejanos as they were Hispanicized ...

[jerney]

A question for the folks who voted "None":

If you found out that your significant other had a non-white ancestor, say, 2500 years ago, would you break up with him or her?

I was waiting for this argument. "None" should obviously be within reason. No one is expecting someone to be "pure" for the past 2500 years. There is no point entertaining the whole "everyone is mixed far enough back" argument. I mean if you really take that to heart and believe a non European ancestor 1000+ years back is comparable to recent non-European admixture, then you should instead be on a pro-multicultural forum, not a European preservationist one. (Because you know, we're all the same far enough back!!)

[Gooding]

Tejano in what sense? The term sounds ambiguous to me. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tejano):

Spanish/Mexican Texan, Loki :) It makes sense, as parts of her family have been in Texas for generations.

[The Lawspeaker]

I think that it depends on what the non-European admixture is. African is an absolute 0 for me. If it were Asian (for instance because her family had a colonial background in the Indies) I think that I wouldn't care about if it was 1/16 or less since it doesn't really show after a couple of generations. When it comes to Native American blood I would go for the same score. Pref. be 0 percent of course but I don't think that 1/16 could do so much harm.

[Manifest Destiny]

That would be insane.

How so?

[chap]

How so?

100 generations, do the math.

[Beorn]

If you found out that your significant other had a non-white ancestor, say, 2500 years ago, would you break up with him or her?

No.


How much admixture is acceptable?

Consciously? None.

[Psychonaut]

I voted "none," but in reality, anything less than 1% probably wouldn't be too much of an issue, since everyone probably has an infinitesimal amount of something.

[Gooding]

If one is of 63/64ths European blood with a CeltoNordic dominance, such as my wife, then I am content..

[Rainraven]

I would be ok knowing of 1/64th as that is only going to be 1/128th in our offspring and I think that is acceptable :)

[Tabiti]

I know that 1/32 and 1/64 is nothing, but I'm prejudiced and have some psychological barriers and probably won't marry with such person. I would feel something like a guild when looking my children, (especially if they become NS and WN someday and would be harrashed by other "ueberaryans"). Of course, noone is 100% of anything, but we could at least try our next generations to reach higher percent

[Äike]

I voted "None", because I am 100% European and I want my future kids to stay that way.

[Freomæg]

I (controversially) voted 1/16 because that would make my children 1/32 non-European, which to me is acceptable. However, really I was just playing devil's advocate when voting because I'll always strive to find a partner who is fully European - and I have. I'd only ever accept a partner of 1/16 non-European if she was the most perfect girl imaginable, didn't appear non-European and I saw no other reason why she shouldn't be the one for me to raise a family with.

And even then, as others have said, it depends on what the admixture is.

[Manifest Destiny]

I was waiting for this argument. "None" should obviously be within reason. No one is expecting someone to be "pure" for the past 2500 years. There is no point entertaining the whole "everyone is mixed far enough back" argument. I mean if you really take that to heart and believe a non European ancestor 1000+ years back is comparable to recent non-European admixture, then you should instead be on a pro-multicultural forum, not a European preservationist one. (Because you know, we're all the same far enough back!!)

I'm mostly playing Devil's Advocate here, though I think it's a valid question.

How recent do you believe that non-white admixture has to be in order to be relevant?

[Manifest Destiny]

I (controversially) voted 1/16 because that would make my children 1/32 non-European, which to me is acceptable. However, really I was just playing devil's advocate when voting because I'll always strive to find a partner who is fully European - and I have. I'd only ever accept a partner of 1/16 non-European if she was the most perfect girl imaginable, didn't appear non-European and I saw no other reason why she shouldn't be the one for me to raise a family with.

And even then, as others have said, it depends on what the admixture is.

That's kinda how I'm leaning in the poll. In the perfect world, the answer would be NONE. But 1/16th means that several generations have gone by since the non-European ancestor entered his or her family tree. At that point you can be reasonably sure that any offspring you had with this person would be totally white in appearance.

[Gooding]

I'm mostly playing Devil's Advocate here, though I think it's a valid question.

How recent do you believe that non-white admixture has to be in order to be relevant?
Personally, I would say 1/8 of nonwhite blood, such as Amerind, Asian or Latino would be as distant as you could get and yet be significant.For the African Americans, I'd push that back to 1/16. 1/32 or 1/64 of anything has been submerged by the European heritage and being 1/128 isn't even worth mentioning, by my reckoning.:cool:

[jerney]

And even then, as others have said, it depends on what the admixture is.

So, tell us? :p

[Freomæg]

So, tell us? :p
Well I'd go with what others said. 1/16 Amerindian or Chinese has less impact than 1/16 African. Perhaps 1/32 or 1/64 African and 1/32 Indian or South American as maximums would be sensible.

[Lenny]

I don't want to produce mixed-race offspring so I guess 0%...That's exactly it.

It's really not about our tastes or some kind of notions or purity. It's really about the identity of the child and his/her/(our) descendants beyond them.

A child who knows he/she has even as little as 1/16th "nonwhite" genes probably wouldn't have much of a voelkisch instinct.



A question for the folks who voted "None":

If you found out that your significant other had a non-white ancestor, say, 2500 years ago, would you break up with him or her?If a person really had a single nonwhite ancestor 2,500 years ago; the chances of inheriting any DNA at all from that person is 0. See here (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=24900&postcount=104).

[Crose]

I voted "none". Not acceptable.

Do I really need to give a reason? :D

[Sigurd]

In theory, any trace amount which is so far back that it takes some original research to find it. Here I draw a difference between "generally acceptable and assimilable" and "personally acceptable and assimilable".

When it comes to "general acceptability" then perhaps the line ought to be drawn at about 1/64 or so - American Early Eugenicists considered someone White only if he had 1/64 or less of Negroid admixture, this is perhaps a good rationale to go by thus.

As to "personal acceptability" I cannot exactly say: In Europe, we generally do not have the same problem as Americans: Most of our extra-European mixturesare either so recent that it is 1/8 or 1/4 which is unacceptable and unassimilable in any case ... or so far back that it becomes untraceable (i.e. let's say a 50x-Great-Grandfather who was an occupational Roman soldier who was the Great-Great-Grandson of a freed African slave). The exceptions to this are few - most European/African mixing took place in Africa, and their descendants stayed there.

Technically my own acceptability would perhaps be one further step back beyond that which I consider acceptable for all others, maintaining an equal level at which it would be permitted to enter my family, which is approx. 1/128; but since I do not expect or actively seek to find a spouse from across the pond, or any other "colony" this becomes a moot point. Therefore, it becomes, in effect, absolutely zero, which is of course preferable.

[Baron Samedi]

1/4 or less.

Shit shouldn't matter that damn much.

[The Lawspeaker]

1/4 or less.

Shit shouldn't matter that damn much.
Are you sure of that ? At this moment we simply can't afford it !
Because we have so much people with foreign blood here that if we were to all look the other way we will eventually outbreed ourselves. Took me some time to realize that too btw.

[Maelstrom]

All I see in this thread are individual's personal circumstances obstructing the true ideal.

[Psychonaut]

All I see in this thread are individual's personal circumstances obstructing the true ideal.

That's because we live in the real world. Ideals of perfection exist only in Platonic flights of fancy. What we ideally desire is one thing, but what is acceptable in a concrete thing like a spouse is something else.

[Barreldriver]

Personally minute admixture of 1/32 or less would not bother me because by then it has been "bred out" phenotypically if I'm not mistaken, plus I'm not in much of a position to be picky about who is and isn't a full 100%, I'm even sympathetic to 1/24 and less, take into account the following:


95.84% European of mostly Anglo and Northern Irish predominance, given that I'm descendant primarily from 19th Century Anglo and Northern-Irish immigrants. My Colonial American blood being a mix of Anglo, German, Dutch, Swedish, Northern Irish, and Portuguese. This confirmed with published genealogies, Census records, and 4 years of cross checking.

4.16% Unknown due to lack of records. Census records for the individuals in question state White as their race but when I try to trace further I cannot get anymore progress due to the destruction of some of the Census records.

.097% Possible Amerindian(entered through via one of my Colonial Dutch lines, Johannes Peter Harmon took on a wife by the name of Margeret who's ancestry was debatable, she went under two different maiden names Choulyn and Schuller, she claimed native American ancestry yet was denied pension by the state of Tennessee for lack of documentation, to be honest it's perfectly assumable that she might not have been Amerindian and rather just a woman looking for a quick pension buck, cannot tell hence why DNA testing is the best route to go. Also, many online genealogies claim one of my ancestors through that line was named Greyhorse, fact is there's a book from way back when that mentions this account, in fact the fellow in question was named George Charles Harmon, his father was German born and immigrated to the U.S. via Rotterdam, he took on a wife by the name of Margaret Choulyn(Schuller by some other spellings) and she claimed native ancestry. George Charles was nicknamed Greyhorse later in life by nearby Amerindians, he himself was not initially named Greyhorse, it was a nickname.)


The issue being, sometimes not all the records are available, many valuable Census records were destroyed in fires and are unrecoverable, and you can never be 100% sure of an ancestors faithfulness to their spouse the logic being "you weren't there you cannot have witnessed their habits and behavior". The only way to know for sure is via DNA testing.

So all in all, my vote goes with 1/32 and less.

And judging by the poll results so far, if minute admix 1/32 or less is intolerable then why are people with any non-European blood still allowed here?

[Vulpix]

And judging by the poll results so far, if minute admix 1/32 or less is intolerable then why are people with any non-European blood still allowed here?

This is an internet forum, not a marriage agency :rolleyes2:!...

[Barreldriver]

This is an internet forum, not a marriage agency :rolleyes2:!...

I figure it if you use that standard to judge a spouse should it not also apply to your allies? How can you be allies with someone you view as a mongrel or as "unacceptable".

[Rainraven]

This is an internet forum, not a marriage agency :rolleyes2:!...

Though perhaps you should start one? I'm sure it'd be a hit with so many like minded people here! "Procreation for Preservation" :D:D

I think you can be slightly less judgemental for allies than partners as you're not planning any genetical collaboration with your ally. That doesn't mean they cannot be a help to your cause. It just means you may not agree to your 7/8 European ally having children with your full European ally :)

[Barreldriver]

Though perhaps you should start one? I'm sure it'd be a hit with so many like minded people here! "Procreation for Preservation" :D:D

I think you can be slightly less judgemental for allies than partners as you're not planning any genetical collaboration with your ally. That doesn't mean they cannot be a help to your cause. It just means you may not agree to your 7/8 European ally having children with your full European ally :)

Well if we're going to go into who should breed with who based on minor percentages like 6% and less, then what is their "class", there has to be a certain amount of bias in regards to them, after all they, and I because of a minor percent, are seen as unfit to breed with, and what is their identity to be? If they are seen as unfit to breed with full 100% Europeans then how can they be called "European"?

[Rainraven]

Well if we're going to go into who should breed with who based on minor percentages like 6% and less, then what is their "class", there has to be a certain amount of bias in regards to them, after all they, and I because of a minor percent, are seen as unfit to breed with, and what is their identity to be? If they are seen as unfit to breed with full 100% Europeans then how can they be called "European"?

Well I've stated in this thread that I would prefer to reproduce with a 100% European but that is my choice. If others do not have the same exacting standards then I would not look down on them. I think anything 10% or under would be ok because it seems a worthwhile diluting of the genes and if they bring thier children up as proud Europeans then in a few generations the genetic influence of the foreign 10% will be removed. However it is ofcourse up to the individual to decide how far removed they will go and that is what this thread is about :)

[Barreldriver]

Well I've stated in this thread that I would prefer to reproduce with a 100% European but that is my choice. If others do not have the same exacting standards then I would not look down on them. I think anything 10% or under would be ok because it seems a worthwhile diluting of the genes and if they bring thier children up as proud Europeans then in a few generations the genetic influence of the foreign 10% will be removed. However it is ofcourse up to the individual to decide how far removed they will go and that is what this thread is about :)

I'm not knocking your choice I just want to see a defense of it, I want to compare it to how choice of spouse weighs with views of general humanity.



For example if you choose to not breed with someone because they're not a perfect 100% is it because you think they're subhuman, for instance would you view someone who is 95%-99.9% as subhuman?(this question is hypothetical not directed towards you specifically, it's the question that I had in my head as I was writing my previous responses).

