View Single Post
Old October 13th, 2010 #19
john2020
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Torontoistan
Posts: 369
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickHolland View Post
I think that those Nordicist theories aren't very scientific.

Look, i'm not trying to offend individulas here who think the belong to Med, Alpine, dinaric or the 12 and a half other false "subraces", We All Europeans are mixed to some degree, and that's what gives us different Phenotypes, but we should always value the purity of our race over anything, wich means valuing the Nordic bloods we all carry.



Quote:
Hitler and the Third Reich also considered pure, ethnic Berbers to be Aryan ie. White.
They are, it is know the original berbers were redhead, being Rb2 this makes perfect sence, but there has been much mongrelizaton with Semites (middle eastern) and Negroid populations since then caused by the Islam.


Quote:
But the Moors were dark-skinned caucasoids with their own ethnicity.
The white races are white, nothing less, they became almost albino thousands of years ago since they evolved in a glacial Enviroment, caucasoid isn't necessarily white, the Armenoid-dinarics pre-dates the white races.



Here are painting of the Al-Andalus during their rein in Iberia.












Quote:
The word "Moor" derives from the Latin Mauri, first used by the Romans to denote the inhabitants of the Roman province of Mauretania, comprising the western portion of modern Algeria and the northeastern portion of modern Morocco.



Although the Moors came to be associated with Muslims, the name Moor pre-dates Islam. It derives from the small Numidian Kingdom of Maure of the 3rd century BCE in what is now northern central and western part of Algeria and a part of northern Morocco. The name came to be applied to people of the entire region. "They were called Maurisi by the Greeks", wrote Strabo, "and Mauri by the Romans."

Shomarka Keita, a biological anthropologist from Howard University, has claimed that populations in Carthage circa 200 BC and northern Algeria 1500 BC were very diverse. As a group, they plotted closest to the populations of Northern Egypt and intermediate to Northern Europeans and tropical Africans. Keita claimed that "the data supported the comments from ancient authors observed by classicists: everything from fair-skinned blonds to peoples who were dark-skinned 'Ethiopian' or part Ethiopian in appearance." Modern evidence showed a similar diversity among present North Africans. Moreover, this "diversity" of phenotypes and peoples was probably due to in situ differentiation, not foreign influxes. Of course foreign influxes certainly had an impact but they did not replace the indigenous Berber population.

http://www.suite101.com/content/iden...-moors-a117835

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...mauretania-geo

http://www.white-history.com/moors.htm



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogr...1b_.28E-M81.29
[/quote]


Diversity in Phenotype is caused by diversity in genes, eg mongrelization, the reason why some are blond whites while others close to negroid is because there has been strong recent mixture between the two, this is also common in Southern Europe where some people display a plathora of Negroid, mid eastern or mongoloid traits, while others are born very nordic, indicating mediterranerans cannot be the result of a natural evolution but of a relatively recent Mongrelization.