Question about a map

**Enflamme** · 12-14-2016, 02:32 AM

According this map North Africans are of the same type as peoples from Spain, Italy and the South of France (and other country):

Based on this map, I have two questions:

1. So a man from Spain who marries a woman from North Africa this is no longer inter-racial mixing, since both are of the same Mediterranean type?

2. If this map is considered true, does this mean that Spain, Italy, South of France should do nothing about this invasion from North Africa in the name of the fact that North Africains would be of the same Mediterranean type?

Thank you.

**Oneeye** · 12-14-2016, 02:53 AM

Yes

**~~Hadouken~~** · 12-14-2016, 02:56 AM

such maps are too simple and dont take many thing in notice such as :

- that there are many other phenotypes in a country and not only those that are painted

- the genetic admixture of people and that people from certain places are not homogenous . such as north africa where you have people with ssa admix to varying degrees

- who the fuck made the map to begin with ? it is just his opinion . and what looks mediterranid to him might be dinarid or something else in another persons eye for example ..etc etc

**Enflamme** · 12-14-2016, 03:24 AM

Originally Posted by All-In

such maps are too simple and dont take many thing in notice such as :

- that there are many other phenotypes in a country and not only those that are painted

- the genetic admixture of people and that people from certain places are not homogenous . such as north africa where you have people with ssa admix to varying degrees

- who the fuck made the map to begin with ? it is just his opinion . and what looks mediterranid to him might be dinarid or something else in another persons eye for example ..etc etc

I'm agree

**PunhetaDeBacalhau** · 12-14-2016, 04:45 AM

A bit of advice, mostly because it's like the 500th time I see you having doubts about the "Mediterranean Race": maybe instead of wasting time reading about outdated ideas of race, you could use that time to actually learn a bit about population genetics. The idea here is that instead of you reading Coon, which is completely outdated (not even gonna talk about the fact that he straight up made a shitload of stuff up), you could, for example, read posts from blogs like "Eurogenes" or "For what they were, we are" and learn things that are actually up to date. Or maybe go to Anthrogenica's activity stream and start reading on the posts and discussions people have in order to learn.

Anyway, answering the question:

1) Depends how you define racial-mixing. If racial-mixing to you, like to most people, only happens when one person belonging to one of the major groups (Caucasian, African, and Asian) marries one from another group, then maybe a bit, since North Africans today are on average 20% African (some less and some more, depends on where they live in North Africa). If racial-mixing to you just takes the two populations being significantly different genetically from each other, then maybe it could be called race mixing, depends on what you think, although most people wouldn't consider it explicitly race-mixing. Genetically, Spaniards are mainly made of Western Hunter-Gatherer (they average 56%, some groups with more and others with less), which is basically Native European, and Early European Farmer (ranges from 20-something to 30-something%, again depending on which group in Spain is being measured), commonly called West Med, as it peaks in Sardinia and then in Iberia (but every European has some of it), which are the first farmers that came to Europe from Anatolia around 9000 years ago, and today exists practically only in Europe, although they are still genetically closer to Levant-like DNA than to WHG's. North Africans (and, to a lesser extent, most other MENAs besides Jews) have a bit of these two ancestries, but this is mainly due to them having some Southern European ancestry. For example, Berbers in North Africa have a good bit of Iberian ancestry that they got in ancient times, which can get to 25% in the Northern-most points of Morocco, decreasing as you move south. Another example are Jews, which are not exactly North Africans, but have around 33% Southern European ancestry, mostly mediated through Italy (and Greece a bit too) with some EEF on the side.

With this said, the majority of North Africans' DNA is MENA-like, very significantly different from most Europeans, although being significantly different is subjective. It's certainly not as big a mix as Spaniards and Koreans, as the DNA of Spaniards and 80% of the DNA from North Africans is Caucasian versus the nearly 0% of Koreans, but it's still a pretty big mix. Numbers are probably easier to understand: fst distance (the lower the distance, the closer two populations are - 0 distance means the populations are 100% genetically similar) between Iberians and Moroccans today, using the populations samples used in the Eurogenes K36 calculator (you can download it's files here: https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%...&action=locate , and then open the Eurogenes_K36_Fst.txt file to check them) is 0.033, and the fst distance between Iberians and Pygmy's in Africa is 0.160 (which is one of the biggest differences there is to other populations for Iberians). If 0.160 distance is a very big mix, 0.033 is about 20% of a very big mix.