[Psychonaut]

I figure it if you use that standard to judge a spouse should it not also apply to your allies? How can you be allies with someone you view as a mongrel or as "unacceptable".

The kind of people you're friends or allies with needn't at all be the same kind of person you marry. Like I said in the Chatbox, you wouldn't catch me marrying any Scandinavians, but I'll gladly work towards the same causes and be friends with them. The attributes that you find necessary in a spouse aren't always necessary in a friend, and a great many of your friends (unless you live in an isolated village) won't be marriage material.

[Barreldriver]

Also, take this for instance, you meet someone, you eventually get hitched, you've met their family and discussed family histories, and genealogies, and according to what has been gathered it fits the "ideal", well quite a number years on down the road some more digging is done about the family history and a minor taint is uncovered and no longer is your spouse of many years 100%, will you thus divorce them on the spot because of the discovery of a minor percentage of whatever that was not known about during the time of early marriage?

[Rainraven]

Also, take this for instance, you meet someone, you eventually get hitched, you've met their family and discussed family histories, and genealogies, and according to what has been gathered it fits the "ideal", well quite a number years on down the road some more digging is done about the family history and a minor taint is uncovered and no longer is your spouse of many years 100%, will you thus divorce them on the spot because of the discovery of a minor percentage of whatever that was not known about during the time of early marriage?

Ofcourse not, because the percentage likely to be found is likely to be small enough that it is inconcequential, plus I believe that marraige is for lilfe. It would be a shock and I would perhaps be a tad upset to begin with, but with everything else going in their favour I would not divorce them.

As to anything below 100% being subhuman? That is definately not what I believe. The word subhuman is not to be thrown around lightly. And ofcourse I don't think of you as a subhuman Barreldriver ^^ People less then 100% are ofcourse less pure than anyone who is, but they can still but great upstanding Europeans who do our cause pride.

[Barreldriver]

Ofcourse not, because the percentage likely to be found is likely to be small enough that it is inconcequential, plus I believe that marraige is for lilfe. It would be a shock and I would perhaps be a tad upset to begin with, but with everything else going in their favour I would not divorce them.

As to anything below 100% being subhuman? That is definately not what I believe. The word subhuman is not to be thrown around lightly. And ofcourse I don't think of you as a subhuman Barreldriver ^^ People less then 100% are ofcourse less pure than anyone who is, but they can still but great upstanding Europeans who do our cause pride.

Coolio :D That is something I can understand.

[Skandi]

For example if you choose to not breed with someone because they're not a perfect 100% is it because you think they're subhuman, for instance would you view someone who is 95%-99.9% as subhuman?(this question is hypothetical not directed towards you specifically, it's the question that I had in my head as I was writing my previous responses).

I personaly wouldn't view someone who is 100% non European as subhuman, I just wouldn't wish to breed with them.

[Vulpix]

I figure it if you use that standard to judge a spouse should it not also apply to your allies? How can you be allies with someone you view as a mongrel or as "unacceptable".

You figure wrong. They are two very different things for me. I want my kids to be 100% European like me, otherwise I wouldn't be preserving my genes, would I?

Different standards apply. I can be an ally with someone who believes in the same cause.

Like Thrym says:


I personaly wouldn't view someone who is 100% non European as subhuman, I just wouldn't wish to breed with them.

[Barreldriver]

You figure wrong. They are two very different things for me. I want my kids to be 100% European like me, otherwise I wouldn't be preserving my genes, would I?

Different standards apply. I can be an ally with someone who believes in the same cause.



Coolio, one issue on my mind though, say someone who is less than a percent tainted and breeds with someone of equal percentage would that increase the percent of tainted blood? Or would the European genes still consider to dominate? This question is out to any genetics gurus. :D

[Absinthe]

To set the record straight, I voted 1/32 only because I want to be realistic. Ideally, of course I'd want my spouse to be 100% European.

However, if we're not talking about negro admixture, I also think that 1/32 has been out bred. In real life, there's only very few people who can tell with absolute certainty that they're 100% of a single European ethnicity, or even multiple European ethnicities but no non-European one.
In Southern Europe and countries like Greece who've suffered a lot of invasions, that percentage is even smaller than usual.

[Inese]

A question for the folks who voted "None":

If you found out that your significant other had a non-white ancestor, say, 2500 years ago, would you break up with him or her?
That are very many generations!!:rolleyes: Non-white influence is 0,00x% or so in your example that is no reason to break a relationship , and it is not possible to find such long familyline who goes back 2500 years or??!! :D Or has anyone a familyline so far back?? But that would be really cool ---- Hmm how far goes the longest familyline back??? 600 or 700 years?? I dont know.

~ 0% is very important for me i dont want non-european influence. 1/128 or 1/265 are too much also. I am a nordicist and i would re-ject large non-nordish influence ( south Europa ) too. ( No new argument about this please we have all our opinions.....;) )

[Barreldriver]

To set the record straight, I voted 1/32 only because I want to be realistic. Ideally, of course I'd want my spouse to be 100% European.

However, if we're not talking about negro admixture, I also think that 1/32 has been out bred. In real life, there's only very few people who can tell with absolute certainty that they're 100% of a single European ethnicity, or even multiple European ethnicities but no non-European one.
In Southern Europe and countries like Greece who've suffered a lot of invasions, that percentage is even smaller than usual.

That's understandable, and I also am less inclined to be "forgiving" of negro admixture, negro genes are harder to breed out so it takes more and more generations to get the effects done away with.

[Absinthe]

That's understandable, and I also am less inclined to be "forgiving" of negro admixture, negro genes are harder to breed out so it takes more and more generations to get the effects done away with.
That's what I'm talking about. Plus, the negro is the less desirable admixture one can have.

Luckily, very few if any Greeks have that (contrary to some people think). It is far more likely for the racially dubious ones to have middle-eastern or Caucasian (from the region of Caucasus, that is) admixture than anything else.

[Vulpix]

Coolio, one issue on my mind though, say someone who is less than a percent tainted and breeds with someone of equal percentage would that increase the percent of tainted blood? Or would the European genes still consider to dominate? This question is out to any genetics gurus. :D

I don't think it would increase, at worst it would stay the same. It depends on which genes are passed on. 50/50 random from each parent.

[Barreldriver]

I don't think it would increase, at worst it would stay the same. It depends on which genes are passed on. 50/50 random from each parent.

Chances are it would stagnate if it's far enough back in the genealogy, further the generations back the less likely one is to inherit any genetic material from that ancestor, guess that also explains why for the amount of English blood in me I have a more Irish look, those Irish ancestors were my most recent.

[Brynhild]

That's what I'm talking about. Plus, the negro is the less desirable admixture one can have.

Luckily, very few if any Greeks have that (contrary to some people think). It is far more likely for the racially dubious ones to have middle-eastern or Caucasian (from the region of Caucasus, that is) admixture than anything else.

I can only speak for the Maltese insofar as Meds are concerned, but in my father's time the odds were much greater of being descended from Northern Europe than Arabs or even Africans.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

I don't want to produce mixed-race offspring so I guess 0%... I view all Western Europeans as compatible.

I produced a mixed offspring.
50 percent Dutch
50 percent British
50 percent Prussian
50 percent French

Throw this in a fruit mixer and what do you get??????:confused::confused::confused::confused:

[Vargtand]

Let's see, I don't really want any. But admixtures I won’t tolerate would be Slavic Mediterranean Hispanic etc, only north European, so Germanic, Celtic and finnic would be acceptable for me personally. And god knows not the French! :P

Of course If it is unearthed that someone had some admixture 4-5-6 or more hundred years ago then I’d be more keen on looking at the genetic traits than on the family lineage as in truth. Take me for instance.

Over 20 generations back I have two ancestors that are not Scandinavian. Would that make me less Scandinavian? That is 2 out of let’s see roughly 56 000 people that would have lived at that single time (if we have no inbreeding…) such an admixture I would tolerate as to not would discredit the other 55 998 people and deny me personally access to their legacy which I don’t quite buy.

Anyhow sorry for rambling on.

[Barreldriver]

Let's see, I don't really want any. But admixtures I won’t tolerate would be Slavic Mediterranean Hispanic etc, only north European, so Germanic, Celtic and finnic would be acceptable for me personally. And god knows not the French! :P

Of course If it is unearthed that someone had some admixture 4-5-6 or more hundred years ago then I’d be more keen on looking at the genetic traits than on the family lineage as in truth. Take me for instance.

Over 20 generations back I have two ancestors that are not Scandinavian. Would that make me less Scandinavian? That is 2 out of let’s see roughly 56 000 people that would have lived at that single time (if we have no inbreeding…) such an admixture I would tolerate as to not would discredit the other 55 998 people and deny me personally access to their legacy which I don’t quite buy.

Anyhow sorry for rambling on.

I also would not mind Finnish blood in my family. I like Finland, the source of Tolkeins inspiration for Gandalf and some of the Elvish lingo and Finland has killer music.

[Treffie]

I also would not mind Finnish blood in my family. I like Finland, the source of Tolkeins inspiration for Gandalf and some of the Elvish lingo and Finland has killer music.

Well you're almost there, Barrel. With Tolkien, Sindarin was based on Welsh and Quenya was based on Finnish. ;)

[Barreldriver]

Well you're almost there, Barrel. With Tolkien, Sindarin was based on Welsh and Quenya was based on Finnish. ;)

Why I said some :D lol I love reading the Lost Tales series, a lot of the early story was taken right out of the Eddas lol

[Vargtand]

I also would not mind Finnish blood in my family. I like Finland, the source of Tolkeins inspiration for Gandalf and some of the Elvish lingo and Finland has killer music.

Gandalf is a norse dwarf...

[Barreldriver]

Gandalf is a norse dwarf...

IRL the name, but the person behind the name was supposedly taken from a Finnish folk hero. Also, all the dwarfs in Tolkein's books were Dwarfs mentioned in the Eddas.

[SuuT]

:confused2: - This thread makes no sense. "European" is an Ethno-Kultural/Geographic distinction, not a racial or sub-racial one. Sort of a shame given that SNPA is fused with T.A....And yet so many answer.:confused:

[SuuT]

I produced a mixed offspring.
50 percent Dutch
50 percent British
50 percent Prussian
50 percent French

Throw this in a fruit mixer and what do you get??????:confused::confused::confused::confused:

You get a defiance of basic mathematics.

[Barreldriver]

You get a defiance of basic mathematics.

I want to be 200% of a person, wait! I already am :D

[SwordoftheVistula]

I think he means him+the lady?

[Angantyr]

The only logically supportable amount is zero per cent.

Anyhthing else implicitly accepts that at some point in the past, the admixture of a completely non-European is acceptable. You might as well let your daughter marry a negro because at some point in the future, your great-great grandchildren will only be 1/16 black. It simply goes against the entire concept of European preservationism.

However, in practice the actually acceptable amount should be conscious knowledge of zero per cent. Thus, if one consciously knows of no non-European admixture and lives his or her life as though there is no admixture, then it is irrelevant that some unknown and undocumented ancestor 1.000 years ago was non-European.

[Barreldriver]

However, in practice the actually acceptable amount should be conscious knowledge of zero per cent. Thus, if one consciously knows of no non-European admixture and lives his or her life as though there is no admixture, then it is irrelevant that some unknown and undocumented ancestor 1.000 years ago was non-European.

That would simply be self denial and ignorance, forms of deceit and lack of knowledge, at least people that have admitted 1/1024 or 1/512 admixture have done research and know about "themselves" in a way that others who have not studied would not, and would be most informed on matters due to their research, while someone who has not done the research is going around sprouting "I'm pure I'm pure even though I don't know for sure, because I have not done the research!" :D Yeah, makes lots of sense that last bit, purity by ignorance.

[Vargtand]

That would simply be self denial and ignorance, forms of deceit and lack of knowledge, at least people that have admitted 1/1024 or 1/512 admixture have done research and know about "themselves" in a way that others who have not studied would not, and would be most informed on matters due to their research, while someone who has not done the research is going around sprouting "I'm pure I'm pure even though I don't know for sure, because I have not done the research!" :D Yeah, makes lots of sense that last bit, purity by ignorance.

A general reflection
I get a sense of people only taking into account their straight lines if they are pure or not.. As if I were to take into account only my fathers fathers fathers ... fathers father. And my mothers mothers mothers ... mothers mother. And so on why yes then by all means there are many people that are pure breed...

a general argument:
But if you take into account all the lines, and then take into account that a small country such as Sweden if you go back 1000 years there is a good statistic chance that you are related to every single Swede now living (for a Swede) and if there occurred one so called race-mixing a thousand years ago, well then all of us are Mongrels because we are de facto related.

