Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't see any confirmation for the claim that Finns are genetically different from other Europeans. The genetic makeup bars in the link state that they are actually similar to Russians.
They are simply slightly more originally European as they were not as heavily replaced by later waves of incoming farmers from SW Asia, similar to the Basque people in Spain.
People who claim to be genetically different usually have a certain agenda, or an ax to grind, like wanting to be different from neighbors who treated them badly in history. At the end of the day it is usually mostly a cultural difference rather than a genetic one.
It's been long known that Finns are genetically unique. The Finns had limited gene flow from outside groups and descend from a small population. They form their own branch on the European genetic tree. Basque and Ashkenazi Jews also form their own branchs. They are related to other Europeans but their isolation has caused them to become genetically distinct.
It's been long known that Finns are genetically unique. The Finns had limited gene flow from outside groups and descend from a small population. They form their own branch on the European genetic tree. Basque and Ashkenazi Jews also form their own branchs. They are related to other Europeans but their isolation has caused them to become genetically distinct.
That is simply not true. Basque people are NOT genetically unique, they have a unique language, Euskera and some unique customs but as explained by one researcher: "Basques are distinctive, but not distinct"
It's been long known that Finns are genetically unique. The Finns had limited gene flow from outside groups and descend from a small population. They form their own branch on the European genetic tree. Basque and Ashkenazi Jews also form their own branchs. They are related to other Europeans but their isolation has caused them to become genetically distinct.
Of course they are Europeans. When you look at all the haplogroup maps, Finland is part of all those continuous distributions, not an island of people that don't fit in. When you look close enough almost all people of Europe are "genetically distinct" from each other in some respect as most people did not migrate and mix for the longest time. I bet if I analyzed people in some town in rural Portugal in the hinterland, they will also show certain genetic peculiarities that neither the rest of the Portuguese, let alone other Europeans show.
The Finns were pretty isolated for some time, yes. That is why they were not replaced and mixed to the same degree as Europeans in many other parts of the continent. Those ancient hunters and gatherers used to live across Europe and Asia.
I find it odd when it says that Eastern Finns all go back to "only 1500 families". Back then 1500 families was an awful lot as the population anywhere in the world was still very sparse.
That is simply not true. Basque people are NOT genetically unique, they have a unique language, Euskera and some unique customs but as explained by one researcher: "Basques are distinctive, but not distinct"
PS I'm 50% Basque.
Distintive. Distinct. Seems like you are splitting hairs here. Basques had limited gene flow from outside groups for millennia which has given them a unique genetic signature. The Basque descend from prehistoric Middle Eastern farmers mixed with European hunter gatherers. Genetically, they stand out from the surrounding European groups. They do not cluster with other European groups though they do group with Europeans when compared to outside groups. Basques are a unique European population.
Uhkay what? You accused me of being racist. Don't minimize that. That is an accusation i take seriously. That warrants an apology. I encourage everyone reading this thread to visit the links I provided and see fir yourself that I was not coming from a racist angke and Jarrett Diamond did, in fact, make the arguments that I claim. And that his argument is that instead of claiming genetic factors or racial inferiority as the reasons why much of Africa did not urbanize or prosper as much as the more prosperous areas of the world but rather we need to look at environmental factors, and that the populations in those areas actually responded in a very intelligent manner to the problems they faced. Europeans attempting to move into those areas didnt fare any better until the advent of modern medicine. And the continuing effects of the increased disease risk...estimated at one percent less economic growth per year, compunded annually, is enough to explain the degree to which many nations in this area lag other nations. I don't get tge axcusation of racism against me year. You said you read "Guns, Germs, and Steel". Do you consider Jarrett Diamond's views to be racist?
I thought you implied that Africa did not have cities.
That has absolutely nothing to do with your views on race, whether I think you’re a racist, whether I like you personally, or your character as a person. Perhaps we both are aware actual racists will of course, as usual, spin this and tie it to race, and PERHAPS I didn’t read Jared Diamond correctly.
So yes, it’s my fault. But I don’t owe you an apology because I didn’t call you a racist. So please, don’t try it with me.
I thought you implied that Africa did not have cities.
That has absolutely nothing to do with your views on race, whether I think you’re a racist, whether I like you personally, or your character as a person. Perhaps we both are aware actual racists will of course, as usual, spin this and tie it to race, and PERHAPS I didn’t read Jared Diamond correctly.
So yes, it’s my fault. But I don’t owe you an apology because I didn’t call you a racist. So please, don’t try it with me.
" It am sure that these posters will believe anything about Africa given their opinion of black people". And that was in response to my post. I am not "trying" anything on anybody...there is no agenda here. Perhaps you were simply referring to other posters and how they might respond...and I agree there are some extremely ignorant ones on these boards when it comes to matters of race. If that is the case no apology needed. But if it was directed at me then an apology is in order.
And I agree. Schools should place much more emphasis on educating public about the advanced societies that existed on the continent. Timbuktu would have been one of the most fascinating places in the world to be during it's heydey. And there are many other examples.
Watch Episode 3. He clearly says what i said he said. Not in reference to the entire continent...Africa is too diverse for that...but for a substantial portion of it.
You are right, racists will try to spin it to their advantage...but Jarrett's point was that urban societies did not develop in the areas he is referring to not due to a lack of intelligence or any other deficiency on the part of those inhabiting the region...as the racists would have us believe... but rather due to environmental factors, and that their settlement patterns were actually a very intelligent and adaptive response to the environmental factors at play. He discusses how efforts by white settlers moving north from South Africa in the era before many advances in modern medicine failed due to disease racking themselves and their livestock when they tried to settle north of the Limpopo River...their efforts to settle north if that river failed completely.
So maybe a two pronged response to the racist claim that Africa was uncivilized due some sort if inferiority on the part of the inhabitants is in order (not that it is even worthy of a response) with one prong being that much of Africa did have urban societies, and the other prong being that in the areas that did not local environmental factors are to blame, and the local inhabitants developed a lifestyle and settlement pattern that was a very intelligent, reasonable, and succesful response to those environmental limitations...and Europeans of the day could do no better.
And being originally from a rural area myself I always bristled when those from the city would talk about the rural areas as being away from "civilization". Rural areas are part and parcel of civilization as well. People throughout Africa...whether in urbanized cultures or not...possess and always have had sophisticated belief systems, cultures, etc.
Last edited by robertbrianbush; 11-27-2017 at 01:29 PM..
Distintive. Distinct. Seems like you are splitting hairs here. Basques had limited gene flow from outside groups for millennia which has given them a unique genetic signature. The Basque descend from prehistoric Middle Eastern farmers mixed with European hunter gatherers. Genetically, they stand out from the surrounding European groups. They do not cluster with other European groups though they do group with Europeans when compared to outside groups. Basques are a unique European population.
Your source did not claim that they are genetically unique because they aren't. And I'm sorry if you don't know the difference between distinctive and distinct.
Just wanted to note I think it is funny the title of this old thread about "Africans and non-Africans" when the OP article and the source of said article (Nature) both spoke about the fact that all modern day people have ancestry in Africa in different waves, an older wave and more recent wave.
We are all Africans....
Also modern genetics shows there is no such thing as "race" as many people believe it to be.
Africans are native to the planet. The Eurasians are ancestors of the anient aliens. Everyone who watches the history channel knows that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
