The evolution of blond hair and blue eyes among Nordics
Peter Frost has written a cool paper on the evolution of blond hair and the origin of the remarkable diversity of eye and hair color in Northern and Eastern Europeans. His paper will be published in the upcoming March edition of the journal Evolution and Human Behavior. Frost is spot-on in nailing intense sexual selection as the primary reason for the high prevalence of blondness, which is of recent origin (less than 20,000 years old), and the unusual diversity of hair and eye color among Northern and Eastern Europeans. Whereas Frost’s proposed reason for the intense sexual selection is open to debate, the conclusion that intense sexual selection is implicated is almost certain. I am including his paper in this post, but will first mention some important implications.
Frost also proposes that the extreme depigmentation seen among Nordics is partly related to sexual selection. Frost mentions traits other than pigmentation that suggest strong sexual selection among Nordics, namely the more feminine looks of white women, on average, than women in non-white populations. I would like to add a high prevalence of fine facial features, too, and certain parts of the face that bear the signature of sexual selection, such as the jaw, whereby the chin is better developed than in non-Nordics, even though all other parts of the jaw have shrunk significantly.
For rapid changes to occur under intense sexual selection, two conditions should be met. Firstly, there has to be a high level of sexual freedom, especially afforded to women, and secondly, there also has to be a high level of variability with respect to reproductive success in the population, with individuals having less aesthetically desirable traits (ancestral traits) being disproportionately likely to die without reproducing. Among human populations, it is very clear that the availability of sexual freedom, especially to women, is much higher in Northern Europe than in most other societies, and it has been this way for a long time, except for a short period when the Church was powerful in Northern Europe. In many human societies, young individuals are not allowed to date, marriages are arranged and fornication or adultery are met with drastic consequences. Therefore, once again, such cultural differences are consistent with Frost’s hypothesis of more intense recent (on the order of tens of thousands of years at most) sexual selection in Nordics than in other populations.
People in many non-European societies, such as in Middle Eastern and South Asian societies, pride themselves on their alleged superior morality regarding sexual behavior, failing to realize that moral superiority can only be claimed if their sexual behavior remains the same when they have the same opportunity for sexual impropriety as in the West, which is surely not the case. Arabs and South Asians can sing paeans to their “superior sexual morality” all they want; the consequences of the low level of sexual freedom and arranged marriages in their cultures are very clear: the unattractive among them, thanks to not having to find mates on their own, are more likely to reproduce than unattractive whites; thereby, these populations have been evolving in attractiveness less slowly than whites. One will find few whites who would disagree that non-Europeans in general, including non-European Caucasoid types, look far less attractive than whites, on average, but also, few non-European Caucasoid types would disagree with the statement, too. I know for a fact that Razib Khan of Gene Expression blog thinks that white women, especially blondes, are much superior in looks to Bangladeshi women.
This ties in to mass migration of non-whites into the West. If there are sufficient non-whites around, unattractive whites, who would until the recent past disproportionately die without being able to find a mate and reproduce, may end up with a non-white person who would be more than happy to get a white mate. For instance, a black man would typically prefer a 250-pound white woman to a 350-pound black woman. The resulting offspring of such unions, being closer to whites in looks, would be more acceptable as a mate to a greater proportion of whites than the non-white parent, which in turn will set the stage for gradual creeping of non-white genetics into the white gene pool, resulting in reduced attractiveness of the descendents of modern whites. In addition, if mass migration of the likes of Muslims reduces sexual freedom in the West, then the mulatto descendents of present-day Europeans will also have less of an opportunity to reacquire the looks of their white forebears via intense sexual selection. The conclusions are clear...we have yet more reasons to keep the non-white masses out of the West, even if they are as intelligent and as well-behaved as whites are. Personally, I don’t have a problem with a small non-white presence in the West, but allowing mass migration of non-whites to the West is madness.
Peter Frost’s paper cites some genetic data to support greater reproductive skew among white males than non-white males, which is consistent with more intense sexual selection among Europeans in recent history. In this regard, I would like to add the following three papers that, taken together, show similar evidence:
Pereira, L., Dupanloup, I., Rosser, Z. H., Jobling, M. A., & Barbujani, G. (2001). Y-chromosome mismatch distributions in Europe. Mol Biol Evol, 18(7), 1259-1271.