A conclusion to said argument I was losely basing on the quoted post and on your own reply:
That is what makes such arguments absurd.

[Barreldriver]

I get a sense of people only taking into account their straight lines if they are pure or not.. As if I were to take into account only my fathers fathers fathers ... fathers father. And my mothers mothers mothers ... mothers mother. And so on why yes then by all means there are many people that are pure breed...

But if you take into account all the lines, and then take into account that a small country such as Sweden if you go back 1000 years there is a good statistic chance that you are related to every single Swede now living (for a Swede) and if there occurred one so called race-mixing a thousand years ago, well then all of us are Mongrels because we are de facto related.

That is what makes such arguments absurd.

*Edit Reply Deleted post was caused by a sprout of idiocy on my part.*

[Vargtand]

My argument? Absurd how? I stated that people that have done the genealogical research have a better knowledge of themselves than someone who hasn't, and the burden of proof, pertaining to purity, would be on the people who have not done the research yet claim purity.

And when did I ever mention just my straight paternal line, my genealogical research of myself has covered every possible lineage that I can trace within the forest that is my family.

Noooo.... I was referring to arguments about admixture back a thousand years, I was agreeing with you... it was in reference to the post you replied to and felt that it was needed to be added.

[Barreldriver]

Noooo.... I was referring to arguments about admixture back a thousand years, I was agreeing with you... it was in reference to the post you replied to and felt that it was needed to be added.

Oops. :D My bad lol. Christ this is a bad morning for me, my head is all over the place.

[Vargtand]

I've edited my post to make it more... how should we say, idiot-friendly :P

[Barreldriver]

I've edited my post to make it more... how should we say, idiot-friendly :P

Thanks, idiocy is rampant on my part this morning. :(

[Vargtand]

As a follow-up to my argument... what would be considered worse, a mixed race or an inbred? :P

[Barreldriver]

As a follow-up to my argument... what would be considered worse, a mixed race or an inbred? :P

Depends on the levels for each, within my own family back in the 1700's there was a 1st cousin marriage but one case way back would be inconsequential I would believe in light of brother sister marriage or recent 1st cousin marriage, and similar for mixed race the more recent the more harmful.

[Vargtand]

Depends on the levels for each, within my own family back in the 1700's there was a 1st cousin marriage but one case way back would be inconsequential I would believe in light of brother sister marriage or recent 1st cousin marriage, and similar for mixed race the more recent the more harmful.

Ahh so that explains it!:p


Umm, 1st cousin marriage I personally think would be worse by today’s standards... But 2nd cousin would probably rival mixed race couples and their minions.

[Barreldriver]

Ahh so that explains it!:p


Umm, 1st cousin marriage I personally think would be worse by today’s standards... But 2nd cousin would probably rival mixed race couples and their minions.

My thoughts too. Big family tree so plenty of 2nd cousin potential mates loool :D

[Lulletje Rozewater]

You get a defiance of basic mathematics.

Depends how you look at it.
First 2 are my parents,the last 2 are my ancestors.
In short: I am a " homme à tout faire" in the genetic industry
It is, for all I know a "factotum" in most languages

[Sigurd]

Umm, 1st cousin marriage I personally think would be worse by today’s standards... But 2nd cousin would probably rival mixed race couples and their minions.

Could be worse. Could be two double-cousins marrying. Their children then may have the full number of 4 grandparents, but only have 4 great-grandparents, too, as opposed to 6 for "orthodox" first-cousin marriage. And yes, it's still legal. :wink

[Vargtand]

Could be worse. Could be two double-cousins marrying. Their children then may have the full number of 4 grandparents, but only have 4 great-grandparents, too, as opposed to 6 for "orthodox" first-cousin marriage. And yes, it's still legal. :wink

I'm not saying that it is good, just tolerable :P you would still have a full number of great-grandparents just that a few of them would be the same :P

[Angantyr]

That would simply be self denial and ignorance, forms of deceit and lack of knowledge, at least people that have admitted 1/1024 or 1/512 admixture have done research and know about "themselves" in a way that others who have not studied would not, and would be most informed on matters due to their research, while someone who has not done the research is going around sprouting "I'm pure I'm pure even though I don't know for sure, because I have not done the research!" :D Yeah, makes lots of sense that last bit, purity by ignorance.

I was not arguing for general ignorance. I believe that we should do research into our genealogical past. I have done so myself.

Rather, I referred to an unknown and undocumented ancestor and perhaps I should have been more clear to call that the unknowable.

You should know all that there is to know, but you cannot be faulted for not knowing the unknowable.

You are innocent until proven guilty and pure until proven impure. :p

[euro-nationalist]

I voted: 1/16 or less (6.25%). The Nuremberg laws were 1/4 admixture.

[raZvan]

That's exactly it.

It's really not about our tastes or some kind of notions or purity. It's really about the identity of the child and his/her/(our) descendants beyond them.

A child who knows he/she has even as little as 1/16th "nonwhite" genes probably wouldn't have much of a voelkisch instinct.


Explain? Instinct is instinct, it isn't overriden by knowledge.
Besides, it would depend on the mother no? In Romania there are mulattos born from communist times, usually father being black. It was illegal for romanians to marry foreigners so the africans went back home leaving behind the little mulattos to be raised by their Romanian mothers. They may not be 100% in blood by they are 100% Romanian in identity, culture and language. And as they marry other Romanians anyway the physical traces will disappear down the line.

I voted 1/4 or less because other factors are more important BUT I'd prefer a woman 100% Romanian like me!
The only admix that is NOT acceptable is those filthy gypsy roma scum.

[Electronic God-Man]

...leaving behind the little mulattos to be raised by their Romanian mothers. They may not be 100% in blood by they are 100% Romanian in identity, culture and language. And as they marry other Romanians anyway the physical traces will disappear down the line.

The only admix that is NOT acceptable is those filthy gypsy roma scum.

Haha. I suppose we all have our biases. Personally, I'd prefer a 1/4 Gypsy to a 1/4 African if I had to choose.

[Wall Eed]

Evry populacion deserves sum waleed mix ;););) so I dont care

[Electronic God-Man]

Evry populacion deserves sum waleed mix ;););) so I dont care

WTF are you? A-rab? :D

(Seriously though...)

[Hussar]

Theoretical thread. Useless.

Whatever the exact amount of non European ancestry in your hypothetical spouse, at the end is her phenotype to do the difference.

Come on guys............HERE on an internet forum we argue about percentages and Genotype (very usefull and interesting things), but we haven't "23and Me" kits for the genetic analysis with us to test our partner. An Europid (attractive) phenotype, is what influence us at 99% in the first 5 minutes.

[Wall Eed]

WTF are you? A-rab? :D

(Seriously though...)

Maghrebi ;):D:thumb001:

[Electronic God-Man]

Maghrebi ;):D:thumb001:

:puke:

[The Lawspeaker]

Maghrebi ;):D:thumb001:
Interesting that you are allowed to be here then ! :eek:

[Loki]

Maghrebi ;):D:thumb001:

Are all French like you?

[Mesrine]

Why isn't there a more than 1/4 option? :D

[Kadu]

Who the heck is going to pose that question when inlove with someone, Love is colourblind.

[raZvan]

Haha. I suppose we all have our biases. Personally, I'd prefer a 1/4 Gypsy to a 1/4 African if I had to choose.

In this case, my bias is purely cultural. ALL and I do mean ALL the gypsies I've met are nothing but trouble. I don't want my kids to learn to steal and beg and cheat and lie and skip an entire week of bathing :mad:!!!

[la bombe]

I'm not quite understanding some of these posts. Minute percentages of non-European admixture such as 1/32 and 1/64 are highly, highly unlikely to show phenotypically. It's even very much possible to have 1/8 or 1/16 non-Euro admix and still look fully European. So barring making each and every one of your partners show you a detailed family genealogy or the results of an autosomal test, how are you supposed to decide who's 'acceptable' and who isn't, given that they look "100% European" and otherwise mesh with you culturally?

[SwordoftheVistula]

Who the heck is going to pose that question when inlove with someone, Love is colourblind.

So if someone had, say, 5 kids and a substance abuse problem, that would be no problem for you either?

What about gender and age-is love gender and age blind as well?

[manu]

the girl I'm currently dating told me she has distant native american ancestry

http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/tyler-liv-photo-liv-tyler.jpg

[Hussar]

Who the heck is going to pose that question when inlove with someone, Love is colourblind.


Noble and respectable words. And even true, theoretically.

Pity that many peoples who write such words are often very hipocrite. And i had the proof, both in real and in virtual world, over the years.

Those who say proudly :"I'd live happy with a sub-saharan african woman" (on a internet forum)............then, in the real life at the moment of the REAL choices, look for an Europid partner (better if blue eyed etc. , often.......),:coffee:


Really, i'm fundamentally against race mixing, so i don't encourage it ; but afterall i don't hate either who is involed in it : it's HIS choice.
What i really hate are hipocrites and peoples who aren't coherent.

[Amapola]

Most Europeans are mixed, so i am sorry for you guys... :D otherwise... what are you going to ask for her? a DNA test? LoL

[Liffrea]

Personally I'm bemused how these things could be found out......I just go for girls I find attractive and that, for me, I find appropriate i.e. European.

What do you do? Stick a saliva swab in her mouth just as you're about to kiss her? Jab a needle in her arm when she isn't looking?

Ha Ha you're 1/20345 Negro, that's it bitch I'm outa here!!:p

[Great Dane]

This is an old thread and I know several persons have had 23andme tests since then and posted their results. What I want to know is have any of the persons who voted none have changed their minds after learning the results of their dna tests or of their friends who tested less then 100% European?


The kind of people you're friends or allies with needn't at all be the same kind of person you marry. Like I said in the Chatbox, you wouldn't catch me marrying any Scandinavians, but I'll gladly work towards the same causes and be friends with them.

Why is that, are you afraid of some remote Saami ancestry?:rolleyes:

[Hess]

This is an old thread and I know several persons have had 23andme tests since then and posted their results. What I want to know is have any of the persons who voted none have changed their minds after learning the results of their dna tests or of their friends who tested less then 100% European?



Why is that, are you afraid of some remote Saami ancestry?:rolleyes:

I have three subraces, one of which is East Baltid. East Baltids are a blend of Nordid, Borreby, and Lappid. without even getting a genetics test it is pretty certain that I have remote Lappoid ancestry, which is really only visible in my eye region, and even then it is highly reduced. However, East Baltids are considered a Europid Subrace by anthropologists. The Lapps themselves were not pure mongoloid but rather mongoloid/Caucasian. But considering that East Baltid is only one of my three subraces, the amount of actual mongoloid influence ends up being negligible. It is, however, still there.

My point is that it's really not a big deal for racially secure people and for professional anthropologists who consider a subrace that is partially mongoloid to still be Europid.

[Loki]

This is an old thread and I know several persons have had 23andme tests since then and posted their results. What I want to know is have any of the persons who voted none have changed their minds after learning the results of their dna tests or of their friends who tested less then 100% European?


One must remember that registering 100% on 23andme does not mean you have no non-white ancestors. Their criteria are not as good as those used by Polako, Dr McDonald, Dienekes etc.

I am 98% on 23andme (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23746) and it hasn't changed my world too much, but has given me food for thought and increased my knowledge about who I am. But I don't think anyone in their right minds would describe me as a "non-white", not that I care anyway if they do. It seems about average for my ethnic group and illustrates a "founder effect" that took place 1652 - 1700. It's many generations ago actually.

It hasn't changed my worldview either. I still hope and wish for the preservation of the European peoples.

[la bombe]

I am not 100% European, nor have I tested as such, but I don't think of such things. I know what I am, and I know what I am perceived as, and that's what really matters to me.

[Loki]

I am not 100% European, nor have I tested as such, but I don't think of such things. I know what I am, and I know what I am perceived as, and that's what really matters to me.

You're a ginge. Haters gonna hate. But I <3 gingers!! :) :kiss:

[Rouxinol]

Before I marry I will ask my spouse-to-be to make a 23andme. Or it's over!

[Peyrol]

1/32 of asian of amerindian could pass, but none of african or aborigenal.

