Coon's White Racial Family

[Token]

I've made a diagram to illustrate Coon's proposed classification of living whites. It may help people understand the exact relationship between each subrace since the mixing can get very complex.

Notes:
- Unstable mixtures between two or more of the main types (which constitute the majority of present-day Europeans) weren't included in the diagram. Only stable mixtures (f.e Dinarics) are shown.
- Mixed types involving whites and non-whites (f.e South Arabian Veddoids, East Africans) weren't included.
- Several peripheral types (Balkan Borreby-like types, several Mediterranean varieties) weren't included for the sake of simplicity.

[Etelfrido]

Interesting.

Only stable mixtures (f.e Dinarics) are shown.

Do you agree then that the Dinaric type is sort of in an intermediate position among European taxa?

I have a question. What causes location on the Venn Diagram? By that I mean, why are Dinarids in the center? Does that mean that they are intermediate in features, or the most "mixed" of races?

Basically this was the result of necessity in a graph, but it also reflects the relations of the Taurid/Dinaroid variants which are between the Aurignacoid and Cromagnoid spectrum in a way.

Do you consider his charts are accurate?

[DraviXi99]

Interesting.


Do you agree then that the Dinaric type is sort of in an intermediate position among European taxa?





Do you consider his charts are accurate?

Dinarics together with alpines and atlantids are intermediate.

[Eurafricanid]

Interesting, I wonder where Baskid would be in this chart. I might be tripping, but I thought Keltic Nordid was Nordid + Baskid influence.

[lei.talk]

Token's Masterpiece

[rothaer]

(...)

Coon and many others - including Günther that I appreciate very much and consider role-model-like both in intellectual brilliance and expression - didn't know that the look of the head is not really representative of someone's blood, i. e. his genetics and ancestry. It has shown to be somewhat representative on a statistical level, but it can on an individual level come close to an arbitrariness in its relation to the "blood" (i. e. its genetics and ancestry).

Günther even deduced from logics and carefully stated that a dark Northern German "likely" has more "nordid blood" than has a blond Northern Italian. The implication of this - in fact game-changing - view was unfortunately not followed up. With "nordid blood" Günther obviously meant something else than the metric skull and pigmentation figures of nordid. And indeed, Günther gave the (sub) races not just a metrical and pigmentational, but also a mental dimension. This is not a big surprise because for the living conditions within a particular population the form of the nose, the pigmentation and all other superficial data is irrelevant compared to the mental traits. (What if all Subsaharan Africans would be textbook nordid physically and be mentally as they are? Subsaharan Africa would be like today.) Those things only indirectly become relevant as indications of mental traits. The importance of mental triats is why Günther included them in his descriptions - maybe even definitions then - of subraces.

I don't want to further expand this interesting topic here and now. But let's keep in mind for the record that Coon & Company didn't know and had no access to today's DNA insights. So when they stick to metrical and pigmentational data and classify individuals along that definitions they are essentially excused because there was no other "hard data" available (you could not reliably measure mental data).

We today have no such excuses. Genetic data is "hard data". The state of an SNP can be determined. We can define and categorise along such data. So if we want to categorise along "blood", we can simply do a DNA test.

In this context today sticking to superficial data like metrics and pigmentation - which were used as the once only available proxies for something else - is like if you would stick to the humorism (Vier-Säfte-Lehre) in medicine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humorism

As I said: in this context. If you are not in this context, it might well be still valid for other purposes. If your interest for (sub) races as clusters of common "blood", i. e. genetics and ancestry, is just a pretext for liking a particular look, this should be unraveled. We then should simply be honest and say that we like blond hair or big tits or whatever characteristics and that is fine. But we should not confuse that with blood categorisations.

As a personal remark: Blood, which is the whole package, comes first. And personal preferences (big tits or blond hair) comes second. There is no short-cut to big tits and blond hair (figuratively) by declaring the preferred superficial characteristics a race.

If you as a Lower Saxon German (theoretically) would breed with a nordid North African that would be no preservation, no RE-production, but the contrary, visible in all genetics.

Again: First blood, second particular traits. There is no short-cut.

[Kess]

Interesting, I wonder where Baskid would be in this chart. I might be tripping, but I thought Keltic Nordid was Nordid + Baskid influence.

Baskid is a combination of Alpine, Dinarid and Meditteranid.

[Token]

Interesting.


Do you agree then that the Dinaric type is sort of in an intermediate position among European taxa?

Yes, it is intermediate in pigmentation and in most metrical characters. In some features, it can exceed both parent stocks due to differential inheritance (they are often more brachycephalic than Alpines, and longer-faced than Mediterraneans).

It is also intermediate in geographical position, since it predominates in the interface between the predominantly Mediterranean and predominantly Alpine populations of Europe.

Do you consider his charts are accurate?

Only partially. Some of the arrows are pure nonsense, such as Armenoids and Dinarics being a mixture of Mediterraneans and Borreby - no anthropologist ever proposed such thing, and it is impossible from a metrical point of view.

Moreover, some of the types are Agrippa's own invention with no basis on reality.

[Token]

Interesting, I wonder where Baskid would be in this chart. I might be tripping, but I thought Keltic Nordid was Nordid + Baskid influence.

The similarities between Baskid and Keltic Nordic are due to both being the result of mixture between similar elements, and not due to a direct relationship. The Baskid is the product of a mixture between Atlanto-Mediterraneans and Dinarics.

Both the Atlanto-Mediterranean and Dinaric elements mentioned were present as early as the Copper Age in North Central Spain, where they were partially identified with the early Bell Beaker culture. The Keltic Iron Age racial type of Britain, which the living Spanish Basques so closely resemble, was produced originally in southern Germany from a combination of Nordics with Bell Beaker or other Dinarics, and imported into England where Mediterranean and Atlanto-Mediterranean elements, as well as some Bronze Age Dinaric factors, were already present. The mixture of similar ingredients in different places produces similar results. Seen in the light of modern physical anthropology, the Basques are still interesting, and perhaps romantic, but no longer mysterious.
https://www.theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-XI17.htm

[Russki]

We today have no such excuses. Genetic data is "hard data". The state of an SNP can be determined. We can define and categorise along such data. So if we want to categorise along "blood", we can simply do a DNA test.

We today do know some basic SNPs responsible for, for example, red hair or genetic diseases, but no one knows which SNPs are responsible for more detailed parts of physical appearance or deep mental characteristics.

I do not believe that we will know in the near future either due to political shift in the West.