Pritchard, J. K., Seielstad, M. T., Perez-Lezaun, A., & Feldman, M. W. (1999). Population growth of human Y chromosomes: a study of Y chromosome microsatellites. Mol Biol Evol, 16(12), 1791-1798.
Shen, P., Wang, F., Underhill, P. A., Franco, C., Yang, W. H., Roxas, A., et al. (2000). Population genetic implications from sequence variation in four Y chromosome genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 97(13), 7354-7359.
Also consider the following pictures, starting from Miss India 2005, Amrita Thapar, who has a manly face.
Compare Miss India 2005 to Miss USA 2005, Chelsea Cooley, below.
Look at the top three contestants in the Miss India 2005 beauty pageant.
Now look at the top-ranked contestants in the Miss USA 2005 beauty pageant; shown clockwise from top left: Brittany Hogan, Kristen Johnson, Melissa Witek and Jill Gulseth.
It is unlikely that beauty pageants in India have to deal with political correctness to the extent that is seen in the U.S.A. Therefore, the “beauties” shown below -- from the 2005 Miss India beauty pageant -- are probably among the better looking Hindu women.
Note that Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid and Australoid elements are easily discernible in the women shown above. If race mixing is supposed to increase physical attractiveness, I for sure do not want my female descendents to look as “attractive” as the women above and would prefer the “less attractive” white look.
Hindu’s select their actresses for a high level of attractiveness. Look at the three Hindu actresses below; from top to bottom: Shilpa Shetty, Madhuri Dixit and Preity Zinta.
Compare the Hindu actresses to the three Nordic women below; from top to bottom: Ragnhild Marie Alvær, Sharon van der Knaap and Jennifer Avalon.
It may be claimed that I have deliberately picked unattractive Hindu women for comparative purposes, but a quick look at the photos of the untouchables of India suffices to convince that the Hindu women shown above are among the better looking ones in India.
Of course, there are even better looking Hindus as shown below, but guess who they owe their good looks to? Shown clockwise from top: Aditi Govitrikar, Hritik Roshan and Arun Nair.
Finally, look at the physique of the woman that many Hindus consider to be the most beautiful woman in the world, Aishwarya Rai, who has broad shoulders and a wide waist, and compare her physique to that of the white woman shown below her, the likes of which are so many in number that the entire disk space allotted to this site could be easily filled with their pictures.
Hindus and especially Muslims can keep their “morally superior” sexuality to themselves. If more intense sexual selection -- having the side effect of greater allowability of sexual debauchery -- produces the likes of white women, I’d prefer it any day to a system that is far less successful at naturally getting rid of elements of the looks of primitive man. Black Africans would appear to have been in a position to improve their looks, too, given their high rates of promiscuity, but like their abysmally low IQ, they do not seem to have evolved a better aesthetic sense, and retain some of the most primitive facial features around.
Peter Frost’s paper follows.
European hair and eye color: A case of frequency-dependent sexual selection?
Peter Frost
Abstract
Human hair and eye color is unusually diverse in northern and eastern Europe. The many alleles involved (at least seven for hair color) and their independent origin over a short span of evolutionary time indicate some kind of selection. Sexual selection is particularly indicated because it is known to favor color traits and color polymorphisms. In addition, hair and eye color is most diverse in what used to be, when first peopled by hunter-gatherers, a unique ecozone of low-latitude continental tundra. This type of environment skews the operational sex ratio (OSR) of hunter-gatherers toward a male shortage in two ways: (1) men have to hunt highly mobile and spatially concentrated herbivores over longer distances, with no alternate food sources in case of failure, the result being more deaths among young men; (2) women have fewer opportunities for food gathering and thus require more male provisioning, the result being less polygyny. These two factors combine to leave more women than men unmated at any one time. Such an OSR imbalance would have increased the pressures of sexual selection on early European women, one possible outcome being an unusual complex of color traits: hair- and eye-color diversity and, possibly, extreme skin depigmentation.
Keywords: Gender roles; Monogamy; Pigmentation; Polygyny; Sexual selection; Upper Paleolithic.
1. Introduction
Human hair and eye color is unusually diverse in a geographic area centered on the East Baltic and covering northern and eastern Europe (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2). Within this area, eyes are not only brown but also blue, gray, hazel, or green, while hair is not only black but also brown, flaxen, golden, or red (Beals & Hoijer, 1965, pp. 212–214). As one moves outward from this area, color diversity declines markedly with eyes becoming uniformly brown and hair uniformly black.
