whitest genes on planet earth, Dyeus Pitr has
(Keep in mind that none of the following has anything whatsoever to do with the Fertile Crescent. The Fertile Crescent is basically 100% Middle Eastern, a mix of Levantine, Iranian, and Gulf Arab peoples.)
The mayo-appropriation of the word "Caucasian" was due to exogenous Aryan panic.
The fossils of the "Aryans" (referring to all Indoeuropeans, rather than just Indo-Aryans) were found in the 1800s in the southernmost edge of Russia, overlapping with the Caucasus. The Pit Grave (now called Yamnaya) fossils.
Only a decade later, you start seeing :jesse-wtf: mayo brainworms referring to "the caucasoid race" and "we really do be caucasians and shit"
Keep in mind that until then, nobody gave a single shit about Caucasians and it was used to literally mean "people of the Caucasus". Which is not considered part of Europe, although you can argue that the idea of Europe didn't even exist at that point (though "Christendom" certainly did).
Simple application of identity politics tells you that there was an Aryan panic among the literate Western Europeans of that time, as they considered that the conquerors and linguistic progenitors of Europe came from a place that was on the southeasternmost edge of Europe, overlapping with parts of the world considered to not be part of Europe.
The solution to this was to just larp as Caucasians so that it wouldn't matter anyway.
And they were right, the Indo-Europeans were about half Iran-Caucasus genes (which are totally different from indigenous European genes). These "Iranian" genes are very similar to ancient Gulf Arab and Levantine genes, to the exclusion of any other ancestry--meaning they form a triangular Middle Eastern "family". Anatolian genes (basically the same as Levantine) also made their way to Europe 7000 years ago and formed the bulk of the neolithic farmers' ancestry.
If you use the same logic that is aimed at Latinx people, then we can say that "white people" are roughly 60% Middle Eastern and 25% European when you resolve all the intermediate populations into their "pure" Holocene ancestries. "Pure European" being equivalent to the WHG population (which happened to be quite dark skinned, but with 100% light eyes)
Well, light eyes were actually the rule for indigenous Europeans. The WHGs had a 100% frequency of allele that causes light eyes, modern northern Europeans are only 65%, which means Europeans as a whole are even lower. This is because of recent foreign DNA intrusions from the Indoeuropeans and the Anatolian farmers, who were 90%+ dark eyed.
Very pale skin was not present in indigenous Euros. A few groups in Scandinavia had blonde hair and fairly light (but still darker than moderns) skin, which might've looked something like a swarthier version of Dolph Lundgren.
pale skin is an adaptation to lactovegetarian diet, darker climate, and indoor sedentary life. If you hit all three of these you get pale skin, and of course these conditions were only ever met in Europe, but they were met to a lesser extent in northern China--you'll notice if you look at Siberian tribes that people from Liaoning/Hebei and other parts of North China are actually PALER than ethnic Siberians despite living way southwards--this is because the Siberian diet is rich in animal meats and fish, which have natural vitamin D.
You can also look at modern Africa, that very dark skin is more common in the pastoralist populations like Chad, South Sudan, and that's DESPITE these groups often having Asian DNA admixture (which should theoretically make them PALER if anything). This is because these pastoralist groups have outdoor lifestyles, where the folate depletion caused by sunlight is a huge health detriment. Thus, black as fuck skin. https://i.imgur.com/ZRi1jHY.png
Lighter skin is very much a "sedentary" adaptation, contrary to whatever "muh steppe fantasies" cope that wignats want to engage in.
There are also a bunch of alleles involved in fatty acid metabolism and stuff, and basically all of these genes have gone from 100% in the paleolithic down to something like 20% or less for most large monolithic populations--but they're remained at near 100% for indigenous hunter tribes in Siberia, Native America, etc. Paleo "muh meat" diet is complete fucking cope but I don't mind if chuds die of iron poisoning.
None of this has anything to do with Darwin, who was basically a philosopher. This is all raw scientific data which Darwin probably couldn't even dream of
Also, any of this ignores even more ancient invasions like the Ancient North Eurasian invasions which resulted in a total male replacement of pleistocene European Homo sapiens (these "ANEs" came from Siberia, and themselves were the result of a Chinese and/or Sundaland invasion something like 30,000 years ago)
And of course the Homo Sapien invasions which completely conquered the then Europeans of the time: the Neanderthals (don't @ me about the N word, Biden said I could go hard R)
whitest genes on planet earth, Dyeus Pitr has
(Keep in mind that none of the following has anything whatsoever to do with the Fertile Crescent. The Fertile Crescent is basically 100% Middle Eastern, a mix of Levantine, Iranian, and Gulf Arab peoples.)
