Are Georgians white (or maybe even considered european)?

[user_]

Georgians are very unique population. We have highest CHG and West Asian and are the most Euro looking people in West Asia at the same time, without any or very little North Euro admixture. That means CHG produce light featured people. Georgians are lighter than many proper Europeans.
Georgian language and culture is not related to Asia or Europe, it stands out. But if we have to choose, i think Georgians fit better in Europe, than in Asia.

[Lplius]

"White" is about genetic european identity, only morons care so much about lookism and e.g. a algerian-dutch mix blonde who looks subnordid Will never be whiter than a native walloon with dark features.

None west asian is white, just accept dude, and you arent Irish (as was said by JamesBond007) but a OWD troll who thinks that a Nordid looking azerbaijani is white.

Yeah, right, because people have their 23andme results tattooed in their forehead, specially centuries ago when the white identity was forged. Being white is 100% about lookism.
But even if you want to make it exclusively about genetics, you can't consider ENF heavy people as white and at the same time CHG heavy people as nonwhite.

By the way I'm 100% European and white according to your own definition, unlike you Mr. mixed race Brazilian. I'm more suited to decide who is white and who isn't

[Feiichy]

North Europeans have ENF too, but less than any South Euro /MENA on average.

Northern Europeans are way more more ENF than MENAs. this is by using Davidski gold standard calc:
MENAs don't even score Barcin N, but they chose Mesopotamian shifted TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N and they don't have too much of that either;

Target: English
Distance: 0.0472% / 0.04716012
47.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
38.5 TUR_Barcin_N
14.3 WHG

Target: German
Distance: 0.0383% / 0.03828894
46.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
40.4 TUR_Barcin_N
13.4 WHG

Target: Polish
Distance: 0.0600% / 0.06002078
50.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
33.0 TUR_Barcin_N
16.2 WHG

Target: Iraqi
Distance: 0.0212% / 0.02117523
43.5 Levant_PPNB
22.4 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
19.9 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
8.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
3.0 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2_I8728
2.6 Yoruba
0.3 Dinka
0.1 Nganassan

Target: Tunisian
Distance: 0.0194% / 0.01935963
28.8 TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
26.6 Levant_PPNB
22.2 MAR_Taforalt
9.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
8.4 Yoruba
2.8 Dinka
2.2 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N

Target: Syrian
Distance: 0.0157% / 0.01566965
37.2 Levant_PPNB
23.8 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
14.4 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
10.2 TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
10.1 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
1.6 Dinka
1.3 Yoruba
1.1 Han
0.3 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2_I8728

[Feiichy]

I'm more suited to decide who is white and who isn't

You are brown and not European.

[Marshall Theodore]

Yeah, right, because people have their 23andme results tattooed in their forehead, specially centuries ago when the white identity was forged. Being white is 100% about lookism.
But even if you want to make it exclusively about genetics, you can't consider ENF heavy people as white and at the same time CHG heavy people as nonwhite.

By the way I'm 100% European and white according to your own definition, unlike you Mr. mixed race Brazilian. I'm more suited to decide who is white and who isn't

Lol at your reactionism, white members usually doesnt needs to prove their whiteness here, but you seems to be very insecure about this subject, probably just more a random turkic brown XD.

[Lplius]

Lol at your reactionism, white members usually doesnt needs to prove their whiteness here, but you seems to be very insecure about this subject, probably just more a random turkic brown XD.

Projecting much? I'm not the one who made up the origins of his interlocutor to deny his arguments.

[vader]

Yeah, right, because people have their 23andme results tattooed in their forehead, specially centuries ago when the white identity was forged. Being white is 100% about lookism.
But even if you want to make it exclusively about genetics, you can't consider ENF heavy people as white and at the same time CHG heavy people as nonwhite.

We gotta clarify some things. First off, what is 100% white looking to you? And please do not say first and foremost skin color, because then we know you're an idiot. Second off, phenotype even among 100% native stock can produce pseudo uncommon looks that may not look typical in a group. Tribes always had people that were different looking, outliers even millenia ago even among genetically pure populations and then with natural mixing - that's simply the complexity of looks. Second, centuries ago? Meaning 100s of years ago... if we go back probably to anything before German anthropologist created their stupid racial classifications in the late 19th century to create justification of superiority complex than you will find no one cared much about subtle differences in europeans. It's true iberians attached racial rules during the age of exploration, but it was between big distinction groups... native indians, spaniards + Portuguese europeans, and blacks. Then they created mixed classifications to go even further. But anyway, there were obvious differences in looks you could see between these populations. But I really doubt the differences we compare today from europeans and even some MENAs - one's who have evident fully caucasoid features - was nearly as strong as people make them to be on this forum, or in real life bc of dumb liberal obsessions with race.