Fig. 1. Hair-color diversity in and near Europe (after Beals & Hoijer, 1965, p. 214). (Reprinted with permission from Beals et al., “An Introduction to Anthropology,” 3rd ed. Published by Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA. Copyright © 1965 by Pearson Education.)
Fig. 2. Eye-color diversity in and near Europe (after Beals & Hoijer, 1965, p. 213). (Reprinted with permission from Beals et al., “An Introduction to Anthropology,” 3rd ed. Published by Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA. Copyright © 1965 by Pearson Education.)
Is this diversity due to chance? In particular, could it reflect founder effects during the repeopling of glaciated Europe 15,000 to 10,000 years ago? When a founder group breaks off from its parent population, such “sampling” may indeed increase the frequency of a variant hair- or eye-color allele. It is less probable that two alleles of the same gene would become more frequent, and this probability would decline exponentially with each additional allele. Yet the hair-color gene, MC1R, has at least seven phenotypically distinct alleles that exist only in Europe (Box et al., 1997, Harding et al., 2000 and Rana et al., 1999). Furthermore, eye-color diversity results from another set of alleles at a locus that is at best weakly linked to hair color (Eiberg & Mohr, 1987).
Is this diversity due to relaxation of selection and a resulting accumulation of variant alleles? Harding et al. (2000) have investigated this evolutionary scenario and found that the time to the most recent common ancestral hair color would be about a million years, with the redhead alleles alone being approximately 80,000 years old. Templeton (2002) has come to a similar conclusion: If the cause were relaxation of selection, the current level of hair-color diversity would have taken 850,000 years to develop. Yet modern humans have been in Europe for approximately 35,000 years.
Is this diversity due to admixture with older European populations, notably the Neanderthals? Recently, human mtDNA has been retrieved from skeletal material on both sides of the transition from Neanderthals to modern humans: No genetic continuity is discernible between the late Neanderthals and the early modern Europeans (Caramelli et al., 2003). In addition, the mtDNA and dental traits of Neanderthals are no more similar to those of present-day Europeans than they are to those of any other modern human population (Krings et al., 1999, Ovchinnikov et al., 2000 and Tyrrell & Chamberlain, 1998). Neanderthal admixture seems to have been minor, if not negligible, and could hardly account for the high proportion of Europeans who deviate from the species norm of black hair and brown eyes.
Is this diversity due, then, to some selective force, either natural or sexual selection? The first kind of selection is unlikely. As a rule, highly visible color traits are not adaptations to the natural environment, which typically favors an unobtrusive, cryptic coloration as a means to evade predators. It has been suggested that a lighter colored iris may offer more visual acuity in dim light, such as in the misty maritime environments of northwestern Europe (Short, 1975). Eye color, however, is polymorphic over a much larger area of Europe, most of which is typically continental in climate. It is also unclear why selection for visual acuity would have favored more variability in eye color as opposed to a simple reduction in eye pigment.
The alternative, sexual selection, has already been advanced to explain Europe's hair- and eye-color diversity (Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1994, p. 266). This kind of selection is known to favor colorful traits, but there is little consensus on the reasons why. It may be that bright colors stimulate sexual attraction in the brain through (1) mate-assessment algorithms that interpret pigment production as a sign of health and, hence, mate quality; (2) sex-recognition algorithms that pick out sex-specific color stimuli and respond open-endedly with stronger responses to more intense colors; and (3) general monitoring algorithms that respond to highly visible stimuli and indirectly alert other systems, including those related to sexual attraction (Farr, 1980, Hamilton & Zuk, 1982, Kirkpatrick, 1987 and Manning, 1979, pp. 66–75). The opposite sex may exploit all three algorithm types by intensifying its color stimuli until functional constraints intervene or until the cost of easier detection by predators exceeds the benefit of stronger sexual attraction (Endler, 1980 and Endler, 1991).
Under certain conditions, sexual selection may also diversify color traits within a single population. When an individual is faced with potential mates of equal value, it will tend to select the one that “stands out from the crowd,” that is, that has the rarest color morph. The selection is frequency-dependent, declining in strength as the rare morph becomes more common and tending toward an equilibrium that maximizes color diversity. This rare-color advantage has been studied mainly in fruit flies and guppies but has also been reported in a parasitic wasp, in red flour beetles, in ladybugs, and in leafroller moths (Anderson, 1969, Brooks, 2002, Farr, 1980, Grant et al., 1974, Hughes et al., 1999, Muggleton, 1979, Simchuk, 2001 and Sinnock, 1970). There are also a number of bird species that exhibit color polymorphisms for which the mode of selection remains unclear (Lank, 2002). Whatever the cause, color polymorphisms are relatively uncommon. They are often hindered by two evolutionary constraints: (1) high predation pressure, this being a constraint on color traits in general and (2) the presence of related species within the same geographic range, apparently because too much intraspecific variability interferes with species recognition and leads to hybridization (Endler, 1980).