[Magister Eckhart]

If Mongoloid (American), Mongoloid (Asian), Arabic or Jewish, then 1/32 is acceptable. If Negroid, 0. It's not worth risking degenerate offspring from a coupling with Negro blood. If Indian or Persian, I would say a higher number, perhaps 1/16, but for Dravidians only 1/32.

If Lapp, I figure the acceptable number is much higher, but I would still prefer some Indo-European admixture. Full-blooded Germans, Irish, Scots, English, Hungarians, French, or Scandinavians are the most acceptable. Serbs, Bulgars, Albanians, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, and Bosniaks are the least.

[Hess]

If Mongoloid (American), Mongoloid (Asian), Arabic or Jewish, then 1/32 is acceptable. If Negroid, 0. It's not worth risking degenerate offspring from a coupling with Negro blood. If Indian or Persian, I would say a higher number, perhaps 1/16, but for Dravidians only 1/32.

If Lapp, I figure the acceptable number is much higher, but I would still prefer some Indo-European admixture. Full-blooded Germans, Irish, Scots, English, Hungarians, French, or Scandinavians are the most acceptable. Serbs, Bulgars, Albanians, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, and Bosniaks are the least.

Uh, what do you mean by least acceptable? They are Europeans, are they not?

Also, keep in mind that Lappid is really only found in one European sub race-East Baltid. East Baltid is not a stable measure, but a variable blend between Nordid, Borreby, And Lappid. In other words, some east baltids may look more lappid than others, while others may look pred. Nordid with a slight lappid and Borreby strain. However, save for the more extreme lappid influenced ones, any east Baltid is still a full Europid according to anthropologists.

You mentioned Scandinavians as being most acceptable. Hoewever, quite a few Finns happen to be east baltids, therefore having lappid in them.

[Saruman]

East Baltid is not a stable measure, but a variable blend between Nordid, Borreby, And Lappid.

No, East-Baltid is a further borealised Baltid with or without direct Mongoloid admixture. The end result is that of a Baltid with slight mongoliform traits. East-Baltids are also on average the most infantilised type in Europe. I guess in East-Baltid some traits they have are even more pronounced than direct mongoloid admixture due to probable selection for those traits.

Baltid
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/4234/tatianaukr164uc7.jpg

East-Baltid
http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/bilder/tipumagyar.jpg

In particular as in this comparison East-Baltids have a tendency towards inwardly slanted eyes more so than Baltids proper, who in turn also probably have slightly more inwardly slanted eyes than European average.

[Hess]

No, East-Baltid is a further borealised Baltid with or without direct Mongoloid admixture. The end result is that of a Baltid with slight mongoliform traits. East-Baltids are also on average the most infantilised type in Europe. I guess in East-Baltid some traits they have are even more pronounced than direct mongoloid admixture due to probable selection for those traits.

Baltid
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/4234/tatianaukr164uc7.jpg

East-Baltid
http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/bilder/tipumagyar.jpg

In particular as in this comparison East-Baltids have a tendency towards inwardly slanted eyes more so than Baltids proper, who in turn also probably have slightly more inwardly slanted eyes than European average.

"The term East Baltic is properly applicable to a racial type of composite nature, found chiefly in northeastern Germany, Poland, the Baltic States, and Finland, although it also occurs sporadically in Sweden and elsewhere. It is a partially reduced Borreby derivative, with Ladogan and Nordic admixture"

This is what coon says about east baltids. I meant ladogan instead of lappid, so sorry about that.

[Pallantides]

I'm 100% European on 23andMe and very Northern European, but I'd accept a spouse that have 25% non-European admixture, If they are extremely beautiful and have a great personality it's not really that much of a big deal for me.

[Magister Eckhart]

Uh, what do you mean by least acceptable? They are Europeans, are they not?

Also, keep in mind that Lappid is really only found in one European sub race-East Baltid. East Baltid is not a stable measure, but a variable blend between Nordid, Borreby, And Lappid. In other words, some east baltids may look more lappid than others, while others may look pred. Nordid with a slight lappid and Borreby strain. However, save for the more extreme lappid influenced ones, any east Baltid is still a full Europid according to anthropologists.

You mentioned Scandinavians as being most acceptable. Hoewever, quite a few Finns happen to be east baltids, therefore having lappid in them.

It was my understanding this poll was a personal question; was I mistaken?

As for "Lappid", I'm not talking about the "racial" grouping when I say "Lapp" - I study craniometry and anthropology but I don't make any decisions based in it; I make my decisions based in the culture, which runs much deeper than the biological structures that determine skull-shape. True race is not biological or material; human sub-species sometimes coincide with cultural structures and true race, but it is not a rule.

The "Lapps" to which I was referring are the Sami people of northern Scandinavia. I do believe the origin of your racial term "Lappid" is in fact in the term to describe this culture.

At any rate, I find Slovaks, Poles, and Serbs to be culturally distasteful. I dislike them and I dislike their cultures. I have made efforts to make my peace with them (especially Serbs) and have only found my distaste for them reinforced. I also heavily distrust Russians as a rule, but I have found that the Russians improve upon closer acquaintance in the way Serbs, Poles, and Slovaks do not. And then, Russians may be Europeans geographically but they're not Westerners culturally, so I might define my relationship with the Russian racial character in similar terms to my relationship to the Hindu or Semitic racial characters - I find them generally amicable and indeed they have inspiring heroes and a fascinating history, but they remain nevertheless foreign to my Western mind.

Against the Czechs I bear a grudge for an act of genocide for which they were never made to answer. As an Austro-German whose people came from Bohemia and Lower Austria, I am quite certain I had cousins who suffered under the manufactured Czecho-Slovak state, which itself was of Czech design. Therefore, I suppose the Czechs are special because if the twentieth century had never happened I would find them significantly more acceptable than I hold them at present. So, again, that is purely personal.

Bosniaks and Albanians I exclude for other reasons - their devotion to Mohammedanism. Also, I find them dirty; rather like settled gypsies, really.

While I hold that Westerners are better to couple with Westerners, I do admit I sometimes prefer the company of certain foreigners (especially Hindus, Chinese, and Japanese) rather than other Europeans (such as Serbs, Poles, and Albanians). And, of course, there are Europeans toward whom I hold neither especial love or especial distaste, such as the Spaniards and Italians. I used to hold the Spaniards to be filthy, dark-hearted savages, but upon the closer acquaintance here with several of our Iberian members I have found myself modifying that view significantly. Likewise, I am cool toward the Italians because I'm simply not sure how I feel about them. Likewise for the French and Greeks.

I did forget to add the Welsh and Manx to my list of "most acceptable" Europeans. I like the Welsh but for some reason they always slip my mind. Sorry, Osweo :p.

[Saruman]

"The term East Baltic is properly applicable to a racial type of composite nature, found chiefly in northeastern Germany, Poland, the Baltic States, and Finland, although it also occurs sporadically in Sweden and elsewhere. It is a partially reduced Borreby derivative, with Ladogan and Nordic admixture"

This is what coon says about east baltids. I meant ladogan instead of lappid, so sorry about that.

Coon said many correct but some incorrect things, so we must look at all authors as well as modern genetic data.
Well actually Baltids proper developed from what looked like in all likelihood an archaic Cromagnoid variant similar to some Borreby variants, so what he says there isn't really that far off, add to that Ladogan or Lappoid and one could get an East-Baltid, although still Nordid can only be in traces in East-Baltid proper.

[Grumpy Cat]

What is the situation?

Dating?

There are very few non-European types I find attractive. Many are good looking for sure, but not "I want to rip off his clothes and fuck him" hot. So none, or close to none.

Joining this forum?

IMO, if someone has some European blood, or maybe none, but they're interested in Europe and want to learn something, I have no problem with them being here. I just don't like the anti-Western types and would ban them quick if I was admin (of all races, including white folks, who I actually think are worse).

There are many interesting cultural topics here, and I learned a lot from this forum... and I'm of European descent. I could see the cultural topics being of interest to people who are not, and they could learn something.

[Hess]

It was my understanding this poll was a personal question; was I mistaken?

As for "Lappid", I'm not talking about the "racial" grouping when I say "Lapp" - I study craniometry and anthropology but I don't make any decisions based in it; I make my decisions based in the culture, which runs much deeper than the biological structures that determine skull-shape. True race is not biological or material; human sub-species sometimes coincide with cultural structures and true race, but it is not a rule.

The "Lapps" to which I was referring are the Sami people of northern Scandinavia. I do believe the origin of your racial term "Lappid" is in fact in the term to describe this culture.

At any rate, I find Slovaks, Poles, and Serbs to be culturally distasteful. I dislike them and I dislike their cultures. I have made efforts to make my peace with them (especially Serbs) and have only found my distaste for them reinforced. I also heavily distrust Russians as a rule, but I have found that the Russians improve upon closer acquaintance in the way Serbs, Poles, and Slovaks do not. And then, Russians may be Europeans geographically but they're not Westerners culturally, so I might define my relationship with the Russian racial character in similar terms to my relationship to the Hindu or Semitic racial characters - I find them generally amicable and indeed they have inspiring heroes and a fascinating history, but they remain nevertheless foreign to my Western mind.

Against the Czechs I bear a grudge for an act of genocide for which they were never made to answer. As an Austro-German whose people came from Bohemia and Lower Austria, I am quite certain I had cousins who suffered under the manufactured Czecho-Slovak state, which itself was of Czech design. Therefore, I suppose the Czechs are special because if the twentieth century had never happened I would find them significantly more acceptable than I hold them at present. So, again, that is purely personal.

Bosniaks and Albanians I exclude for other reasons - their devotion to Mohammedanism. Also, I find them dirty; rather like settled gypsies, really.

While I hold that Westerners are better to couple with Westerners, I do admit I sometimes prefer the company of certain foreigners (especially Hindus, Chinese, and Japanese) rather than other Europeans (such as Serbs, Poles, and Albanians). And, of course, there are Europeans toward whom I hold neither especial love or especial distaste, such as the Spaniards and Italians. I used to hold the Spaniards to be filthy, dark-hearted savages, but upon the closer acquaintance here with several of our Iberian members I have found myself modifying that view significantly. Likewise, I am cool toward the Italians because I'm simply not sure how I feel about them. Likewise for the French and Greeks.

I did forget to add the Welsh and Manx to my list of "most acceptable" Europeans. I like the Welsh but for some reason they always slip my mind. Sorry, Osweo :p.

Ahh, I see. Well, I'm sorry to hear about your negative experiences with Eastern Europeans. And you are surely right In that from the perspective of a white American, some eastern European cultures may seem very foreign and strange. Personally, Being half western and half eastern, I feel comfortable with all Europeans, save for White Americans. Their mentality is just so radically from that of my own that it makes it hard for me to communicate with them.

Obviously, my mentality is also quite different from that of the Italians or Portuguese. However, with them I can just say "we may be very different, but we still share a long history". while this may seem trivial, in actually creates a sense of European solidarity that, while subtle, is definitely present.

This is just not something I can do with Americans. While they may look European, most of them think and act like a race of their own, which is what I treat them like.

[Hess]

Coon said many correct but some incorrect things, so we must look at all authors as well as modern genetic data.
Well actually Baltids proper developed from what looked like in all likelihood an archaic Cromagnoid variant similar to some Borreby variants, so what he says there isn't really that far off, add to that Ladogan or Lappoid and one could get an East-Baltid, although still Nordid can only be in traces in East-Baltid proper.

For educational purposes, would you say that my eyes are much more slanted than the average European, or just a little more slanted?

[Himera]

It was my understanding this poll was a personal question; was I mistaken?

As for "Lappid", I'm not talking about the "racial" grouping when I say "Lapp" - I study craniometry and anthropology but I don't make any decisions based in it; I make my decisions based in the culture, which runs much deeper than the biological structures that determine skull-shape. True race is not biological or material; human sub-species sometimes coincide with cultural structures and true race, but it is not a rule.

The "Lapps" to which I was referring are the Sami people of northern Scandinavia. I do believe the origin of your racial term "Lappid" is in fact in the term to describe this culture.

At any rate, I find Slovaks, Poles, and Serbs to be culturally distasteful. I dislike them and I dislike their cultures. I have made efforts to make my peace with them (especially Serbs) and have only found my distaste for them reinforced. I also heavily distrust Russians as a rule, but I have found that the Russians improve upon closer acquaintance in the way Serbs, Poles, and Slovaks do not. And then, Russians may be Europeans geographically but they're not Westerners culturally, so I might define my relationship with the Russian racial character in similar terms to my relationship to the Hindu or Semitic racial characters - I find them generally amicable and indeed they have inspiring heroes and a fascinating history, but they remain nevertheless foreign to my Western mind.

