Spanish military figures...

[Cyrax]

found it on Skadi. It has some good examples.

http://forum.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=65920

[Waarnemer]

Originally Posted by Cyrax

found it on Skadi. It has some good examples.

http://forum.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=65920

typical spaniards/iberians imo, especially Francisco Hernández Chacón. I don't see anything nordid about them

[AngelRipper]

Originally Posted by TseBbe

typical spaniards/iberians imo, especially Francisco Hernández Chacón. I don't see anything nordid about them

Indeed. The nordid subtype in Spain originates form the Goth invaders, right?

[Waarnemer]

Originally Posted by Agrippa on skadi

In this way they represent the best what mankind has so far produced, even though they are far from being perfect - other racial types can present similar peak types, same or slightly higher level even, but they represent an average for the current upper limit of Homo sapiens.

evolution isn't moving towards anything, so it can't be a progressing event. Adaptation and specialization to specific environmental conditions is not better than adaptation to previous environments, so current types are no better than the forms that they took in the past

secondly, the supposition that progressiveness equals an increase of intelligence and capacities is still not supported by any data, and is dismissed by the means of common sense and daily reality

[Señor Malo]

Ricardo Sanz García



He has very english triats, specially his teeth

[Cyrax]

Northern-European types in Spain, are most likely of decended from Celtic migration.

[svin]

http://forum.stirpes.net/showthread....ghlight=ivanov

[Galaico]

Originally Posted by Cyrax

Northern-European types in Spain, are most likely of decended from Celtic migration.

There wasn't any Celtic migration to Spain. Spanish Celts as all Atlantic Celts were original Paleo-European populations that adopted the Indo-European speech. The only true Celts (aka Indo-Europeans) would be those from central Europe.

IMO Nordid types in Spain are beside the Gothic influence, the remains of prehistoric depigmented Mediterranoid populations, the same with nordish Cromagnids in Spain, depigmented prehistoric Crô-Magnons. All of them native to Spain, nothing foreign.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by AngelRipper

Indeed. The nordid subtype in Spain originates form the Goth invaders, right?

The largest agreed (still speculative) figures are of some 350,000 Visigoths (some Ostrogoths did come to join the Visigoths at some point, but I suppose that nothing important in terms of numbers), 60-70,000 Suebi, plus whatever was left of the Vandals. The estimated Hispano-Roman population at the time (based on past Roman census) is of some 5-6 million.

Apart from the [Hispanic] Goths and the Suebi, in later times there have been some influxes of "vulgar Germanics", like Netherlanders and Germans to repopulate some areas in Andalusia (e.g. La Carolina) and the waves who are settling in Spain in modern days (English, Germans, Dutch, etc.). In some spots this influx is strong enough to incide negatively over diversity in the future.

Originally Posted by Cyrax

Northern-European types in Spain, are most likely of decended from Celtic migration.

Like Galaico has said, Celtic was mostly a process of aculturation. There surely was an element, but not in large numbers to make an impact.


As a note apart, the famed Galician Blonde (rubia gallega) is a cattle breed, not a human type:

[Menydh]

A few Spanish military people or related.

Dámaso Berenguer y Fusté


José Sanjurjo Sacanell


José Millán Astray y Terreros


Jaime Milans del Bosch


Eduardo Sáenz de Buruaga y Polanco


Emilio Mola Vidal


Julio Ruíz de Alda


Gonzalo Queipo de Llano y Sierra


Alberto Asarta


Martínez de Pisón (not a military himself but from a large military lineage)

[Exeter]

Well, there are few things I dislike more than arrogant people. What do you mean with "vulgar"? Do they anger locals?

I know a middle aged English couple who have relocated to southeastern Spain. They used to live in England. The man is an accountant and the woman is a nurse. She is at least trying to learn Spanish, that is showing some respect. I don't think she is doing a serious effort though. I asked them what they know about the region and its history, and so forth. They know nothing. I think that is really stupid and arrogant behaviour towards the hosts. There are only foreigners (I think most English, Scandinavian and German) in their little community. What do Spanish people say in private about these expats?

I can understand if some people feel uneasy about this kind of immigration.

"Last week the foreign minister, Ivaylo Kalfin, said any new migration to Britain was likely to be more of a problem for Bulgaria than for the UK. But Bulgaria is experiencing its own wave of migration - from Britain. British pensioners have bought up thousands of flats on the Black Sea coast and in mountainous ski resorts.

