Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleEye
The facts are that arabid and mediterranean are closely related. If you deny it, you are probably trying to promote unity between europeans at the expense of the true revelations that anthropology reveal. This is what it appeared the opening poster was doing (if you carefully analyze the post), and the other two posters correctly refuted him. The fact that you feel compelled to censor me will only feed my confidence. Your forum is simply a small player in a big game.
|
I am not going to argue whether "mediterranids" and "arabids" are related or not - however, your assumption that physical anthropology (and perhaps cranial morphology, etc) somehow has political implications for Europe is erroneous. I dont think its possible to argue that Arabids and many other Middle Eastern groups definitively are not close to or in the Europid spectrum, and may be related
anthropologically to some Europeans. However, even in that sense, one must understand that they probably have significant componental ancestry from the same groups that European types derive from, and thus it would only be strange if there was no relation. They also have a number of elements completely alien to Europe, especially African ancestry from their 30 million slaves, that have intermixed with them to an extreme extent.
I think Moors, Berbers, Arabians and other North African/Middle Eastern groups were much more Europid in ancient times than today. And their cultures were also much less degenerate than today - today their only achievement is their oil sale, and their religious fanaticism, whereas they used to achieve much in many sciences and make many inventions.
A depiction of Berbers, Libyans and ancient Egyptians from the Tomb of Seti. Very Europid features.
So it seems we have a culture and people which used to be Europid and be a great, prosperous culture, seemingly with a great destiny and having made many achievements - and look how destructive the alien African elements have been - look whats happened to the culture.
I dont know if its arguable that Mediterranids and Arabids in specific are so "closely related" - however, thats not really the point. Only a fool would rely on anthropological typology to base his politics on, and that is what you are doing.
One must also remember that physical types can change with not much genetic change - very small mutations can make someone look like a space alien. We can use things like autosomal DNA markers to see the full spectrum of genetic distance - which tells us much more than the shape of a skull - and we can look at Y-DNA and mtDNA to reveal ancestry through haplogroups. The autosomal markers tell us that there indeed exists a "Europid" cluster or "European" cluster, and that certain Eastern groups are close to it, certain Indo-Europeans (Persians) are even directly in it, but generally there is a trend which makes sense in the context of our existing understanding. Easterners may have related anthropological types, but any two European nations are closer genetically (autosomally, which is what counts - the actual genome) than Easterners are to Europeans.
If that is a surprise, you are a moron. But it also does not determine cultural history, and neither does physical anthropology.