Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old March 3rd, 2013 #15
N.M. Valdez
SMASH THE FASH
 
N.M. Valdez's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,382
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
Valdez: I've been to Argentina, Uruguay and Mexico. You have likely been to none.
I haven't been to Argentina or Uruguay, but I have been to Brazil, and to Spain. And of course I've been to Mexico.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
#1) The problem with these genetic studies you post is that they are misleading. For example those studies on Argentina in particular, tested a disproportional amount of people from Northern Argentinian provinces like Tucuman, which have a small % of the population and mostly amerindian population. Most of the population is concentrated in Buenos Aires, and yet a large percentage of the people they tested were from these periphery regions that have few of the population.
It's strange that the first study I posted would be called "Characterization of Admixture in an Urban Sample from Buenos Aires, Argentina," then. But if that's really how you feel, here are some more to add weight to that evidence.

1. Relevant genetic contribution of Amerindian to the extant population of Argentina: "Over 50% of the individuals tested carried either mtDNA or Y Amerindian markers, 10% both, 20% were of Amerindian patrilineage and less than 40% denoted non-Amerindian contribution in the uniparentally inherited markers. By this simple approach a different contribution can be suggested within the most European country of Latin America."

2. Amerindian ancestry in Argentina is associated with increased risk for systemic lupus erythematosus: "The Argentine population is predominantly European with approximately 20% Amerindian admixture, and a very small (<2%) contribution from West Africa."

3. Inferring Continental Ancestry of Argentineans from Autosomal, Y-Chromosomal and Mitochondrial DNA: "Argentineans carried a large fraction of European genetic heritage in their Y-chromosomal (94.1%) and autosomal (78.5%) DNA, but their mitochondrial gene pool is mostly of Native American ancestry (53.7%); instead, African heritage was small in all three genetic systems (<4%)."

4. African ancestry of the population of Buenos Aires: "The results of this analysis suggest that 2.2% (SEM = 0.9%) of the genetic ancestry of the Buenos Aires population is derived from Africa."

5. Argentine population genetic structure: Large variance in Amerindian contribution: "Using the Bayesian clustering algorithm STRUCTURE, the mean European contribution was 78%, the Amerindian contribution was 19.4%, and the African contribution was 2.5%. Similar results were found using weighted least mean square method: European, 80.2%; Amerindian, 18.1%; and African, 1.7%."

6. Population structure and admixture in Cerro Largo, Uruguay, based on blood markers and mitochondrial DNA polymorphisms: "Based on 18 autosomal markers and one X-linked marker, we estimated 82% European, 8% Amerindian, and 10% African contributions to their ancestry, while from seven mitochondrial DNA site-specific polymorphic markers and sequences of hypervariable segment I, we determined 49% European, 30% Amerindian, and 21% African maternal contributions."

7. Frequencies of the Four Major Amerindian mtDNA Haplogroups in the Population of Montevideo, Uruguay: "Abstract mtDNA Amerindian polymorphisms were studied in 108 inhabitants of Montevideo, Uruguay, using PCR RFLP analysis. Amerindian haplogroups were found in 20.4% of the sample."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
2): A very obvious flaw is the fact that they average out percentages. Are the people they tested self-described as white? In the last census in Argentina only around 60 something percent of the people identified as white. What would America's average genetic structure look like if I took a genetic sample without asking race first of Texas, Detroit, Chicago, New York, and Alabama? Exactly
In the first study that I posted, the researchers did not sample the "purer" Amerindian population, and therefore did not incorporate their average admixture levels into the gene pool proportions.

Martinez-Marignac et al. write that, "Because no historical records of direct admixture of La Plata inhabitants with Amerindians exist, we decided not to include in the study samples from donors with Amerindian surnames to avoid bias resulting from atypical and recent Amerindian gene incorporations to the ‘‘main La Plata’’ genetic pool. The number of samples of Amerindian origin not included in our analysis was low (2%); therefore the biological material used for this study can be considered a random sample representing the population of ‘‘main La Plata’’ city. The La Plata sample was represented by 87 DNA samples (64 males and 23 females) obtained from donors whose surnames were all of European origin (Table 1)."

Yet they still find that, "The average European contribution at the individual level was 67.7% (4.5%), the Native American contribution was 25.6% (4.35%), and the African average contribution was 6.7% (0.9%). These values are similar to the population admixture levels estimated with Chakraborty’s gene identity method."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
3) A person that has an indian in the woodpile, is still white, even in America that was true.
Really? How about two? Three? Four? Five? Where is the line drawn?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
In those studies they said they averaged out an amerindian input that was very high (likely Peruvians or Paraguayan immigrants) and all the way down to 1% amerindian.
Do you understand that these studies measure the admixture proportions of specific individuals? You seem to think that they take 10 Europeans and 10 Indians and declare 50/50 admixture on average.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
How does a country as young and late settled as Argentina have people that are 1% Amerindian, and how does that make you a mestizo?
Technically, any sort of mixture makes a "mestizo." That's what the word means.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
The reality is that those studies were motivated by politics, the government of Argentina wants white Argentines to accept low IQ, nation-wrecking muds from Peru and Paraguay by telling them "WE ARE ALL MESTIZOS". "Indigenismo" is a type of cultural Marxism Jewish college professors teach in Argentinian universities.
This is a rant without even the pretension of refuting these studies or exposing methodological errors in them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
In my opinion if you're 1/8 injun (which is weak DNA), you're still white for all intents and purposes (this is true in America too), and even that's not as common in Argentina as you want to make people think.
So if you're 12.5% Indian, you're all right? How about 13.5%? 14.5? 15.5? 16.5? Where is the line drawn, again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
I don't think when you say "Europeans go back to Europe" , you're talking about yourself despite being probably more than 1/8 European.
I don't believe that Europeans should go back to Europe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
4) Uruguay is definitely not a mestizo country, and not even close to as bad off as Argentina in the racial sense. There are mestizos and blacks, in different proportions, but Uruguay is still a majority European culture.
Most Uruguayan genomic heritage is European. However, a significant minority is Amerindian, and a smaller minority is African.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
And yes, some parts of Northern Mexico have many whites, Vicente Fox for example is an Aryan in appearance, but that doesn't mean most of Mexico is a cesspool.
The typical inhabitant of northern Mexico is majority European and minority Amerindian. Your problem is that you consider phenotype rather than genotype.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
Go look up how people in those regions you say are so safe live. Those are coincidently the regions most Mexicans leave when coming to America.
I never claimed that southern Mexico had high living conditions; I merely said that it was far safer than northern Mexico and many areas of the U.S. Obviously, there is immigration, as trade liberalization deepened cross-country inequities and created push and pull factors for southern Mexicans to migrate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Smith View Post
Here is another politically motivated genetic study about uruguay, note the confusing language and massive ranges they use to "prove" their point:

There are probably some e people (by no means 62%, as this phoney study by the Jew Brum reports), especially in the countryside, with an Indian in the woodpile. Does that really make them the same as a 90% indian cholo like you Valdez?
The real problem is that you don't actually understand the research methods used in these genetic studies. You just understand that you dislike the conclusions, so your only recourse is to call the studies "politically motivated" and attack the "Jew" authors without actually refuting anything they have written.

That study said that 62% of mtDNA haplogroups were of Native American descent, which is not surprising given the historical legacy of pairings of European men and Indian women. It did not say 62% of the total population, because if you didn't know this, Y DNA also factors into the picture.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
I don't know what the truth is, and have said as much.
 
 

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:39 AM.
Page generated in 0.35815 seconds.