Since you're a Sardo-nationalist (

), we can use a Sardinian as an example. Sardinian fst distance (named West_Med in the K36 file) to Moroccans (North African in the K36 file) is 0.044, which is pretty big (Sardinians are a very unique population genetically). Another way to look at it: Sardinians are on average 55% Native European (WHG), about the same as the Spanish average, and the maximum percentage of WHG that exists today in Europe are Basques at around 62%, closely followed by the Baltics at around 60% and then Scandinavians at around 58%. So, being 55% native European is a very big percentage. Moroccans, which are almost the MENAs with most WHG due to their partial Iberian ancestry, are around 28% WHG, Tunisians (who also have Iberian) are 26%, and it decreases from there (not counting Jews, which have more). So, while not as bad another race, which would probably have 0% WHG and 0% Caucasian-like DNA, it's still a big difference, especially when you consider their partial African ancestry. You can check the percentages if you want here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...gid=1330589433 . These percentages can change in the future (although unlikely to suffer very big changes), but right now they're the most updated. Though the Fst distance method is just easier to numerically evaluate the genetic distance between two populations.

2) The map is based on pseudo-science from 70 years ago. Don't dwell on it.

**~~Hadouken~~** · 12-14-2016, 05:14 AM

Originally Posted by PunhetaDeBacalhau

A bit of advice, mostly because it's like the 500th time I see you having doubts about the "Mediterranean Race": maybe instead of wasting time reading about outdated ideas of race, you could use that time to actually learn a bit about population genetics. The idea here is that instead of you reading Coon, which is completely outdated (not even gonna talk about the fact that he straight up made a shitload of stuff up), you could, for example, read posts from blogs like "Eurogenes" or "For what they were, we are" and learn things that are actually up to date. Or maybe go to Anthrogenica's activity stream and start reading on the posts and discussions people have in order to learn.

Anyway, answering the question:

1) Depends how you define racial-mixing. If racial-mixing to you, like to most people, only happens when one person belonging to one of the major groups (Caucasian, African, and Asian) marries one from another group, then maybe a bit, since North Africans today are on average 20% African (some less and some more, depends on where they live in North Africa). If racial-mixing to you just takes the two populations being significantly different genetically from each other, then maybe it could be called race mixing, depends on what you think, although most people wouldn't consider it explicitly race-mixing. Genetically, Spaniards are mainly made of Western Hunter-Gatherer (they average 56%, some groups with more and others with less), which is basically Native European, and Early European Farmer (ranges from 20-something to 30-something%, again depending on which group in Spain is being measured), commonly called West Med, as it peaks in Sardinia and then in Iberia (but every European has some of it), which are the first farmers that came to Europe from Anatolia around 9000 years ago, and today exists practically only in Europe, although they are still genetically closer to Levant-like DNA than to WHG's. North Africans (and, to a lesser extent, most other MENAs besides Jews) have a bit of these two ancestries, but this is mainly due to them having some Southern European ancestry. For example, Berbers in North Africa have a good bit of Iberian ancestry that they got in ancient times, which can get to 25% in the Northern-most points of Morocco, decreasing as you move south. Another example are Jews, which are not exactly North Africans, but have around 33% Southern European ancestry, mostly mediated through Italy (and Greece a bit too) with some EEF on the side.

With this said, the majority of North Africans' DNA is MENA-like, very significantly different from most Europeans, although being significantly different is subjective. It's certainly not as big a mix as Spaniards and Koreans, as the DNA of Spaniards and 80% of the DNA from North Africans is Caucasian versus the nearly 0% of Koreans, but it's still a pretty big mix. Numbers are probably easier to understand: fst distance (the lower the distance, the closer two populations are - 0 distance means the populations are 100% genetically similar) between Iberians and Moroccans today, using the populations samples used in the Eurogenes K36 calculator (you can download it's files here: https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%...&action=locate , and then open the Eurogenes_K36_Fst.txt file to check them) is 0.033, and the fst distance between Iberians and Pygmy's in Africa is 0.160 (which is one of the biggest differences there is to other populations for Iberians). If 0.160 distance is a very big mix, 0.033 is about 20% of a very big mix.

Since you're a Sardo-nationalist (

), we can use a Sardinian as an example. Sardinian fst distance (named West_Med in the K36 file) to Moroccans (North African in the K36 file) is 0.044, which is pretty big (Sardinians are a very unique population genetically). Another way to look at it: Sardinians are on average 55% Native European (WHG), about the same as the Spanish average, and the maximum percentage of WHG that exists today in Europe are Basques at around 62%, closely followed by the Baltics at around 60% and then Scandinavians at around 58%. So, being 55% native European is a very big percentage. Moroccans, which are almost the MENAs with most WHG due to their partial Iberian ancestry, are around 28% WHG, Tunisians (who also have Iberian) are 26%, and it decreases from there (not counting Jews, which have more). So, while not as bad another race, which would probably have 0% WHG and 0% Caucasian-like DNA, it's still a big difference, especially when you consider their partial African ancestry. You can check the percentages if you want here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...gid=1330589433 . These percentages can change in the future (although unlikely to suffer very big changes), but right now they're the most updated. Though the Fst distance method is just easier to numerically evaluate the genetic distance between two populations.