Against the Czechs I bear a grudge for an act of genocide for which they were never made to answer. As an Austro-German whose people came from Bohemia and Lower Austria, I am quite certain I had cousins who suffered under the manufactured Czecho-Slovak state, which itself was of Czech design. Therefore, I suppose the Czechs are special because if the twentieth century had never happened I would find them significantly more acceptable than I hold them at present. So, again, that is purely personal.

Bosniaks and Albanians I exclude for other reasons - their devotion to Mohammedanism. Also, I find them dirty; rather like settled gypsies, really.

While I hold that Westerners are better to couple with Westerners, I do admit I sometimes prefer the company of certain foreigners (especially Hindus, Chinese, and Japanese) rather than other Europeans (such as Serbs, Poles, and Albanians). And, of course, there are Europeans toward whom I hold neither especial love or especial distaste, such as the Spaniards and Italians. I used to hold the Spaniards to be filthy, dark-hearted savages, but upon the closer acquaintance here with several of our Iberian members I have found myself modifying that view significantly. Likewise, I am cool toward the Italians because I'm simply not sure how I feel about them. Likewise for the French and Greeks.

I did forget to add the Welsh and Manx to my list of "most acceptable" Europeans. I like the Welsh but for some reason they always slip my mind. Sorry, Osweo :p.


Ooooh what I can say from my eastern mind ... but I won't ...
I use objective part of brain always !

You started from one spiritually iluminased perception, than what happend with your statement? ...
Teutonic rage itch you like sifilis?
( that was from my east mind) ..:(:p

[Magister Eckhart]

Ahh, I see. Well, I'm sorry to hear about your negative experiences with Eastern Europeans. And you are surely right In that from the perspective of a white American, some eastern European cultures may seem very foreign and strange. Personally, Being half western and half eastern, I feel comfortable with all Europeans, save for White Americans. Their mentality is just so radically from that of my own that it makes it hard for me to communicate with them.

Obviously, my mentality is also quite different from that of the Italians or Portuguese. However, with them I can just say "we may be very different, but we still share a long history". while this may seem trivial, in actually creates a sense of European solidarity that, while subtle, is definitely present.

This is just not something I can do with Americans. While they may look European, most of them think and act like a race of their own, which is what I treat them like.

I find the "Eastern European" category to be really unhelpful, though; I have no problem with Baltics, nor with Hungarians, Romanians, Croatians, Ukrainians, or Ruthenians. All of these would be called "Eastern European"; rather, it seems that not even all Slavs are disagreeable, just certain tribes.

I think that the lack of European unity in the American mind comes from the fact that so many of us descend from Europeans who left the continent for the new world when Europe could not conceive of itself as a unified whole. I, for example, grew up in an Irish neighbourhood immersed with hatred and distrust of Poles, Italians, Spaniards, Russians, and Slovaks. Upon closer acquaintance, some of these improve (like the Spaniards and Russians) and some do not (like Serbs - and all one need do is look at how they respond to statements like this to see why).

Either way, even these people fall within the Faustian world - the Russians and Ukrainians remain the only people outside of it. This may be why Russians always seem to make Westerners so uneasy and yet are such amicable people. They are foreign in the truest sense to us; like all foreigners, though, it is easy to get along with them even if one cannot comprehend them.


Ooooh what I can say from my eastern mind ... but I won't ...

And the Serb temper-tantrums begin already.

I suppose I should clarify for readers who misunderstand that when I say "Western" I am thinking "Faustian", and working within Spenglerian categories.

[Himera]

I find the "Eastern European" category to be really unhelpful, though; I have no problem with Baltics, nor with Hungarians, Romanians, Croatians, Ukrainians, or Ruthenians. All of these would be called "Eastern European"; rather, it seems that not even all Slavs are disagreeable, just certain tribes.

I think that the lack of European unity in the American mind comes from the fact that so many of us descend from Europeans who left the continent for the new world when Europe could not conceive of itself as a unified whole. I, for example, grew up in an Irish neighbourhood immersed with hatred and distrust of Poles, Italians, Spaniards, Russians, and Slovaks. Upon closer acquaintance, some of these improve (like the Spaniards and Russians) and some do not (like Serbs - and all one need do is look at how they respond to statements like this to see why).

Either way, even these people fall within the Faustian world - the Russians and Ukrainians remain the only people outside of it. This may be why Russians always seem to make Westerners so uneasy and yet are such amicable people. They are foreign in the truest sense to us; like all foreigners, though, it is easy to get along with them even if one cannot comprehend them.



And the Serb temper-tantrums begin already.

I suppose I should clarify for readers who misunderstand that when I say "Western" I am thinking "Faustian", and working within Spenglerian categories.


Affectation... Quarrelsome on the floor....:p:p

[Bloodeagle]

I would tolerate 0% Negro admixture in a spouse.

[Tony]

It dipends on what kind of admixture she has.
If she has one parent who is from say India , Morocco , Turkey etc but is clearly , definitely Caucasoid then I would accept her.
For sure I'd test their parents and grandparents very carefully in that case.

[Panopticon]

My anaconda don't want none unless you got 100% European ancestry on.

[Himera]

My anaconda don't want none unless you got 100% European ancestry on.

words of suneted snake :D

[Lithium]

I wouldn't accept my girlfriend to has non-European admixture.

[Panopticon]

words of suneted snake :D

Hahaha, well I'm not cut :P

[Himera]

Hahaha, well I'm not cut :P

:D

[Olavsson]

Is any amount acceptable? If so, how much? Is admixture from particular populations more "acceptable" than others? (f.e. Asian over African).

Ideally, I would only reproduce with a woman who are fully European by ancestry. My own DNA has been analysed by 23andMe and also Dr. Doug McDonald (see my signature), and I came out as 100% European in both tests.
If someone has got a small percentage of non-European ancestry, that doesn't really matter at all. It will be outbred quickly anyway. ;)

[Himera]

well I want to make an sub question now and here, cause it is nice moment , among all your answers here ...
Are Balkans "disputable" like an option for spouse ?

[Arne]

well I want to make an sub question now and here, cause it is nice moment , among all your answers here ...
Are Balkans "disputable" like an option for spouse ?

well, it really depends on the person

[Himera]

well, it really depends on the person

:) not in that way , but the way of this topic ...?

[StonyArabia]

Most people who are 1/32 of this or 1/16 of that don't know what they might carry unless they do a genetic test so it's pretty much useless in trying to assess this. Of course 1/4th and 1/8th usually does show that they might be part Asian/Amerindian or African.

[Gaztelu]

1/64 is where I draw the line.

[Rocket]

I only accept DNA-certified 100% pure white Aryan spouses. That's why I will be an eternal wanker.

[Rouxinol]

It was my understanding this poll was a personal question; was I mistaken?

As for "Lappid", I'm not talking about the "racial" grouping when I say "Lapp" - I study craniometry and anthropology but I don't make any decisions based in it; I make my decisions based in the culture, which runs much deeper than the biological structures that determine skull-shape. True race is not biological or material; human sub-species sometimes coincide with cultural structures and true race, but it is not a rule.

The "Lapps" to which I was referring are the Sami people of northern Scandinavia. I do believe the origin of your racial term "Lappid" is in fact in the term to describe this culture.

At any rate, I find Slovaks, Poles, and Serbs to be culturally distasteful. I dislike them and I dislike their cultures. I have made efforts to make my peace with them (especially Serbs) and have only found my distaste for them reinforced. I also heavily distrust Russians as a rule, but I have found that the Russians improve upon closer acquaintance in the way Serbs, Poles, and Slovaks do not. And then, Russians may be Europeans geographically but they're not Westerners culturally, so I might define my relationship with the Russian racial character in similar terms to my relationship to the Hindu or Semitic racial characters - I find them generally amicable and indeed they have inspiring heroes and a fascinating history, but they remain nevertheless foreign to my Western mind.

Against the Czechs I bear a grudge for an act of genocide for which they were never made to answer. As an Austro-German whose people came from Bohemia and Lower Austria, I am quite certain I had cousins who suffered under the manufactured Czecho-Slovak state, which itself was of Czech design. Therefore, I suppose the Czechs are special because if the twentieth century had never happened I would find them significantly more acceptable than I hold them at present. So, again, that is purely personal.

Bosniaks and Albanians I exclude for other reasons - their devotion to Mohammedanism. Also, I find them dirty; rather like settled gypsies, really.

While I hold that Westerners are better to couple with Westerners, I do admit I sometimes prefer the company of certain foreigners (especially Hindus, Chinese, and Japanese) rather than other Europeans (such as Serbs, Poles, and Albanians). And, of course, there are Europeans toward whom I hold neither especial love or especial distaste, such as the Spaniards and Italians. I used to hold the Spaniards to be filthy, dark-hearted savages, but upon the closer acquaintance here with several of our Iberian members I have found myself modifying that view significantly. Likewise, I am cool toward the Italians because I'm simply not sure how I feel about them. Likewise for the French and Greeks.

I did forget to add the Welsh and Manx to my list of "most acceptable" Europeans. I like the Welsh but for some reason they always slip my mind. Sorry, Osweo :p.

I understand each one's stereotypes and preconceptions on other peoples - I have also my own bias towards certain Europeans of other ethnicites, and some are shared, others are not, with the ones referred in this post. The same happens the other way around. For instance, I tend to associate some Eastern European ethnicities with mafia-like crime, prostitution and gypsies, maybe because the ones who have immigrated here made and make headlines on the news on issues as "soft" as creating prostitution networks, crime involving human trafficking (mainly of women for prostitution), robberies (Romanians robbing jewellery stores to sell the products in Eastern Europe) and murderer. The last headlines: three Bulgarian immigrants shot dead by their mafia counterparts.

What I wouldn't expect was that this was so deeply raised in the United States - at least by reading some of the American posters herein - which might be - nor not - representative of the average "white American" thought. I thought there was not much of a distinction anymore between an American with ancestry mainly in the British Isles to, say, an American with ancesty in other parts of Europe (even non-Germanic ones). That is, I thought that European cultures were way too merged by now there, so that hardly one would distinguish between an European American of X or Y ancestry. Yet, the idea I'm getting now is that "ghettoization" by place of origin/ancestry is still common (?).

This reminds me of something in the likes of "Gangs of New York" or so - without the bloody body to body fight, but yet with the same ideas of "hate" and stereotyping from group to group. ;)

[Magister Eckhart]

I understand each one's stereotypes and preconceptions on other peoples - I have also my own bias towards certain Europeans of other ethnicites, and some are shared, others are not, with the ones referred in this post. The same happens the other way around. For instance, I tend to associate some Eastern European ethnicities with mafia-like crime, prostitution and gypsies, maybe because the ones who have immigrated here made and make headlines on the news on issues as "soft" as creating prostitution networks, crime involving human trafficking (mainly of women for prostitution), robberies (Romanians robbing jewellery stores to sell the products in Eastern Europe) and murderer. The last headlines: three Bulgarian immigrants shot dead by their mafia counterparts.

What I wouldn't expect was that this was so deeply raised in the United States - at least by reading some of the American posters herein - which might be - nor not - representative of the average "white American" thought. I thought there was not much of a distinction anymore between an American with ancestry mainly in the British Isles to, say, an American with ancesty in other parts of Europe (even non-Germanic ones). That is, I thought that European cultures were way too merged by now there, so that hardly one would distinguish between an European American of X or Y ancestry. Yet, the idea I'm getting now is that "ghettoization" by place of origin/ancestry is still common (?).

This reminds me of something in the likes of "Gangs of New York" or so - without the bloody body to body fight, but yet with the same ideas of "hate" and stereotyping from group to group. ;)

It depends on the part of America one lives in, I find. I come from a heavily industrialised, heavily economically depressed, heavily immigrant part of the country in which racial pride means something different than it might in the Southern US (esp. in Mississippi, Alabama, or Georgia). In my neighbourhood, which was an Irish neighbourhood, most of whom were mine technicians, there was a strong sense of ethnic identity in opposition to other ethnicities, especially other Catholics. Italians, for example, were categorically filthy criminals without any genuine dedication to the Church who could not be trusted. The Germans, on the other hand, were clean and dedicated, but eccentric ("look at them! They clean their sidewalks, like the polaks!").