The mayo-appropriation of the word "Caucasian" was due to exogenous Aryan panic.
The fossils of the "Aryans" (referring to all Indoeuropeans, rather than just Indo-Aryans) were found in the 1800s in the southernmost edge of Russia, overlapping with the Caucasus. The Pit Grave (now called Yamnaya) fossils.
Only a decade later, you start seeing :jesse-wtf: mayo brainworms referring to "the caucasoid race" and "we really do be caucasians and shit"
Keep in mind that until then, nobody gave a single shit about Caucasians and it was used to literally mean "people of the Caucasus". Which is not considered part of Europe, although you can argue that the idea of Europe didn't even exist at that point (though "Christendom" certainly did).
Simple application of identity politics tells you that there was an Aryan panic among the literate Western Europeans of that time, as they considered that the conquerors and linguistic progenitors of Europe came from a place that was on the southeasternmost edge of Europe, overlapping with parts of the world considered to not be part of Europe.
The solution to this was to just larp as Caucasians so that it wouldn't matter anyway.
And they were right, the Indo-Europeans were about half Iran-Caucasus genes (which are totally different from indigenous European genes). These "Iranian" genes are very similar to ancient Gulf Arab and Levantine genes, to the exclusion of any other ancestry--meaning they form a triangular Middle Eastern "family". Anatolian genes (basically the same as Levantine) also made their way to Europe 7000 years ago and formed the bulk of the neolithic farmers' ancestry.
If you use the same logic that is aimed at Latinx people, then we can say that "white people" are roughly 60% Middle Eastern and 25% European when you resolve all the intermediate populations into their "pure" Holocene ancestries. "Pure European" being equivalent to the WHG population (which happened to be quite dark skinned, but with 100% light eyes)
deleted by creator
Well, light eyes were actually the rule for indigenous Europeans. The WHGs had a 100% frequency of allele that causes light eyes, modern northern Europeans are only 65%, which means Europeans as a whole are even lower. This is because of recent foreign DNA intrusions from the Indoeuropeans and the Anatolian farmers, who were 90%+ dark eyed.
Very pale skin was not present in indigenous Euros. A few groups in Scandinavia had blonde hair and fairly light (but still darker than moderns) skin, which might've looked something like a swarthier version of Dolph Lundgren.
pale skin is an adaptation to lactovegetarian diet, darker climate, and indoor sedentary life. If you hit all three of these you get pale skin, and of course these conditions were only ever met in Europe, but they were met to a lesser extent in northern China--you'll notice if you look at Siberian tribes that people from Liaoning/Hebei and other parts of North China are actually PALER than ethnic Siberians despite living way southwards--this is because the Siberian diet is rich in animal meats and fish, which have natural vitamin D.
You can also look at modern Africa, that very dark skin is more common in the pastoralist populations like Chad, South Sudan, and that's DESPITE these groups often having Asian DNA admixture (which should theoretically make them PALER if anything). This is because these pastoralist groups have outdoor lifestyles, where the folate depletion caused by sunlight is a huge health detriment. Thus, black as fuck skin. https://i.imgur.com/ZRi1jHY.png
Lighter skin is very much a "sedentary" adaptation, contrary to whatever "muh steppe fantasies" cope that wignats want to engage in.
There are also a bunch of alleles involved in fatty acid metabolism and stuff, and basically all of these genes have gone from 100% in the paleolithic down to something like 20% or less for most large monolithic populations--but they're remained at near 100% for indigenous hunter tribes in Siberia, Native America, etc. Paleo "muh meat" diet is complete fucking cope but I don't mind if chuds die of iron poisoning.
None of this has anything to do with Darwin, who was basically a philosopher. This is all raw scientific data which Darwin probably couldn't even dream of
deleted by creator
Also, any of this ignores even more ancient invasions like the Ancient North Eurasian invasions which resulted in a total male replacement of pleistocene European Homo sapiens (these "ANEs" came from Siberia, and themselves were the result of a Chinese and/or Sundaland invasion something like 30,000 years ago)
And of course the Homo Sapien invasions which completely conquered the then Europeans of the time: the Neanderthals (don't @ me about the N word, Biden said I could go hard R)