European and non-European Mediterranids?

[Tennyson]

What kind of racial distinctions e.g. Spaniards commonly recognize between themselves and North Africans?

Carleton Coon says of the differences between those two groups of Mediterraneans:

Two widely observed racial characters serve to differentiate the Spaniards from most of the living inhabitants of Arabia and North Africa: hair color and nasal profile. In Spain, as a whole, some 29 per cent of the male population has black hair, some 68 per cent dark brown, while traces of blondism are visible in 17 per cent.113 In most of North Africa and Arabia, the black hair is commoner than the dark brown. The nasal profiles of some 120,000 Spaniards are convex in 15 per cent of cases, straight in 72 per cent, and concave in 13 per cent. In Arabia and North Africa east of Morocco, the commonest profile form is usually convex, and coneaves are very rare. The prevalence of these two features. dark brown hair and a straight nasal profile, indicates that the bulk of the Spanish population is derived from the earlier Mediterranean In-vasions of Mesolithic and Neolithic date. The Spaniards are more like the most marginal and fully sedentary of the brunet Berber groups in North Africa than like the more recently settled transhumant ones or the Arabs.

The Iberian Peninsula

[Galaico]

Well first of all many different sub-types, which are not really Mediterranid, fall under Coon's "Mediterranean".

Most North Africans are not Mediterranids in the strict sense, they are mostly Berberid, which is a Southern Cromagnoid unreduced type, South Mediterranid, which is a mixture of (Gracile) East-Mediterranid and Berberid, Saharid, which is a mixture of East Mediterranid and Negroid, and other types such as Reduced Berberid.

You hardly find any European/True Mediterranid types in North Africa, such as West Mediterranid, Atlanto-Mediterranid, West Pyrenaic, or Pontid.

The main differences I find between Maghrebians and locals are: Hair, Moors have black curly (afro) hair, while most Spaniards have brown straight or wavy hair, height, Moors are not as tall as Spaniards, pigmentation, Moors are darker and yellower when pale, and overall facial features, Moors usually have wide almost flat noses, and wider faces, probably due to the Negroid influence in them

[Tennyson]

Originally Posted by Galaico

Well first of all many different sub-types, which are not really Mediterranid, fall under Coon's "Mediterranean".

Most North Africans are not Mediterranids in the strict sense, they are mostly Berberid, which is a Southern Cromagnoid unreduced type, South Mediterranid, which is a mixture of (Gracile) East-Mediterranid and Berberid, Saharid, which is a mixture of East Mediterranid and Negroid, and other types such as Reduced Berberid.

You hardly find any European/True Mediterranid types in North Africa, such as West Mediterranid, Atlanto-Mediterranid, West Pyrenaic, or Pontid.

The main differences I find between Maghrebians and locals are: Hair, Moors have black curly (afro) hair, while most Spaniards have brown straight or wavy hair, height, Moors are not as tall as Spaniards, pigmentation, Moors are darker and yellower when pale, and overall facial features, Moors usually have wide almost flat noses, and wider faces, probably due to the Negroid influence in them

What kind of views do Spaniards hold of intermarriages with North Africans? And what do you think of Northern Europeans in that regard?

Are negative attitudes primarily influenced by Catholicism because religious differences often actualize in those prospective marriages or is there also a nationalistic aspect?

[Galaico]

Originally Posted by Tennyson

What kind of views do Spaniards hold of intermarriages with North Africans? And what do you think of Northern Europeans in that regard?

Are negative attitudes primarily influenced by Catholicism because religious differences often actualize in those prospective marriages or is there also a nationalistic aspect?

Intermarriages with North Africans??? BLASPHEMY!!!!

I was joking, but that would be the actual reaction of a father being told his daughter was marrying a North African.

It's not so much about religion, of course we must add the current Islamophobia in all Europe, but it is an older story. Moors have been our historical enemies for centuries, since the occupied our land in 711 until we freed it in 1492. We also had some trouble with them during the colonial period, such as the conquest of Tetuan (1860), the War of Africa (1921), or territorial conflicts with Morocco over Ifni (1969) and Western Sahara (1975).

In other words a Moroccoan-Spanish mix would be the worst bastard for any Spaniard, except for the pseudo-Progresist scum of course.

Usually, Spaniards don't have any problem with other Europeans, including Northern Europeans. I myself, don't have any problem with intra-European marriages, as long as it's just something non-usual, and children are brought into the Spanish culture.

[Agrippa]

Just compare with this post and thread:
http://forum.stirpes.net/91486-post8.html

From a racial and my standpoint the main problem of North Africans is the Negroid admixture. Otherwise they deviate because of local specialisation and strong Near Eastern influences. Southern Mediterranids are of course Mediterranids too, but very often mixed with other types. Real European-like Atlantomediterranid and Gracilmediterranid phenotypes, variants do occur, even in significant numbers, but in comparison to the overall population, they are still in a small minority.

It depends on the exact region too tough. Marroccans being heavily Negroid influenced, mainly because of slave trade f.e. whereas Algerians are more Europid/Caucasoid with a certain proportion of European-like variants, even though the majority deviates phenotypically in a quite typical manner.

[Indra]

I dont think that most spaniards are medittarenaen as well as italians. I think its a prejudice that all spaniards have black hair and brown eyes, spaniards and italians are descendants of germanics who crashed the roman empire and settled all over the roman empire territory some even in north africa, in north africa still you can find some blonde people, descendants of the viking invaders.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Indra

I dont think that most spaniards are medittarenaen as well as italians. I think its a prejudice that all spaniards have black hair and brown eyes, spaniards and italians are descendants of germanics who crashed the roman empire and settled all over the roman empire territory some even in north africa, in north africa still you can find some blonde people, descendants of the viking invaders.

Did you come to that conclusion on your own, or did you get help from outer space?

[Señor Malo]

Originally Posted by Indra

I dont think that most spaniards are medittarenaen as well as italians. I think its a prejudice that all spaniards have black hair and brown eyes, spaniards and italians are descendants of germanics who crashed the roman empire and settled all over the roman empire territory some even in north africa, in north africa still you can find some blonde people, descendants of the viking invaders.

I was about to give an elaborated reply to the post but I finally prefered to drop it

[Skeptikos Examiner]

The Viking invaders of North Africa...

[Indra]

Originally Posted by NatVox

Did you come to that conclusion on your own, or did you get help from outer space?

On my own. I read a book about early germanic history and the emigration of nations after the crash of the roman empire. But it was very long ago so i dont remember so well. The modern nations of europe are almost all found by germanics. There was a roman emperor who was a germanic. Spain is found by gotics, russia by vikings (rus is a viking word). France by Franks, Britain by Anglo-Saxons, Italy by gotics and lombardians etc....

[Señor Malo]

Originally Posted by Indra

On my own. I read a book about early germanic history and the emigration of nations after the crash of the roman empire. But it was very long ago so i dont remember so well. The modern nations of europe are almost all found by germanics. There was a roman emperor who was a germanic. Spain is found by gotics, russia by vikings (rus is a viking word). France by Franks, Britain by Anglo-Saxons, Italy by gotics and lombardians etc....

Originally Posted by Indra

spaniards and italians are descendants of germanics who crashed the roman empire and settled all over the roman empire territory some even in north africa, in north africa still you can find some blonde people, descendants of the viking invaders

Should we take word by word the post I quoted in last, makes think that italian and spaniard inhabitants of the roman period were just whipped out and genetically replaced by the germans

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Indra

On my own. I read a book about early germanic history and the emigration of nations after the crash of the roman empire. But it was very long ago so i dont remember so well. The modern nations of europe are almost all found by germanics. There was a roman emperor who was a germanic. Spain is found by gotics, russia by vikings (rus is a viking word). France by Franks, Britain by Anglo-Saxons, Italy by gotics and lombardians etc....

You can't however conclude from parts of the upper and warrior class to the genetic make up of the whole population nor from ethnolinguistic characteristics to longer lasting racial-genetic characteristics.

If the Germanics in Iberia would have replaced the locals, or the same for the Franks in Gallia, why should those people speak today a Romance language?
Or why does the racial and genetic characteristics of your assumed source populations and the Iberians differ as much?