In my own city, we still to this day have ethnic neighbourhoods that are very much aware of themselves. We have a huge Greek festival, we have a massive "Tomato festival" for the Italians, St. Patrick's Day celebrations last a full week, and everyone knows when Russian Christmas is. As a result, ironically everyone is very aware of the other communities, and we all go to school together, but we have attitudes toward one another, and while today we'll associate with ethnicities that aren't our own, it's still very rare to marry outside of a certain ethnicity or set of ethnicities.

There has, of course, been development in this area over time. When my grandmother was my age, Irish Catholic married Irish Catholic, and did not associate with: Polaks (a category that includes Hungarians, Slovaks, Poles, Czechs, and anyone else who was a "hop-skip-and-a-jump" from being a Pole but not Russian), Italians (never called "Italian", rather always "daego", "wop", "guinea", or "greaseball"), Russians (untrustworthy Slavs), Greeks (a category including all Balkan peoples who were "greasy" and "dirty" like the Italians and Spanish), Jews (who were arrogant and lived up on the hill, aloof from the rest of us).

But you could associate with: Germans (a term for all Protestant Germans) and Austrians (a term for all Catholic Germans), Scots, Welshmen, French, and Scandinavians. Generally, though, you couldn't trust many of them either, especially since Welshmen and Scots were essentially the same as the English who oppressed us in the old country.

Nevertheless, this started to change with her generation - especially as regards the Jews, the Germans, and the Scots; she, for example, took my uncles and aunts to the Jewish community centre instead of the YMCA because it was cleaner and the people were friendlier. Likewise, while it was absolutely forbidden to marry outside your ethnicity, you could associate with them with some caution. By the next generation, many people began marrying outside their ethnicity - my mother, a pure-blooded Irish, married my father, an Austro-Scot. My Uncle was less daring, he married a woman who was a quarter Slovak and mostly Irish.

This is a good time to mention the different "kinds" of Irish. Irish who maintained their Irishness, kept a clean house, and had some wealth (though not rich) were "lace curtain" Irish. After these, there were the dirty Irish who openly associated and married foreigners, known as "pigs in the parlour" Irish. Finally, there were the filthiest, constantly drunk, sexually promiscuous, in-and-out-of work families with a ton of kids, who we called "shantytown" Irish. My family were lace-curtain - my Uncle's wife's family were pigs-in-the-parlour. It is my understanding that this is unique to the Irish, though I don't know if such a difference existed among Poles, Italians, etc.

I don't need to mention my own generation, except insofar as I will say that my mother is not terribly pleased with my future wife being part Hungarian (which, remember, is "Polak" where I come from) and her mother's family is pigs-in-the-parlour Irish who dared to breed with the English of all people.

My fiancée's family, of course, is not from my home - they're all from New Jersey. She, therefore, had absolutely no sense of these ethnic tensions when her family moved to my home-town. She identified as "Irish" because it helped her until she met me and I encouraged her to embrace her Austro-German and Austro-Hungarian roots, because I myself have learned to be very proud of my own German heritage (though I am mainly Irish). My father's family, who were mostly Scots, had no problem marrying other Northern Europeans, but had a strict rule against avoiding Mediterraneans (though they never called them that - they were all just "Italians"). My grandfather would, for example, regularly deride the Italians; it was from him that I learned the words "daego" and "walio" to describe them ("wop" was more popular among the Irish- they even had a little ditty: "guinea-wop, guinea-wop, five cents a lollipop"). Of course, my grandfather was also a Presbyterian, and so Catholics in general could never be trusted, be they Austrian, Irish, Spanish, Italians, Polish, or French. But people of "good protestant stock" like the Germans, the English, the Dutch (who were always viewed as Germans anyway) and Scandinavians were viewed as excellent business partners and good, loyal friends.

My father still thinks all this is stupid, and himself completely threw off all of the ethnic tensions except for the fact that he seems convinced that anyone with darker pigmentation and looks vaguely southern European is definitely Jewish, even if they aren't. This is, however, a good thing for him - he likes the Jews a lot, having worked for them in his past. He cringes at my occasional anti-Semitism.

In my generation, marrying within our ethnicity has become increasingly difficult because we don't have fresh blood coming from the old countries anymore, which means that basically every Irish man and woman in my generation in my neighbourhood are all related (I went to school with six cousins, for example, one of whom I was in school with from kindergarten all the way through high school). One of them I didn't even know we were related until I indicated attraction to her and was told by my parents that she was my second cousin, which put a quick end to that. I can say with pride that the inbreeding taboo is very strong where I come from - we're not hill-billies.

Indeed, ethnic intermixing and inbreeeding, and miscegenation in general are all associated with white trash and hill-billies where I come from, and therefore have a strong taboo attached to them.

Again, I do not know if I can speak for all the Yanks here, but I would venture that this is true across the rust-belt, since I know that I have seen the same phenomenon in Chicago as in my home-town and have heard of it in Ohio as well. For myself, I try to be more nuanced in my approach to foreigners, as I have indicated above, but I do feel there is value to this ethnic awareness if tempered with rationality. You are very right to think of this as a 19th century thing, because it is by and large a relic from the days when the Irish, Italian, and German "Gangs of New York" were still around. In fact, a good portion of my Irish family are Brooklyn Irish and identified as such (contrasted to Five Points Irish, who were all shantytown Irish)

[Ibericus]

http://warbriel.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/donut.jpg

[Odoacer]

Coming after Magister Eckhart's post, I'll add that the European ethnic divisions in the Western part of the U.S. have long been less prominent. My paternal grandfather was a first generation American, born in Colorado, a full-blooded Sicilian. My paternal grandmother was first-generation American, born in California, half-Scottish (her father was a Catholic Scot) & half-Irish. As far as I can recall, there was never any enmity between these different families despite very different ethnic backgrounds; probably they were drawn together by a common Catholic faith. But of the 4 of my grandparents' children who married, 1 married a Catholic Pole, 1 married a Jew, & the other two (including my father) married white Protestants.

[Germanicus]

My exwife whom i had children with, looked like Agnetha Faltskog.
Both her parents were blond blue eyed and were from Essex.
http://i339.photobucket.com/albums/n449/ruffusruffcut/agnetha.jpg
As she has got older she has aged gracefully also like Agnetha Faltskog.
http://i339.photobucket.com/albums/n449/ruffusruffcut/oldagnetha.jpg

[Foxy]

I based my vote on fascist theories: after 1/8 the foreign admixture is delete. So I say that 1/8 is acceptable.

[Rouxinol]

Thanks for your quite interesting exposition of ethnic relations among European Americans Magister. It's interesting to see how people tend to marry those they deem more alike (ethnically, culturally or even in terms of religious affiliation) and how it has been kept through the centuries there in a greater or lesser extent. ;)

[Kosovo je Sjrbia]

I based my vote on fascist theories: after 1/8 the foreign admixture is delete. So I say that 1/8 is acceptable.

During fascism women coudn't vote. If you're really fascist you must act as a fascist!

[Hussar]

The most boring of all threads.

When you choose the partner the amount of "acceptable" foreign blood is decide by the (esthetic) phenotypic impact.


Even in the case (not probable) this girl below had 20% (?) of extraeuropean blood, how many would be horrified by the idea of mating with her ?


http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/d67360f806.jpg (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/)

[reindeerattack]

The fact is that there are many people who are 1/4 and 1/8 European who you would regard as completely white while looking at them. If they informed you of this, your subjective impression of them might change, and you'd say, "Oh, I can see it", but if they didn't tell you, you'd never know. Do you plan on demanding that all prospective spouses consent to a 23andme test just to make sure? Yeah, that will go over well. "Darling, although you look white to me, I need to make absolutely sure so that you don't pollute our genetic line."

[Wyn]

The most boring of all threads.

I think the endless stream of classify/guess threads jointly take first prize in that category.

[Hellfuhrer]

I would have a wife that is part Jewish, thats about it. I would refuse to have a wife with any mongoloid or God forbid negroid ancestry.

[Gaztelu]

Even in the case (not probable) this girl below had 20% (?) of extraeuropean blood, how many would be horrified by the idea of mating with her ?

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/d67360f806.jpg

Who is she?

[curiousman]

During fascism women coudn't vote.

During fascism men couldn't vote too, il Duce voted for all.

[Peyrol]

During fascism men couldn't vote too, il Duce voted for all.

You could "vote"... was asked you "do you agree with the proposed laws?" if you say no, you lost your job and you was beated. :laugh:

Great way for save tedious and expensive elections.

[Foxy]

You could "vote"... was asked you "do you agree with the proposed laws?" if you say no, you lost your job and you was beated. :laugh:

Great way for save tedious and expensive elections.

My non-fascist grand-grandfather had to migrate to Ethyopia (so more or less on Mars) as colon to don't vote pro Duce. :D

[Boudica]

I voted 1/32 or less, but it depends on exactly what admixture it is..

[GeistFaust]

I do not think even the slightest trace should be allowed since I place a high emphasis on purity. I might be able to except someone with a small amount of Asian no more then 1/8th but if you had the slightest trace of African I do not think I could do it. I prefer to remain within the European continent when it comes to looking at suitable mates.

[Dario Argento]

1/8 Indigenous or less is OK for me. For African is 0%. If she's 1/4 lebanese or Iranian it's also ok for me too.

[StonyArabia]

1/8 Indigenous or less is OK for me. For African is 0%. If she's 1/4 lebanese or Iranian it's also ok for me too.

The Lebanese will bring you East African and the Iranian will bring you North East Asian. Look at their results. Such minor admixtures don't show up on phenotypes or even influence it and unless they do a genetic test and then they know about it.

[Dario Argento]

The Lebanese will bring you East African and the Iranian will bring you North East Asian. Look at their results. Such minor admixtures don't show up on phenotypes or even influence it and unless they do a genetic test and then they know about it.

Lebanese aren't part East African autosomally. I don't care for some in depth analysis for something that is less than 1%.

[StonyArabia]

Lebanese aren't part East African autosomally. I don't care for some in depth analysis for something that is less than 1%.

They actually are. The Lebanese do show East African admixture, just like Iranians who do show North East Asian and South Asian admixture. You can see in most Lebanese they usually score some minor African on 23andme and other projects. As well the East African is not detected well in most genetic tests and hence underestimated. I share with several Lebanese they show around 1% to 2% African.

[Dario Argento]

They actually are. The Lebanese do show East African admixture, just like Iranians who do show North East Asian and South Asian admixture. You can see in most Lebanese they usually score some minor African on 23andme and other projects. As well the East African is not detected well in most genetic tests and hence underestimated.

There has been no documented colonization or intrusion of East Africans into Lebanon so it has to be very ancient and consequently, minor.

[StonyArabia]

There has been no documented colonization or intrusion of East Africans into Lebanon so it has to be very ancient and consequently, minor.

Lebanon was an important slave port.

[Dario Argento]

Lebanon was an important slave port.

Most slaves didn't come from East Africa.

[StonyArabia]

Most slaves didn't come from East Africa.

In the Near East they came mostly from East Africa actually, and some came from other parts. Either way the Lebanese show minor East African influence and their African affinity is higher than any European population, some do show minor West African, though it's rare in general. I share with several Lebanese they all display minor East African admixture and on the side projects they get higher level of East African admixture than they do as "African" on 23andme.

[_______]

was dating a very dark med. his likely 'non-european admixture' was not a problem so much as his unreliability :D

[Barreldriver]

Anymore I've become a bit more liberal in terms of acceptable admixture in a spouse, mainly because basing relationship on a mutual interest in genetic genealogy and genealogy in general is quite shitty if that's the only thing in common, if a potential spouse is someone that I can otherwise agree with and want to be with I could look past them not having interest in participating in genomic services and thus the admixture acceptance criteria would be based more so on known genealogy, appearance, and cultural factors as opposed to percentiles to the "T".

[Magister Eckhart]

was dating a very dark med. his likely 'non-european admixture' was not a problem so much as his unreliability :D

Did you ever think the two might be related?

[onebadcaballero]

I'm mixed but I'm hopelessly attracted to Iberian women. I just hope my future wife finds me exceptional.

[Cato]

1/4 or less for me, but it largely depends upon admixture with what.

[Dario Argento]

1/4 or less for me, but it largely depends upon admixture with what.