"We are thinking of buying a property here," Bob Newton, 68, in Bulgaria for a two-week holiday with his wife Shirley, 63, said over breakfast at his Sofia hotel. "We went into a couple of estate agents. The prices appear to be so reasonable." The number of Britons living in Bulgaria has doubled in the past year (some 1,152 were given residency in 2005). Lured by some of the cheapest property prices in Europe, British families have started new lives here. They have sent their children to Bulgarian schools. They have renovated crumbling farmhouses, or dabbled in organic farming. Bulgarian officials politely suggest that by restricting Bulgarians' right to move to the UK, Britain is guilty of double standards."

I know it is not about Bulgaria and Spain is in the EU. I only think that kind of thinking among Brits is interesting. I like humble people. I get the feeling these immigrants in your country do not care much about Spain. They only want to be away from home and enjoy the sunny climate, and it does not matter much where that place is located.

I got the impression that mostly richer working class and lower middle class Brits who think the French dislike the English and refuse to drink French wine move to Spain. These Brits think the French are arrogant. I once confronted an (not a very educated one) Englishman who went on about this issue for a long time. He really pissed me off. I asked if he has ever seen a French person besides on TV. He said no. I told him, "you don't need to say more, that is enough said". It made him think, at least I did something. I know many more upper middle class Brits with houses in southern France. The French may have another experience, I would like to know.

Interesting comment:

"British expats make sure they don’t have to learn English by creating micro-British communities abroad and by systematically speaking English to the locals , becoming quite condescending when they don’t, claim every grant and benefit available to them, regardless of the resources they kept at home, even if they are EU grants, organise themselves so they can purchase their goods from Britain through the Internet or during short trips back home, and avoid contact with the locals whenever possible."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../28/do2802.xml

Are they positive for Spain in any sort of way? Is it good for your economy?

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Apart from the [Hispanic] Goths and the Suebi, in later times there have been some influxes of "vulgar Germanics", like Netherlanders and Germans to repopulate some areas in Andalusia (e.g. La Carolina) and the waves who are settling in Spain in modern days (English, Germans, Dutch, etc.). In some spots this influx is strong enough to incide negatively over diversity in the future.

[Menydh]

Sorry, I've used some sort of internal [in part a] joke. Vulgar here is intended to mean common, ordinary. Not lewd. I could have used lesser, but it would still lack a part of the meaning.

About the English immigrants here, what can I say that's not been already said?

The lower class English that you mention is not the immigrant type. The working class English is the one who goes to the ghetto coastal spots like Benidorm in Alicante or Maspalomas in Gran Canaria. Anglo Trash. They are negative in any conceivable way. If you want to destroy any vestige of culture, life-style, aesthetics, etc., in any given spot they will do it quicker than if the spot got settled by Sub-Saharan Africans.

The other type, the immigrant (or expat) is not much better in my opinion. What makes them worse is that they don't stay in the ghettos but pretend to want to integrate somehow. That's only in the beggining stages, when they see themselves all alone. Then they are likely to bring in their cheap life-style in.

There's been some conflicts already and with them I wish that us Spaniards were not the nice people that we are. Not that I am to them anyway.

I read somewhere that on a recent enquire it turned out that about one third of the English would like to come to settle in Spain at some stage. That's a tragedy for Spain. But at least it is more of a tragedy for Britain.

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Waarnemer

evolution isn't moving towards anything,

Evolution is constantly moving and race is an evolutionary process.

so it can't be a progressing event.

Sure it can, because the evolutionary path can change. F.e. an animal species begins to reduce the motility of the toes and forming hoofs. Even at the beginning of this development the animal lost the former advantages but still has not all advantages of the new form. This means the further this evolution goes, the more potential the animal has for the specialisation it approaches. Its a self-strengthening process which might lead at the end to a better ability to adapt to different situations, to a higher potential and more effective lifeform or not.

In that sense a whale is for its own specialisation more progressive than a his ancestors, same goes for a horse etc. They took a certain path, and for the path they were going, they progressed, natural selection made them more perfect than they were when they started.

This is no implicit teleological approach, its a simple truth. To give you a very simple example for this simple truth, a cabinet maker and a cook which want to do this job their whole life will be just be a cabinet maker and a cook at the beginning of their career, at their peak and at the end of their life, still they progress to their peak and go down at the end of their life.