Many evolutionary biologists dislike the concept of rare-color advantage. There is no gain in fitness from sexual attraction to unusual colors; therefore natural selection should eliminate such nonadaptive behavior. Yet it is difficult to see how, just as it is difficult to see how we can counter the many subterfuges that advertisers use to attract our notice. There are good adaptive reasons for paying attention when an eye-catching object enters our field of view, and it is impossible to disable this response in advance for sexual attraction, given that the nature of the object (animate/inanimate, conspecific/nonconspecific, male/female) is determined at a later stage of mental processing. At that stage, the increased attention could be reversed or given a negative meaning. But there would be a cost: not only in additional processing time but also in overcorrection and undercorrection–like a spam-filter that fails to screen out all unwanted e-mails while blocking some legitimate ones. The cost may be justified if attraction to rare-color morphs leads to hybridization or if the color itself is somehow maladaptive. Otherwise, the benefit will not justify the cost.
Rare-color advantage has been reported in humans. Thelen (1983) presented three series of slides showing blonde and brunette females and asked male participants to select the one from each series that they would most prefer to marry. The first series showed 6 brunettes, the second 1 brunette and 5 blondes, and the third 1 brunette and 11 blondes. For the same brunette, preference increased significantly from the first to the third series, that is, in proportion to the rarity of her hair color. The same effect was observed, albeit to a lesser extent, when the study was repeated with male photos and female participants. These findings have some support from other studies. Schweder (1994) found that women tended to change their hair color and hair form to a type that was less common in the general population. Riedl (1990) found that men tended to prefer female faces that diverge from the norm. Finally, Ellis (1928, pp. 182–183) noted less preference for blonde women in England than in France, which he ascribed to the higher prevalence of blondness among the English.
Rare-color advantage may have caused hair and eye color to diversify in ancestral humans, there being neither of the evolutionary constraints mentioned above, that is, high predation pressure or likelihood of hybridization. Outside Africa, there were only two potential predators: wolves and bears, the latter being uncommon and the former only an occasional threat to recent hunter-gatherers (Hoffecker, 2002, pp. 238, 240). Hybridization was just as nonproblematic. All other Homo populations had been reduced to extinction or relic status by 30,000 BP.
It is less clear, though, why hair and eye color diversified in Europe and not elsewhere. Rare-color advantage is a special case of sexual selection, and the intensity of sexual selection normally varies with the operational sex ratio (OSR; the ratio of unmated males to unmated females). The usual pattern is too many males competing for too few females (pregnancy and early infant care exclude some females from mating at any one time). But why would there have been more competition for women in northern and eastern Europe? If anything, there should have been more in sub-Saharan Africa or Papua New Guinea, where a high incidence of polygyny leaves fewer women unmated.
I will argue here that the usual pattern of too many males and too few females was reversed among ancestral Europeans, specifically among the highly mobile groups that once inhabited the continental tundra of ice-age Europe. This environment exposed men to a higher risk of hunting mortality while limiting their ability to provide for more than one wife. With fewer men altogether and even fewer polygynous ones, women had to compete for a limited supply of potential husbands. There was thus sexual selection, but it acted primarily on women—not on men.
2. The Eurasian tundra belt: low-latitude west and high-latitude east
As modern humans spread out of Africa during the Upper Paleolithic, they entered new environments, including one that no longer exists. Loess-steppe covered the plains of northern and eastern Europe during successive ice ages and interglacials until 10,000 years ago (Fig. 3). Quite unlike today's northern barrens, it combined Arctic tundra with fertile loess soil and low latitudes, the Eurasian tundra belt having been pushed far to the south by the Scandinavian icecap. Long intense sunlight favored a lush growth of mosses, lichens, grasses, and low shrubs with grazing herds of mammoths, reindeer, bison, and horses. Despite high bioproductivity, Europe's tundra plains posed several adaptive challenges. Winter temperatures averaged −20 to −30 °C, with little natural protection. Wood for fuel or shelter was scarce. Finally, almost all consumable biomass was in the form of large herds of migrating herbivores (Hoffecker, 2002, pp. 21–26, 32–34).