Same for me. I think I'm one of the least racist users here. I tolerate most mestizos, non-european caucasians thar aren't muslim, and asians pretty well. I wouldn't mind anyone with somehow distant mixture with any of those groups.

[Peyrol]

What anglos means with "very dark med?

[Aces High]

What anglos means with "very dark med?

.

[Ivanushka-supertzar]

I tend to prefer darker types. Blond girls I usually find uninteresting/unattractive and stupid to boost. So there's literally no limits of acceptance for me.

[Peyrol]

.

Like a 20-years old Silvio Berlusconi? :laugh:

http://www.sconfini.eu/images/stories/attualita/politica/nopqr/silviomuscoloso.jpg

http://www.repubblica.it/2003/e/gallerie/politica/berluscfotoined/interni54031562110103721_big.jpg

[Aces High]

I wonder if Silvio had a sock wedged into his "slippino" just like Little Tony used to have..?

[Foxy]

If I can give a non-scientific answer I think mostly depends on the admixture with what. Some ethnic traits are very attractive, especially when mixed.

-With Asians and Natives of North America also 100% ethnic is ok. 50% would be a bit better becouse they can born with slanted light eyes that make me creazy!!!. I do adore them.

An exemple:

http://www.picpiggy.com/bank/kristin_kreuk_sexiest_picture-1265302638.jpg
http://www.media-courses.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/keanu_reeves_photo_7.jpg

-With Middle Easterns(exluding white Turks) I'd prefer 1/4, becouse most of their harsh features have already been partially washed (big convex nose and too dark skin and sometimes also negroid lips).

Exemple:
http://s1.hubimg.com/u/2631724_f520.jpg

-With blacks 1/8.

http://celeb-face.com/albums/celebrities/u/1/a/Adriana-Lima/adriana-lima-0213.jpg

Some mixes are really gorgeous.

[Debaser11]

^I prefer a more Western look, still.

[antonio]

-With Asians and Natives of North America also 100% ethnic is ok.
-With Middle Easterns(exluding white Turks) I'd prefer 1/4, becouse most of their harsh features have already been partially washed (big convex nose and too dark skin and sometimes also negroid lips).


So MiddleEasterns (more DNA-related to Eurepeans) have convex noses and dark skins and negroid lips whilst Asians are pure perfect like manga caracters. Something tells me that's a quite biased comment.:confused:

[Olavsson]

So MiddleEasterns (more DNA-related to Eurepeans) have convex noses and dark skins and negroid lips whilst Asians are pure perfect like manga caracters. Something tells me that's a quite biased comment.:confused:

Many Middle-Easterners have got Negroid admixture, which may account for those lips mentioned. Do anyone know exactly what the Arabs looked like while they were pure Caucasoids, without any other admixture?

Personally, I'd like to preserve my European genotype, and I don't understand that some pure Europeans on here actually would accept 25% non-European admixture in their partner.
But now I haven't read the entire thread either. I'd guess it's a very different thing for a European between having 25% Negroid admixture or 25% other Caucasian.

[StonyArabia]

Many Middle-Easterners have got Negroid admixture, which may account for those lips mentioned. Do anyone know exactly what the Arabs looked like while they were pure Caucasoids, without any other admixture?

Kim Kardashian is not even Arab, she is Armenian mixed with Dutch and British with touch of Amerindian. The Arabians in their "pure" form don't look like Europeans Nordics or Meds, since they come from the Semitic and especially Southern Semitic peoples. As well racial purity does not exist in it's absolute form unless it's isolated populations.If you think the Arabs looked like your Europeans you are not much different from the Afrocentrists in that regard. As well you find those types of lips found in many populations but a minority, it does not mean admixture. North Africans are different story though. The Middle East does not only consists of Arabs, there are several different ethnic groups in the region Assyrian, Armenian, Adyghe, Arab, Persian, Turk and if you include North Africa in the Middle East there are Copts, Berbers, Saharawis and so on. Each group has it own unique culture and as well genetic profile. In all and all Middle Easterners are the cousins of Europeans and their closest genetic relatives in fact. Which all genetics do affirm, those Semitic populations are little distant from Europeans but are still very close to them in a genetic sense. The Middle East is not monolith and so are it's genetics.

[Dario Argento]

So MiddleEasterns (more DNA-related to Eurepeans) have convex noses and dark skins and negroid lips whilst Asians are pure perfect like manga caracters. Something tells me that's a quite biased comment.:confused:

Caucasoid or not, Middle Easterns are way uglier than Asians. Middle Easterns are the lowest rung of Caucasian subraces and some non-Caucasian groups are on a higher rung than them.

[antonio]

One thing is for sure: if we marry an average fair MiddleEastern, our descendance will probably look plain Europid (maybe with a slight Semitic or Mediterranean look), not at all if we marry a woman from ExtremeOrient.

[Edgard]

One thing is for sure: if we marry an average fair MiddleEastern, our descendance will probably look plain Europid (maybe with a slight Semitic or Mediterranean look), not at all if we marry a woman from ExtremeOrient.

True. Its sad to say but I bet most Europeans have trace amounts of Semite in them. I think as long as its a very small portion and not dominant its not a problem. If the individual looks 100% European and is culturally so its no big deal. Its the cumulative effect that's worrying also some groups have a hideous impact on the gene pool :puke African :puke.

[Bloodeagle]

Caucasoid or not, Middle Easterns are way uglier than Asians. Middle Easterns are the lowest rung of Caucasian subraces and some non-Caucasian groups are on a higher rung than them.

I would disagree. I have seen very pretty Persian girls. I do not believe that there is a ladder system, with rungs of Caucasian, that dictate a peoples worth in the world. I definitely find fault in your logic, stating that certain (non)-Caucasian groups are more Caucasian than some (actual) Caucasians.

If you have a thing for Asian girls, why try to justify it, with the illusion of some Asian supremacy. :rolleyes:

[StonyArabia]

I would disagree. I have seen very pretty Persian girls. I do not believe that there is a ladder system, with rungs of Caucasian, that dictate a peoples worth in the world. I definitely find fault in your logic, stating that certain (non)-Caucasian groups are more Caucasian than some (actual) Caucasians.

Yep, Indeed. I find Middle Easterners to be more attractive than Asians for many reasons. There women are actually feminine not child like like Asian women are, especially in regards to South East Asians.


If you have a thing for Asian girls, why try to justify it, with the illusion of some Asian supremacy.

This attitude is ironic at the same time and laughable. I don't see the appeal that Asian women have. Central Asian look good because they are mixed with Caucasoids. Pure Asians to be frank don't look good.

[la bombe]

Caucasoid or not, Middle Easterns are way uglier than Asians. Middle Easterns are the lowest rung of Caucasian subraces and some non-Caucasian groups are on a higher rung than them.

Have you ever seen either group? Some of the Lebanese and Persian people I've seen are far more good-looking and far closer to Europeans in appearance than pure East Asians could ever be.

[Efim45]

That could be, la bombe, but they are the descendants of filthy muslims. A mate should be 100% pure.

[The Lawspeaker]

Have you ever seen either group? Some of the Lebanese and Persian people I've seen are far more good-looking and far closer to Europeans in appearance than pure East Asians could ever be.
I remember Farah. She could easily have been Greek or even Italian.

[Peyrol]

Is some european that looks semithes...or some semithes that looks european? This is the problem.

Don't forget that some regions like the coast of Lebanon have received a lot of european influence and colonies in the centuries (Greeks, Romans, Crusaders, etc).

[Raikaswinþs]

Select an espouse according to her amount of non European blood is an utterly retarded idea to me.As if finding someone to spend your life with is not hard enough . Also, cultural affinity is for me a much more determining factor. I would rather have a Cuban wife,no matter what racial traits display, than a Swede. (although if I fall in love with a Swede, I wouldn´t turn her down to preserve the Atlanto med race, believe me)

[Peyrol]

When i see a guy like this, i've some doubts if he is 100% semithes.

http://img455.imageshack.us/img455/3555/berberboypd1.jpg

[Bloodeagle]

Is some european that looks semithes...or some semithes that looks european? This is the problem.

Don't forget that some regions like the coast of Lebanon have received a lot of european influence and colonies in the centuries (Greeks, Romans, Crusaders, etc).

The same could also be said of the European nations that were touched by the Phoenicians - another Semitic group.

[Peyrol]

The same could also be said of the European nations that were touched by the Phoenicians - another Semitic group.

True.

In some parts of Sicilia you could easly see the camithic (berberid) background of the population.

[Raikaswinþs]

The same could also be said of the European nations that were touched by the Phoenicians - another Semitic group.

kool, there are certainly many spaniards with a Fenicio touch. Big pride! those chaps were just awesome. Just like vikings, but without the muder-rape rate, and millena before them! also they invented the scripture of western civilization

[Dario Argento]

One thing is for sure: if we marry an average fair MiddleEastern, our descendance will probably look plain Europid (maybe with a slight Semitic or Mediterranean look), not at all if we marry a woman from ExtremeOrient.

It'll at most look like an Armenian. But anyway I think some Middle Eastern influence is acceptable. After all most Southern Europeans have Neolithic middle eastern influence, whether in smaller or larger chunks.

[Cedric]

If they are mostly white, I'm attracted to them and view them culturally similar to me then it doesnt matter.

[Mercury]

Acceptable amount of non-European admixture in a spouse

Depends on the country and situation. If America had an all-white immigration policy, then I wouldn't mind Whites marrying with, say, Native Americans in an attempt to assimilate them.

[Sahson]

A question for the folks who voted "None":

If you found out that your significant other had a non-white ancestor, say, 2500 years ago, would you break up with him or her?

Of course.

[Bridie]

Caucasoid or not, Middle Easterns are way uglier than Asians. Middle Easterns are the lowest rung of Caucasian subraces and some non-Caucasian groups are on a higher rung than them.I don't think you've seen enough Asians in real life, if that's your opinion. :D

[Dario Argento]

I don't think you've seen enough Asians in real life, if that's your opinion. :D

The same I can say, I don't think you've seen enough Middle Easterners.

http://thumbnails.truveo.com/0017/9E/84/9E84F0238B14D304CDB749_Large.jpg

[Sikeliot]

My limits;

- 1/4 black or less (before anyone jumps down my throat, most quadroons do not look overly black)
- 1/4 or less Asian
- 1/16 or less Native American
- Middle Easterners are fine

[Bloodeagle]

My limits;

- 1/4 black or less (before anyone jumps down my throat, most quadroons do not look overly black)
- 1/16 or less Native American
- Middle Easterners are fine.

I am not going to jump down your throat, but you would rather have 4x the negro level than that of the Native American? :eek:

[Sikeliot]

I am not going to jump down your throat, but you would rather have 4x the negro level than that of the Native American? :eek:


I have a mestizo problem. I'd rather anything than to give birth to mestizo children, and to me, any mixture with Native American makes someone a mestizo.

But for some reason I have no issue with triracials, especially if the African is strong enough to make the Native American less evident.

This is not okay with me
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/images/2007/05/14/georgelopeztp.jpg

But oddly this is;
http://www.latindate.net/dating-blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/ade02bd4-7484-4352-8a2e-e4ed019971dd2-210x300.jpg

[Bloodeagle]

I have a mestizo problem. I'd rather anything than to give birth to mestizo children, and to me, any mixture with Native American makes someone a mestizo.

I too have my own personal prejudices and am superstitious enough to never want to bear the curse of Ham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham), whether or not they look Negro.

[Sikeliot]

I too have my own personal prejudices and am superstitious enough to never want to bear the curse of Ham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham), whether or not they look Negro.


So I guess we feel the same way but you have an aversion to blacks and I do to Amerindians. But like I said, a triracial is okay with me because the African dilutes the Amerindian and you end up with something that doesn't look stereotypically Mexican.

[Hess]

Middle Easterners are fine

Not to condescend to you (who am I kidding, that's exactly what I'm going to do), but as an American, I think if you saw more Arabs you would quickly change your mind. Even if a few of them "look white", they still have an intrinsic hatred of anything European. Want proof? look at any European country with high numbers of middle eastern immigrants.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1754

[Efim45]

I wouldn't treat her the same if I found out or she told me that she has non-European admixture. It's disgusting.

[Sikeliot]

Okay I'll change my statement then. Middle Eastern Christians are acceptable. How's that? ;)

[Efim45]

No middle easterners!
No africans!
No indians!
No asians!
No muds!
Yuck!