You have to first identify and define what is white to you so we can better understand what you mean. Because right now, I can show many examples of people who may not be considered white in the definition of many (Primarily americans) while having heritage 100% from that european region. Starting off with me, my brother, and sister, and going all the way to Sweden up north

I don't think the term white was very popular in Europe until recently due to America's influence on the term either. I realize it existed in europe for a long time, but its use was irrelevant bc european pops for a long time did not have immigration or foreigners until recently. Now with high immigration and mixing people are going back on it and the term seems to be revitalized. I think it being used to show differences in groups in a country is okay when they are blatantly obvious... but to use it for other reasons like saying a native is a foreigner bc of an outlier look is just nazi-like obsession. Example: now if I were to go to Germany I'll be confused as turkish or moroccan due to having darker skin... and maybe experience racial profiling bc of immigration and the liberal obsession with looking at differences in "race". Same could be done to any euro with darker skin, or a little bit more of an off-white look from the lens of a euro above the 45th latitude. Turn the time way back, I probably wouldn't because the obsession with subtle differences isnt nearly as high as it is today in phenotype.

[Feiichy]

Distance to:	Anatolia_Neolithic_Farmer_TUR_Barcin_N
0.17640103	BedouinA
0.20056164	BedouinB
0.20060178	German_Erlangen
0.20248647	German
0.21074987	English
0.21345823	German_East
0.21602363	German_Hamburg

Are you stupid? I guess yes. Northern Europeans have massive steppe influence + extra WHG which pulls them further apart from ENF.
But they have much more ENF admixture than Arabs who have it completely insignificant.

Deal with it.

[Marshall Theodore]

I am trying to show that. It is perfectly normal for Northern Europeans to have low ANF as they have more steppe and WHG. Because ANF is not of European origin lol

Steppe is not fully european either

[Lplius]

We gotta clarify some things. First off, what is 100% white looking to you? And please do not say first and foremost skin color, because then we know you're an idiot. Second off, phenotype even among 100% native stock can produce pseudo uncommon looks that may not look typical in a group. Tribes always had people that were different looking, outliers even millenia ago even among genetically pure populations and then with natural mixing - that's simply the complexity of looks. Second, centuries ago? Meaning 100s of years ago... if we go back probably to anything before German anthropologist created their stupid racial classifications in the late 19th century to create justification of superiority complex than you will find no one cared much about subtle differences in europeans. It's true iberians attached racial rules during the age of exploration, but it was between big distinction groups... native indians, spaniards + Portuguese europeans, and blacks. Then they created mixed classifications to go even further. But anyway, there were obvious differences in looks you could see between these populations. But I really doubt the differences we compare today from europeans and even some MENAs - one's who have evident fully caucasoid features - was nearly as strong as people make them to be on this forum, or in real life bc of dumb liberal obsessions with race.


You have to first identify and define what is white to you so we can better understand what you mean. Because right now, I can show many examples of people who may not be considered white in the definition of many (Primarily americans) while having heritage 100% from that european region. Starting off with me, my brother, and sister, and going all the way to Sweden up north

I don't think the term white was very popular in Europe until recently due to America's influence on the term either. I realize it existed in europe for a long time, but its use was irrelevant bc european pops for a long time did not have immigration or foreigners until recently. Now with high immigration and mixing people are going back on it and the term seems to be revitalized. I think it being used to show differences in groups in a country is okay when they are blatantly obvious... but to use it for other reasons like saying a native is a foreigner bc of an outlier look is just nazi-like obsession. Example: now if I were to go to Germany I'll be confused as turkish or moroccan due to having darker skin... and maybe experience racial profiling bc of immigration and the liberal obsession with looking at differences in "race". Same could be done to any euro with darker skin, or a little bit more of an off-white look from the lens of a euro above the 45th latitude. Turn the time way back, I probably wouldn't because the obsession with subtle differences isnt nearly as high as it is today in phenotype.

You're right but you should be telling this to the others because I'm the one who has the broadest definition of whiteness. I'm just pointing out the contradiction of considering all Europeans as white but West Asians who can pass in Europe as non-white.
White is something I don't identify with and prefer to leave to each country to decide what they mean by white. If you're not considered white by Americans for me it's fine and if a light skinned quadroon is considered white in Brazil it's fine too.