2) The map is based on pseudo-science from 70 years ago. Don't dwell on it.

**Governor** · 12-14-2016, 05:50 AM

Just look at Russia, Baltids are almost anywhere, what a B.S. map!

**Enflamme** · 12-15-2016, 05:20 AM

Originally Posted by PunhetaDeBacalhau

A bit of advice, mostly because it's like the 500th time I see you having doubts about the "Mediterranean Race": maybe instead of wasting time reading about outdated ideas of race, you could use that time to actually learn a bit about population genetics. The idea here is that instead of you reading Coon, which is completely outdated (not even gonna talk about the fact that he straight up made a shitload of stuff up), you could, for example, read posts from blogs like "Eurogenes" or "For what they were, we are" and learn things that are actually up to date. Or maybe go to Anthrogenica's activity stream and start reading on the posts and discussions people have in order to learn.

Anyway, answering the question:

1) Depends how you define racial-mixing. If racial-mixing to you, like to most people, only happens when one person belonging to one of the major groups (Caucasian, African, and Asian) marries one from another group, then maybe a bit, since North Africans today are on average 20% African (some less and some more, depends on where they live in North Africa). If racial-mixing to you just takes the two populations being significantly different genetically from each other, then maybe it could be called race mixing, depends on what you think, although most people wouldn't consider it explicitly race-mixing. Genetically, Spaniards are mainly made of Western Hunter-Gatherer (they average 56%, some groups with more and others with less), which is basically Native European, and Early European Farmer (ranges from 20-something to 30-something%, again depending on which group in Spain is being measured), commonly called West Med, as it peaks in Sardinia and then in Iberia (but every European has some of it), which are the first farmers that came to Europe from Anatolia around 9000 years ago, and today exists practically only in Europe, although they are still genetically closer to Levant-like DNA than to WHG's. North Africans (and, to a lesser extent, most other MENAs besides Jews) have a bit of these two ancestries, but this is mainly due to them having some Southern European ancestry. For example, Berbers in North Africa have a good bit of Iberian ancestry that they got in ancient times, which can get to 25% in the Northern-most points of Morocco, decreasing as you move south. Another example are Jews, which are not exactly North Africans, but have around 33% Southern European ancestry, mostly mediated through Italy (and Greece a bit too) with some EEF on the side.

With this said, the majority of North Africans' DNA is MENA-like, very significantly different from most Europeans, although being significantly different is subjective. It's certainly not as big a mix as Spaniards and Koreans, as the DNA of Spaniards and 80% of the DNA from North Africans is Caucasian versus the nearly 0% of Koreans, but it's still a pretty big mix. Numbers are probably easier to understand: fst distance (the lower the distance, the closer two populations are - 0 distance means the populations are 100% genetically similar) between Iberians and Moroccans today, using the populations samples used in the Eurogenes K36 calculator (you can download it's files here: https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%...&action=locate , and then open the Eurogenes_K36_Fst.txt file to check them) is 0.033, and the fst distance between Iberians and Pygmy's in Africa is 0.160 (which is one of the biggest differences there is to other populations for Iberians). If 0.160 distance is a very big mix, 0.033 is about 20% of a very big mix.

Since you're a Sardo-nationalist (

), we can use a Sardinian as an example. Sardinian fst distance (named West_Med in the K36 file) to Moroccans (North African in the K36 file) is 0.044, which is pretty big (Sardinians are a very unique population genetically). Another way to look at it: Sardinians are on average 55% Native European (WHG), about the same as the Spanish average, and the maximum percentage of WHG that exists today in Europe are Basques at around 62%, closely followed by the Baltics at around 60% and then Scandinavians at around 58%. So, being 55% native European is a very big percentage. Moroccans, which are almost the MENAs with most WHG due to their partial Iberian ancestry, are around 28% WHG, Tunisians (who also have Iberian) are 26%, and it decreases from there (not counting Jews, which have more). So, while not as bad another race, which would probably have 0% WHG and 0% Caucasian-like DNA, it's still a big difference, especially when you consider their partial African ancestry. You can check the percentages if you want here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...gid=1330589433 . These percentages can change in the future (although unlikely to suffer very big changes), but right now they're the most updated. Though the Fst distance method is just easier to numerically evaluate the genetic distance between two populations.

2) The map is based on pseudo-science from 70 years ago. Don't dwell on it.

Thanks dude.

That answers my questions.

It is true that I found it strange that North Africa is categorized as being essentially of Mediterranean type like in part of Spain, France and Italy (and others) while reality is : North Africa is very " Negroised"and" Arabised"genetically speaking.

I am not saying that the purely Mediterranean type does not exist in North Africa but I have the impression that it is often mixed with the Arabid type or types of black race.