In the same way evolutionary paths, specialisations begin, at the start they are far from perfect, but just try to approach a certain effectiveness, further evolution, selective pressures from the environment and intraspecifically make them more effective. So they might reach a peak - f.e. being in their environment the best, most intelligent hunters acting in a group, best utilisers of grass and fastest fugitives etc.
But they can get one sided, losing potential, adapting to a very small niche, overspecialise until they being so dependent on a very specific environment that even very small changes can extinct the species - thats degeneration.

Adaptation and specialization to specific environmental conditions is not better than adaptation to previous environments, so current types are no better than the forms that they took in the past

They are better if they represent the same basic specialisation but are simply more effective than those which existed before. Furthermore its true that evolution has no goal, so no evaluation, for sure no moral one, but we are finally humans, we dont look at ourselves like on an insect - and if only for the purpose of analysing us and our environment. But as humans its in our interests to see us progressing in the way described and to see the future of our offspring, of our species being secured, their survival on a high level.

Hominisation is a very specific process which favours certain qualities. Progress in humans means that this qualities become more pronounced, improved. In that sense an Australid which is closer to our ancestral forms, has less pronounced typical sapiens traits which would give him a "higher human", a higher general-versatile potential is more primitive and at the same time a Nordid or Nordsinid for the same reasons more progressive.

To give a simple physical example, I might refer to bipedy and balance. If you compare with mym thread, the balance of the head being mentioned and is for humans definitely a progressive traits - the more balanced the head is on the neck, the more progressive. Thats just a single trait, not the most important for us, but its an example for a functional aspect of progressiveness.

Its in the interest of us, as a thinking lifeform which is able to use reason to recognise which traits give a general potential and which are just one sided - or still not as evolved.

secondly, the supposition that progressiveness equals an increase of intelligence and capacities is still not supported by any data, and is dismissed by the means of common sense and daily reality

Another trait which is definitely progressive is a larger cranial volume. All progressive racial types have an average and above average cranial volume in comparison to those of primitive character.

Progressive variants being more common in the social elite, in leading elements in almost every society of the world, at least if the elite being selected for effectiveness. Even in some Papua groups one can see that the typical chieftains being on average more progressive, as are officers, managers, scientists, versatile sportspeople, models, idealistic and capable political leaders etc. in the Western world.

Reduced and infantle variants have usually a lower cranial volume too, but their main disadvantages is the weaker body and general potential. They being constantly outperformed in the most important categories of sport competition by progressive variants and were subdominant in the situation of group selection for the same reasons as well as for another one, namely that progressive types, which peaks are usually lepto-mesomorphic and juvenile-mature build, are more schizothymic in character as well, which made them, together with the more effective and versatile body superior even if the reduced-infantile variants would have had the same intelligence level.

Compare with this too:
Comparing archemorphic, paedomorphic and neomorphic types

That reduction and infantilisation being mainly the result of one sided adaptation to unfavourable environments, which goal was simply saving, can be seen if looking at this thread too:
http://forum.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=60519

This is and was advantageous in very specific environments, but its not on line with the typical Hominisation process which meant balanced Neoteny = just certain elements change, mainly craniofacially if speaking about the physique, while the whole body, structure and the whole face-skull trait combination as such being only very limited affected by such an "infantilisation" (= balanced), but rather become even more effective. Such a generalised Hominisation is much more promising than any one sided niche adaptation.
However, there are traits which are mainly "better or worse" in a very specific context, like very light or dark skin, but thats not meant if comparing progressive-infantile-primitive. Progressive are mainly those traits which are generally Neohuman, neomorphic and advantageous or at least not disadvantageous.

In that sense progressive is objectively just one tendency out of others - there are just three basic tendencies beside more specific local adaptations in modern humans: Primitive, Infantile and Progressive. The progressive one is the typical human further development, more versatile and generalised, whereas primitive means phylogenetic and infantile ontogenetic retardation in comparison.

[Waarnemer]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

Evolution is constantly moving and race is an evolutionary process.

didn’t say evolution wasn’t moving, but it doesn’t have a goal in sense of perfectio, the key term of evolution is randomness

Originally Posted by Agrippa

Sure it can, because the evolutionary path can change. F.e. an animal species begins to reduce the motility of the toes and forming hoofs. Even at the beginning of this development the animal lost the former advantages but still has not all advantages of the new form. This means the further this evolution goes, the more potential the animal has for the specialisation it approaches. Its a self-strengthening process which might lead at the end to a better ability to adapt to different situations, to a higher potential and more effective lifeform or not.

In that sense a whale is for its own specialisation more progressive than a his ancestors, same goes for a horse etc. They took a certain path, and for the path they were going, they progressed, natural selection made them more perfect than they were when they started.