This all doesnt make sense at all. There was a Germanic impact, far greater in Britain than in France and far greater in France than in Spain, but nobody could seriously speak of a replacement especially not in the last case.

[Skeptikos Examiner]

@Indra

You have to be a little more careful with the formulations, you make it sound like the Germanic people wiped out the natives in those areas and replaced them which is simply not true. Those Germanic tribes were a minority in those areas they settled and rather fast blended in with the native populations by means of inbreeding. It is true that the ruling and warrior classes in those nations were for a long time to a high degree dominated by people with partly Germanic origin after the impact and that even today many intellectuals and such there often appear to have a somewhat lighter in skin than the majority but they did not replace the native people.

[Delbáeth]

Originally Posted by Skeptikos Examiner

@Indra

You have to be a little more careful with the formulations, you make it sound like the Germanic people wiped out the natives in those areas and replaced them which is simply not true. Those Germanic tribes were a minority in those areas they settled and rather fast blended in with the native populations by means of inbreeding. It is true that the ruling and warrior classes in those nations were for a long time to a high degree dominated by people with partly Germanic origin after the impact and that even today many intellectuals and such there often appear to have a somewhat lighter in skin than the majority but they did not replace the native people.

So for a Spaniard to be intelligent, he must first be of Germanic origin?

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

You can't however conclude from parts of the upper and warrior class to the genetic make up of the whole population nor from ethnolinguistic characteristics to longer lasting racial-genetic characteristics.

Fortunately you were wise enough to say "parts of". Otherwise you would have been assuming that the Hispano-Roman senatorial aristocracy dissappeared with the Visigoths, even when this is not supported by the sources and the researches (otherwise there would have been no need for a sortes gothica and a tertia romana). The Visigoths did not replace the true aristocracy. They usurped the bureaucracy.

However, you are wrong to assume the Visigoths (and a number of Ostrogoths, who arrived during the Regency of Theodoric) to have been just a warrior class. The bulk of the Visigoths were neither warriors nor chiefs, but herders. And, by the way, they were initially settled in some of the poorest lands in Iberia, under the terms of Roman hospitalitas (not that it should have mattered much, since the only known addition to agriculture that they brought with them were artichokes! Good as they are).

Your other mistakes are:

If the Germanics in Iberia would have replaced the locals, or the same for the Franks in Gallia, why should those people speak today a Romance language?

I would appreciate it if you (and others) referred to the "Goths" or "Gothics" when speaking of Hispania, Iberia or Spain. The Goths were much a people of their own, and their allegiance to other Germanic nations was nil.

By the time they arrived in Hispaniae, they were already in an advanced state of romanization (i.e. advanced for their level). It is very likely that many spoke Latin (even if in a rude form), especially among the chief classes.

As a side note, the Gothic influence in Southern Gallia (Narbonensis and Aquitania) is more important than any Frankish.

Or why does the racial and genetic characteristics of your assumed source populations and the Iberians differ as much?

You too are making a little too much of an assumption here, about supposed racial and genetic characteristics, for a people who had been chiefly nomadic throughout all of their known history.

To assume that the chiefly sedentary ancient Western Germanics were a homogenous people based on one quote of Tacitus is fine for a surface analysis, even when that leaves out of the picture the more ancient "genetic migrations" (notice the male DNA diversity within modern Germanic countries, and also the male DNA diversity among them).

To assume that this should translate the same to the chiefly nomadic ancient Eastern Germanics, is a grave mistake.

A Roman mosaic representation of a presumed Gothic conquered king.

This all doesnt make sense at all. There was a Germanic impact, far greater in Britain than in France and far greater in France than in Spain, but nobody could seriously speak of a replacement especially not in the last case.

True.

But do tell me about the impact (and replacement) in Bavaria and Austria.

[Skeptikos Examiner]

Originally Posted by Delbáeth

So for a Spaniard to be intelligent, he must first be of Germanic origin?

No, I never said that, but Spaniards with Nordic features have statistically a higher chance to have an IQ high enough to be part of the elite. Nordic people simply have a higher average IQ. The southern people at fault here because they for centuries intermixed with their often non-European slaves and in the process lowered their own IQ.