Well thank God for that.Nayto wrote: brunettes and brown-eyes White people are still White.
This Forum is now inactive and has been replaced by a new Christogenea Forum. You may browse here but there are no updated threads or new posts since January 1st 2017. Forum members please see THIS NOTICE for information concerning your account at the new forum.
Fenwick wrote:Well thank God for that.Nayto wrote: brunettes and brown-eyes White people are still White.
Well there is the Mongol invasions obviously, and the slow creep of chinamen, turks and Tatars in general northwards. You can clearly see some asiatic features in some Russians, but it's not nearly as widespread as claimed. And usually it's the mongrel "Russians" from east of the Urals, which basically look like eskimos, or turks from the southern republics.Nayto wrote:I'd still like to pose this question: With regard to the modern geopolitical entities we know today as Slavic countries, is anyone aware of any mongrelization in any of those peoples at any point in history except for the jews who wormed their way in?
Well I was joking. My skin at least is so pale that it could be used as a reflector to warn ships away from rocky coasts. The nordicists don't really grasp that if only blonde haired people are white, they are basically screwed themselves, because they're all going to have brown haired ancestors at some point in history.Were you feeling a little under the spotlight? LOL
Fenwick wrote:Well I was joking. My skin at least is so pale that it could be used as a reflector to warn ships away from rocky coasts. The nordicists don't really grasp that if only blonde haired people are white, they are basically screwed themselves, because they're all going to have brown haired ancestors at some point in history.
Fenwick wrote:As an aside though, there are those that claim the original Turkic ethnic group and language were the original white inhabitants of the Russian steppes. Their language family is rather poorly documented, and seems to exist more as a cousin to the indo-Aryan languages than a direct descendant. It may be a language group that derives from a modified form of Persian, which would make it related to the European languages, but nobody seems much very certain.
EzraLB wrote:I'm glad you brought up this point, Fenwick. A while back I checked out some of the interesting foreign language forums on the internet, and they are very useful in tracing origins and commonalities. One forum had a discussion about some similar expressions that Slavs and today's (mongrel) Iraqis/Persians share. The expressions weren't merely common words, but rather even phrases.
Fenwick wrote:Hmm, it is interesting that they would even share entire phrases. It would make Persian more of a sort of transitional language to some modern European languages, rather than the isolated cousin that mainstream lingusists treat it as. I have wondered whether there is a form of mutation of the name Yahweh through to Persian "Yaz/Yazdan" and the proto-Germanic "ghaud/ghudan" (i.e. God). Alas I don't know enough Persian to really compare it scientifically.
Nayto wrote:I'd still like to pose this question: With regard to the modern geopolitical entities we know today as Slavic countries, is anyone aware of any mongrelization in any of those peoples at any point in history except for the jews who wormed their way in?
Fenwick wrote:Some of the archaeological finds of ancient people in Russia are claimed to be incredibly old, tens of thousands of years older than anything from the middle east. Some soviet scientists claimed them to be the original ancestors of the Europeans, and indeed the occasional frozen body they find does look to be white, even if the local Asiatics claim them as their own.
Return to Diversity or Deception?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests