Which non-caucasoid group interest you?

[Creoda]

Well then a better comparison may be both the bell beaker invasion of Britain which whipped out 90% of the previous population's genetics from the isles, or the Assyrian conquest of Elam which nearly destroyed the entire elamite population, either way whipping out of peoples off the face of the earth was not unheard of in prehistory, and the majority of the deaths of native americans were caused by disease anyways, with an estimated 75-90% of the population of north america (not including central america) being dead before the bulk of europeans arrived do to the spread of small pox and other european diseases that came from animal husbandry (which was not practiced by native american's besides Llamas in the Andes).

The survival of Celtic Britons in Anglo-Saxon England was nowehere near 50%. Closer to 10% in East Anglia. Not that it makes a difference, England was defined by Anglo-Saxons, not Britons. Legitimacy comes from the former.

[Laredo]

The spread of Anglo-Saxons over the British Isles, the spread of the Germanics south of the Harz and the spread of the Turkmen-like Turks to Anatolia are comparable to the immigration of Spaniards to Mexico: In all those cases the indigenous people remained a big proportion of the following mixture, often abt. 50% and in Anatolia even abt. 85%. This is the common way in history and not what I refer to. I refer to an event where the indigenous population is essentially wiped out (genocided) and the following population not also decends from them (from which circumstance some legitimacy could have been derived). This ought to apply to Australia and also to notable parts of the USA and to Cuba. And it is comparably rare.

Doubtless those things "are human nature and history". But after every murder is as well, I'm not sure what should be derived from such a determination.

Also Mexico Is more Spanish than England being Anglo Saxon, I doubt on average England Is 50% Germanic/Viking etc just like Mexicos average Is 50% Castilian. but averages means nothing because Im over 50% European.

[TheOldNorth]

The survival of Celtic Britons in Anglo-Saxon England was nowehere near 50%. Closer to 10% in East Anglia. Not that it makes a difference, England was defined by Anglo-Saxons, not Britons. Legitimacy comes from the former.

there was literally a survival of brythonnic in the marshes of northwestern east anglia until like 900 ad or something ridiculous like that
https://youtu.be/5FHRTpEhaAs

[TheOldNorth]

The survival of Celtic Britons in Anglo-Saxon England was nowehere near 50%. Closer to 10% in East Anglia. Not that it makes a difference, England was defined by Anglo-Saxons, not Britons. Legitimacy comes from the former.

also here's a good up to date study
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05247-2
and a map from said study

the map clearly shows that east anglia is till like 20-25% british celt if not more if we consider some of the iron age french to be from Halstatt/La-Tene elites

[TheOldNorth]

The people most fascinated by Native Americans are the children of the USSR. Indians are gods to us. The personification of freedom and wisdom.

I wonder if that has to do with soviet anti-american propaganda, and I mean genuinely and not just as an insult

[Laredo]

also here's a good up to date study
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05247-2
and a map from said study

the map clearly shows that east anglia is till like 20-25% british celt if not more if we consider some of the iron age french to be from Halstatt/La-Tene elites

What percent of England would you say Is Indigenous Britonnic Celtic and Germanic/Anglo?

[Creoda]

also here's a good up to date study
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05247-2
and a map from said study

the map clearly shows that east anglia is till like 20-25% british celt if not more if we consider some of the iron age french to be from Halstatt/La-Tene elites

The study said that WBI ancestry (Celtic Briton) ancestry in modern Suffolk is 11%, and Norfolk wasn't much more. 20-25% is about how much Celtic Briton ancestry there is in England on average. French IA is no more native than Anglo-Saxon.

[TheOldNorth]

The study said that WBI ancestry (Celtic Briton) ancestry in modern Suffolk is 11%, and Norfolk wasn't much more. 20-25% is about how much Celtic Briton ancestry there is in England on average. French IA is no more native than Anglo-Saxon.

did you not read the part where I said French IA could've been from La-Tene elites. I mean, it's been in Britain 1500 years longer than Anglo-Saxon DNA, I would say that is at least more native than Anglo-Saxon. Also preemptively saying not all French IA in Britain came from La-Tene celtic elites, but at least some of it certainly did, how much is up for debate and I haven't seen concrete numbers on how French IA iron age Britons were, probably because of how similar the two groups were genetically as well as actually variable rates of such ancestry in the Briton population, as seen from the fact the Welsh doesn't really have any (do to their mountain people isolation)

[Melkiirs]

Really? I never considered those Pakis as such. This is probably because the Caucasoid race for me is only for Europeans or people known as Whites ( White race). Unless we change the meaning of it.

I actually laughed. Not only do you use made up terms from internet forums as legitimate, but you don't even use legitimate terms correctly. The definition of Caucasoid includes Pakistanis.

We can't live in a world where everyone has their own definition for words because that leads to confusion. Respect the dictionary.


As for the thread topic, Japanese culture is interesting to me.

Caucasian in the United States demography originally meant European only until 1909 when Lebanese Christian George Shishim won his case with Department of Justice to include Near-Eastern people as White/Caucasian. One argument appealed to the public desire for Jesus to be classified as White.

https://www.arabamericanhistory.org/...-race-in-1909/

In 1923 Punjabi Brahmin Bhagat Singh Thind lost his federal case to have Indians counted as Caucasian despite anthropological evidence because the common American did not consider them Whites/Caucasian.

https://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5076/

The inclusion of MENAs yet exclusion of South Asians in the term Caucasian in the US is more based on common European Americans identifying more with the former due to Christianity. Academic anthropology was not a major factor.

Caucasian can have varying meanings depending on the context. It can be of the Caucasus mountains, having West Eurasian like morphology, or just as an equivalent to whatever is deemed "White". If we are speaking about modern population genetics the proper term is West Eurasian. Both Europeans and MENAs are solidly West Eurasian. South Asians are not fully West Eurasian genetically due to AASI admixture. Central Asian and Volga-Ural natives have East Eurasian admixture which also shifts them away from the West Eurasian cluster.



https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2013/...urasia-13.html

[Creoda]

did you not read the part where I said French IA could've been from La-Tene elites. I mean, it's been in Britain 1500 years longer than Anglo-Saxon DNA, I would say that is at least more native than Anglo-Saxon. Also preemptively saying not all French IA in Britain came from La-Tene celtic elites, but at least some of it certainly did, how much is up for debate and I haven't seen concrete numbers on how French IA iron age Britons were, probably because of how similar the two groups were genetically as well as actually variable rates of such ancestry in the Briton population, as seen from the fact the Welsh doesn't really have any (do to their mountain people isolation)

The point was that the French IA ancestry arrived after the Iron Age and Roman period, so no, it's not more native, it came alongside and after the Anglo-Saxons (Duncan Sayer said it was related to Franks). The fact that the Welsh don't have it only points to it being post-Roman, when England and Wales divided.