This is no implicit teleological approach, its a simple truth. To give you a very simple example for this simple truth, a cabinet maker and a cook which want to do this job their whole life will be just be a cabinet maker and a cook at the beginning of their career, at their peak and at the end of their life, still they progress to their peak and go down at the end of their life.

In the same way evolutionary paths, specialisations begin, at the start they are far from perfect, but just try to approach a certain effectiveness, further evolution, selective pressures from the environment and intraspecifically make them more effective. So they might reach a peak - f.e. being in their environment the best, most intelligent hunters acting in a group, best utilisers of grass and fastest fugitives etc.
But they can get one sided, losing potential, adapting to a very small niche, overspecialise until they being so dependent on a very specific environment that even very small changes can extinct the species - thats degeneration.

natural selection is a process of adaptation to a changed direction, for progress the environment would have to maintain. North pole bears are pigmentation wise selected through a system of natural selection and aren’t more progressive in the sense of perfection than their darker kind in north america. Naturally natural selection isn’t progress either, it’s a change to adaptation

the principle that evolution isn't a progressing event isn't made up by me, its accepted science, proved and supported in a purely empirical manner – crucial base of science your theory lacks. Paquin and adams placed a colony of yeast into a culture and maintained it for many successive generations. Occasionally, a mutation would pop out of the woodwork that would allow its bearer to reproduce better than its compatriots. These mutant strains would push out the formerly dominant strains and take over. Samples of the most successful strains from the culture were taken at a various times. In later competition experiments, each strain would out compete the immediately previously dominant type in a culture. However, some earlier isolates could out compete strains that arose late in the experiment. Competitive ability of a strain was always better than its previous type, but competitiveness in a general sense was not increasing. Any organism's success depends on the behavior of its contemporaries. For most traits or behaviors there is likely no optimal design or strategy, only contingent ones

They are better if they represent the same basic specialisation but are simply more effective than those which existed before. Furthermore its true that evolution has no goal, so no evaluation, for sure no moral one, but we are finally humans, we dont look at ourselves like on an insect - and if only for the purpose of analysing us and our environment. But as humans its in our interests to see us progressing in the way described and to see the future of our offspring, of our species being secured, their survival on a high level.

Hominisation is a very specific process which favours certain qualities. Progress in humans means that this qualities become more pronounced, improved. In that sense an Australid which is closer to our ancestral forms, has less pronounced typical sapiens traits which would give him a "higher human", a higher general-versatile potential is more primitive and at the same time a Nordid or Nordsinid for the same reasons more progressive.

To give a simple physical example, I might refer to bipedy and balance. If you compare with mym thread, the balance of the head being mentioned and is for humans definitely a progressive traits - the more balanced the head is on the neck, the more progressive. Thats just a single trait, not the most important for us, but its an example for a functional aspect of progressiveness.

Its in the interest of us, as a thinking lifeform which is able to use reason to recognise which traits give a general potential and which are just one sided - or still not as evolved.

evolution proceeds in spite of natural selection like evolutionist george williams said, and natural selection is nothing more than adaptation to certain environments, so superiorism is out of question by definition

the decline of ape-like characteristics in favor of human-like morphology in continuation with standing up straight is the result of adaptation and adjustments to new environments and conditions

Originally Posted by agrippa

Another trait which is definitely progressive is a larger cranial volume. All progressive racial types have an average and above average cranial volume in comparison to those of primitive character.

Progressive variants being more common in the social elite, in leading elements in almost every society of the world, at least if the elite being selected for effectiveness. Even in some Papua groups one can see that the typical chieftains being on average more progressive, as are officers, managers, scientists, versatile sportspeople, models, idealistic and capable political leaders etc. in the Western world.

Reduced and infantle variants have usually a lower cranial volume too, but their main disadvantages is the weaker body and general potential. They being constantly outperformed in the most important categories of sport competition by progressive variants and were subdominant in the situation of group selection for the same reasons as well as for another one, namely that progressive types, which peaks are usually lepto-mesomorphic and juvenile-mature build, are more schizothymic in character as well, which made them, together with the more effective and versatile body superior even if the reduced-infantile variants would have had the same intelligence level.

Compare with this too:
http://forum.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=44712

That reduction and infantilisation being mainly the result of one sided adaptation to unfavourable environments, which goal was simply saving, can be seen if looking at this thread too:
http://forum.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=60519

This is and was advantageous in very specific environments, but its not on line with the typical