[Hess]

Okay I'll change my statement then. Middle Eastern Christians are acceptable. How's that? ;)

No, middle easterners who are Pro- European are acceptable. Think of Armenia and Georgia- they are both Christian nations. while it's true that they hate Muslims, they still, ironically, have an Islamic, Oriental mentality (I can vouch for that from firsthand experience)

[Dario Argento]

So I guess we feel the same way but you have an aversion to blacks and I do to Amerindians. But like I said, a triracial is okay with me because the African dilutes the Amerindian and you end up with something that doesn't look stereotypically Mexican.

I seriously think you're nigger admixed yourself. Didn't you yourself say you were Madeiran or part Cape Verdean something like that before?

But well. It's good you prefer this:

http://images.quickblogcast.com/4/6/1/0/1/117902-110164/obama_monkey_nigger.jpg

to this

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljjz82bpAP1qfrzrj.jpg


I think it's way better to look like a Peruvian indio than to look like a Coon who is 100,000 years behind in evolution. At least Indios build pyramids and shit, while Africoons be throwing spears and spreadin' AIDS.

Coons are the lowest rung of all, even behind Australoids, this is basic knowledge. Mixing with coons is going 50,000 years of evolution back.

[Sikeliot]

Sorry if I don't want my children or husband looking like stereotypical Mexicans.

[Dario Argento]

Sorry if I don't want my children or husband looking like stereotypical Mexicans.

But you won't mind them to look like an unevolved coon who could never leave Africa on its own? :confused::confused: When I see the face of a black admixed person I see the low IQ, chimp behavior and lack of evolution. I don't feel this when i see any other race, be it Melanesians, Arabs, Filipinos, Indios, Kazakhs, etc.

Blacks are the lowest rung of all and that's one thing all humans of every race can agree (except Coons and coon-admixed people, because it be raciest and hurtz their feelings and sheit)

[Sikeliot]

I was not stating my preferences, I was stating my limits/guidelines. But honestly, nothing is worse to me than the look of a stereotypical Mexican, and that's what I see when I see mestizos, be it Taylor Lautner, Snooki, or George Lopez.

[Don]

http://www.mathfail.com/divide-by-zero9.jpg

[Hess]

But you won't mind them to look like an unevolved coon who could never leave Africa on its own? :confused::confused: When I see the face of a black admixed person I see the low IQ, chimp behavior and lack of evolution. I don't feel this when i see any other race, be it Melanesians, Arabs, Filipinos, Indios, Kazakhs, etc.

Blacks are the lowest rung of all and that's one thing all humans of every race can agree (except Coons and coon-admixed people, because it be raciest and hurtz their feelings and sheit)

to be fair, some Uzbeks and Kazakhs look pretty fucking stupid as well

[Dario Argento]

So I guess we feel the same way but you have an aversion to blacks and I do to Amerindians. But like I said, a triracial is okay with me because the African dilutes the Amerindian and you end up with something that doesn't look stereotypically Mexican.

"Tri-racial is okay."

For me any mix with coons be it 1/8 is going too many thousand years back in evolution. The coon features would fuck up both the Indio and Caucasoid features respectively.

Coons are the lowest rung of all. Can we at least agree on this?

[Rouxinol]

Just a tiny off-topic: most Madeirans are of the same stock of those in the mainland. Cape Verde is 99,9(9)% non-European. Madeirans and Cape Verdeans are not interchangeable. :coffee:

[Pallantides]

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljjz82bpAP1qfrzrj.jpg



She remindes me a bit of the Norwegian singer Marion Ravn:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Marion_Raven.jpg/200px-Marion_Raven.jpg

[Sikeliot]

to be fair, some Uzbeks and Kazakhs look pretty fucking stupid as well

And sometimes they look mestizo, so it makes sense.

Either way my ideal is a nice Southern European man so it doesn't make much difference if I'd prefer a quadroon to a castizo because chances are I won't end up with either one!

[Sikeliot]

Just a tiny off-topic: most Madeirans are of the same stock of those in the mainland. Cape Verde is 99,9(9)% non-European. Madeirans and Cape Verdeans are not interchangeable. :coffee:

Yes. Cape Verdeans are like Dominicans pretty much, 50/50 mulattoes, whereas Madeirans are from northern Portugal (Minho mostly) with a small slave presence on the island that has been absorbed.

[Dario Argento]

She remindes me a bit of the Norwegian singer Marion Ravn:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Marion_Raven.jpg/200px-Marion_Raven.jpg

Yet some people think Coon features are better :rolleyes: Go figure. I guess some people like pubic hair looking hairstyles.

If she was part Coon instead of Mestiza she'd look like Lil Kim

http://hiperpop.com/files/2010/07/Lil-Kim-antes-1.jpg

What a waste of years of Eurasian out-of-africa evolution.

[Sikeliot]

Well if you find this attractive, so be it;

http://unrealitytv.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/snooki.jpghttp://www.celebrityring.info/images/pictures/George-Lopez-1.jpghttp://www.prisonplanet.com/images/january2007/220107mexicans4.jpghttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/_UzdUMEDO0ew/TBQ12pKl-0I/AAAAAAAAAH8/EuEgk81wnx0/s1600/E28D9B77-C2AB-4CA3-9DD9-2B5A7BF8726F.jpeghttp://wtfman.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/man-wearing-a-mexican-hat.jpg

[Hess]

Well if you find this attractive, so be it;

http://unrealitytv.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/snooki.jpghttp://www.celebrityring.info/images/pictures/George-Lopez-1.jpghttp://www.prisonplanet.com/images/january2007/220107mexicans4.jpghttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/_UzdUMEDO0ew/TBQ12pKl-0I/AAAAAAAAAH8/EuEgk81wnx0/s1600/E28D9B77-C2AB-4CA3-9DD9-2B5A7BF8726F.jpeghttp://wtfman.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/man-wearing-a-mexican-hat.jpg

you need to lay off my boy George :mad:

There is something seriously wrong with you if you don't find this sexy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20090324/tv-tbs-lopez/images/7cdb4ac2-6783-4b85-8fdc-eb6688d513e3.jpg

[Dario Argento]

Well if you find this attractive, so be it;

http://unrealitytv.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/snooki.jpghttp://www.celebrityring.info/images/pictures/George-Lopez-1.jpghttp://www.prisonplanet.com/images/january2007/220107mexicans4.jpghttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/_UzdUMEDO0ew/TBQ12pKl-0I/AAAAAAAAAH8/EuEgk81wnx0/s1600/E28D9B77-C2AB-4CA3-9DD9-2B5A7BF8726F.jpeghttp://wtfman.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/man-wearing-a-mexican-hat.jpg


http://gacetaintercultural.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/haiti370x270.jpg

http://www.sln.org.uk/geography/brazil/images/Gun.jpg

http://www.apoio-sp.org.br/portal/images/stories/favelados.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XYbMPbsyycE/TL3dm21_ruI/AAAAAAAAAII/cVm4drlsAx8/s1600/favelados.jpg

http://sp8.fotolog.com/photo/8/47/17/pauloctp/1304188144646_f.jpg

These Mestizos you posted at least look more human.

[Sikeliot]

Okay I'll leave him alone.. but what about this?

http://www.thefablife.com/files//2010/05/snooki1.jpg

[Dario Argento]

Okay I'll leave him alone.. but what about this?

http://www.thefablife.com/files//2010/05/snooki1.jpg

I was thinking more of something like this:

http://img.informador.com.mx/biblioteca/imagen/266x200/147/146341.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ui7M7jGGITw/Sb2zREtAEAI/AAAAAAAAAWw/GaJas0PcB4I/s400/cynthia-urias-300x350.jpg

Or this :D

http://www.wardrobefail.com/wp-content/uploads/12/HotGhettoMess.jpg

If I was left alone in a desert island with a cooness I would rather die alone than waste 100,000 years of evolution. Coons are the only race that hasn't evolved. Every other race has just evolved differently.

[Sikeliot]

Let's just call it a truce.. there are beautiful and ugly people in every race.

[Dario Argento]

Let's just call it a truce.. there are beautiful and ugly people in every race.

I think blacks and all their mixes are uglier than everyone else. I'm sure most people agree.

[Hess]

Okay I'll leave him alone.. but what about this?

http://www.thefablife.com/files//2010/05/snooki1.jpg

you're preaching to the quire. I never found any Latina attractive in my life. I can say the same about negroids, however.

[Sikeliot]

I never found any Latina attractive in my life.


What about the ones of pure Iberian descendance? ;)

[Efim45]

RACIAL FUCKING PURITY! Doesn't anyone care about it?

[Pallantides]

Let's just call it a truce.. there are beautiful and ugly people in every race.

Even among Aborgines, Pygmies and Bushmen?

[Dario Argento]

Even among Aborgines, Pygmies and Bushmen?

Aborigenes look more beatiful than Africans in their own way. When I see the face of an Abo I see deep wisdom of his habitat in his face. When I see a negro I just see a banana eating chimp.

Besides, Abo mixes look less off and more evolved than Mulatto monkeys:

Half abo australian footballer
http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2008/04/17/va1237302798742/Johnathan-Thurston-5990477.jpg

[Sikeliot]

Even among Aborgines, Pygmies and Bushmen?

Maybe not those.

[Jägerstaffel]

RACIAL FUCKING PURITY! Doesn't anyone care about it?

What's that?

[Sikeliot]

Besides, Abo mixes look less off and more evolved than Mulatto monkeys:

Half abo australian footballer
http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2008/04/17/va1237302798742/Johnathan-Thurston-5990477.jpg


He's a far cry from a pure Aborigine.. who IMO don't look human.

http://diversityiscrap.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/aborigines-dna_big.jpghttp://i.images.cdn.fotopedia.com/flickr-3825073020-hd/People_around_the_World/Oceania/Australia/Australian_Aborigines/Australian_Aborigines-hd-4.jpg

[Hess]

What about the ones of pure Iberian descendance? ;)

quite a a few, actually :p

although the fiery southern European temper is a huge turnoff for me :coffee:

[Dario Argento]

He's a far cry from a pure Aborigine.. who IMO don't look human.

http://diversityiscrap.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/aborigines-dna_big.jpghttp://i.images.cdn.fotopedia.com/flickr-3825073020-hd/People_around_the_World/Oceania/Australia/Australian_Aborigines/Australian_Aborigines-hd-4.jpg

Negroes are still uglier. IMO.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Fe_ib9EtEKA/SyuA3JGwFRI/AAAAAAAAAEY/3AZCcKs4p7Y/s320/fuglyblackman.jpg

http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2009-09-16/ds1499011.jpg

[Sikeliot]

We'll agree to disagree.

[Bridie]

Aborigenes look more beatiful than Africans in their own way. When I see the face of an Abo I see deep wisdom of his habitat in his face. When I see a negro I just see a banana eating chimp.Oh dear. You do have a very romanticised view of Australian aborigines...



Besides, Abo mixes look less off and more evolved than Mulatto monkeys:

Half abo australian footballer
http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2008/04/17/va1237302798742/Johnathan-Thurston-5990477.jpgHe's quite surely less than half aboriginal. But that's a rather flattering photo of him too....




http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/ffximage/2007/06/04/470thurston,0.jpg

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2009/07/26/1225754/877826-johnathan-thurston.jpg

http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2010/02/26/1225834/918916-johnathan-thurston.jpg

http://www.backpagelead.com.au/images/stories/rugbyleague/thurston-johnathan-110505.jpg

[poiuytrewq0987]

NONE! My partner must be 100% racially European.

[Dario Argento]

NONE! My partner must be 100% racially European.

That's not what you used to say some months ago Flip-flop.

[poiuytrewq0987]

That's not what you used to say some months ago Flip-flop.

I flip flop on your cock bitch

[Hess]

I flip flop on your cock bitch

great comeback :thumb001:

[Wanderer]

It definitely depends on the type of admixture in question. IN THEORY: 1/8 Amerindian/East Asian = acceptable to me. 1/8 black = no. I chose 1/8 in the poll, but it's not an absolute.

Now, I said "in theory" because I was attempting to specify what racial admixture would be sufficiently negligible so as not to significantly affect the phenotypes of any children I may have. In reality, that is not the only factor. Theoretically, someone who's a quarter Lebanese or something like that could fit into Europe, racially. But in reality, such a person may have a considerably different & undesirable self-conception; for various reasons, such an individual may identify as a "person of color." So that right there would be potentially problematic.