[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Monolith

Other than phenotype differences, there are also genetic ones. And genetically, Europe is a pretty diverse place having that there are numerous subclades of the three main European Y-DNA megahaplogroups(as well as mtDNA haplogroups), meaning that each one can point out to a common ancestry and/or genealogy. This means that certain populations are closer to their members, than to other European populations respectively, as I have already explained in the "tribal" example.
So, when certain populations are connected with their ancestry and common history, they will create their ethnicity. Plain and simple.

First, your claim that Europe is a pretty diverse place. That is simply incorrect. If any continent is homogeneous, Europe is the closest. That is another argument against "sub-races".

See this study: Genes, peoples,*and*languages -- Cavalli-Sforza 94 (15): 7719 -- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
And this: http://vetinari.sitesled.com/euroaims.pdf

I am aware of haplogroups. Haplogroups, though, support my claim that prevalence frequency of phenotypes are insignificant, and sub-races thus dont exist - you will find that there is no correlation between haplogroups and pigmentation level and other phenotypical features claimed to be "sub-races".



Whats more, Y-DNA haplogroups and mtDNA haplogroups dont even include autosomal markers, and thus could never tell the full story of genetic variation in Europe. Therefore you cannot use them as basis for sub-races either, only indicators that dont tell the full story of genetic distance.

Something like this autosomal DNA plot of genetic distances, is therefore just as valid in that debate. And you can clearly see both different clusters and ethnicities that are clearly represented with their natural correlations. Of all ethnic groups, the European cluster has the least genetic variation and diversity.

Originally Posted by Monolith

Please explain these irrational ideas.

That there are sub-races, that are often claimed to be measurable through physical features (phenotype).

Originally Posted by Monolith

Yes, if you're talking about pan-nationalism.

No, talking about ethnicity. Europe has the least genetic variation, and other ethnicities have more variation than Europe has on a intra-continental level. Therefore, yes you can subgroup Europe into mtDNA and Y-DNA haplogroups, but they dont represent genetic distance or variation, and thus dont represent real ethnicities. However, they can be used to represent linguistic groups (Celtic, Germanic, Latin, Slavic) but again, we're not talking ethnicity.

Originally Posted by Monolith

By your analogy, the whole world would be divided into four or five ethnicities. It doesn't work that way.

Of course it doesnt work that way, because people assume that a constructed ethnicity is a real ethnicity; and ethnicities are often constructed out of a wide range of things. Such as: tribal group, linguistic group, country, linguistic subgroup, etc.

Genetically and scientifically speaking, most of Europe is of the same ethnicity. Meaning that most of Europe has both the same ethnolinguistic origin (almost all descendants of (proto)-Indo-Europeans, and a few Finno-Ugric countries that are genetically identical to PIE-descendants with the exception of Lapps and Samis, and finally Iberians, but their true descendants are few in numbers) and most of Western Europe has similar haplogroup frequencies and there is very low genetic distance between countries in all of Europe - in many cases nothing that cant be ascribed to natural genetic variation, and definetly nothing that correlates with any defined "sub-race" or lingustic sub-group (with minor exceptions, such as certain Finno-Ugric tribes, that arent Indo-European) or ethnicity.

The only correlation with linguistic groups would be haplogroups as I explained, but they dont represent genetic distance.

Originally Posted by Monolith

I meant that members of European nations see their nation's members as "our own", and members of other nations as "foreigners". Please read my post.. Who do you think whites are?

I think whites are the combination of the namely un-mixed descendants of (proto-)Indo-Europeans, Finno-Ugrians and Iberians, that together represent an ethnolinguistic group that have a variety of common cultural, physical and racial traits. White is just a word for it; by the politically correct, white has been replaced and are referred to as Caucasians. I dont think the exact word is the subject of concern.