Fig. 3. Major vegetation zones in Europe approximately 18,000 BP (after Mellars, 1985, p. 275, reprinted with permission from Elsevier).
South of 60°N, the Eurasian tundra belt lay entirely within Europe. East of the Urals, it narrowed and ran further north across Asia and into Beringia. Colder and drier with proportionately less fertile loess, this eastern end had a lower carrying capacity for herbivores (Goebel, 1999 and Hoffecker, 2002, p. 22).
3. Continental Arctic tundra: consequences of human adaptation
3.1. Less food gathering = increased female dependence on male provisioning
In adapting to Arctic tundra, modern humans had to change their sexual division of labor, which normally allocated food gathering to women and hunting to men. Women now processed meat provided by men and did tasks unrelated to food procurement, such as garment making and shelter building. Men procured almost all of the food (Hoffecker, 2002, p. 8).
We can see this task reallocation by comparing recent hunter-gatherers from the Tropics to the Arctic. Near the equator, women procure about half of the family food supply by gathering berries, fruits, roots, grubs, eggs, and other sessile items, these tasks being more compatible than hunting with the demands of pregnancy, breast feeding, and infant transport (Kelly, 1955, pp. 268–269). Away from the equator, the cold season lengthens and gatherable food becomes harder to find, declining from 40% to 55% of the family food supply in hunter-gatherers below 40°N to less than 10% above 60°N (Martin, 1974, pp. 16–18). The end point of this trend is Arctic tundra. Among the Caribou Inuit, female food gathering is limited to eggs (during 2 weeks in summer), raw gadfly larvae, the root of a plant species, and some berries (Birket-Smith, 1929, p. 133).
On this north–south continuum, ice-age European hunter-gatherers were much closer to the ‘Arctic’ end, with most of their food being procured through hunting. Dickson (1990, p. 180) summarizes the evidence: the abundance of game animals in Europe during the late Pleistocene; the volume of animal bone at archeological sites like Solutré, Moldova, Predmosti, and Dolni Vestonice; the large amount of usable meat on late Pleistocene game animals; and the lack of wear on Upper Paleolithic dentition, indicating a grit-free, carnivorous diet (Butzer, 1964, p. 374; Dahlberg & Carbonell, 1961). In addition, biochemical analysis of human remains from a British Upper Paleolithic site reveals a diet high in animal protein, principally from aurochs and red deer (Richards et al., 2000). At Czech, Russian, and British Upper Paleolithic sites, similar analyses reveal a diet high in protein from terrestrial herbivores, waterfowl, and fish (Richards et al., 2001). None of this means that food gathering was absent, only that it was less important. Indeed, a Czech site has yielded evidence of fleshy taproots from charred plant remains (Mason et al., 1994). The remains date, however, to approximately 26,000 BP, when forest-steppe predominated, and the investigators concluded that such foods were limited to southern and central Europe.
3.2. Increased female dependence on male provisioning = constraints on polygyny
As males assume more responsibility for food procurement, polygyny becomes more difficult. In his review of Inuit mating systems, Kjellström (1973, p. 118) concludes, “Since the duty of being a provider was more onerous for the man who had two or more wives, this meant that as a rule it was only the really able and skilful hunters and fishers who could manage this double duty.” Hodge (1959[1905], p. 809) concurs: “monogamy is prevalent, as the support of several wives is possible only for the expert hunter.” This pattern also prevailed among the Chukchi of northeastern Siberia: “The Chukchees commonly live in monogamy; it is only exceptionally that they have two wives” (Nordenskiold, 1882, p. 504). According to the earliest ethnography of the Sami of northern Scandinavia, “Neither is it Lawful for them to Marry more than one Wife at a time, or to be divorced from her. Polygamy and Divorces…, are Things unknown to the Laplanders, both whilst they were Pagans, and since” (Scheffer, 1704, p. 296).
These observations are supported by genetic data. The ratio of Y to X chromosome variability rises markedly as one goes from long-established tropical populations (sub-Saharan Africans, New Guineans, and Aboriginal Australians) to other populations (Europeans, Asians, and Amerindians), indicating that the latter have had a higher proportion of men contributing to the gene pool (Dupanloup et al., 2003; see also Scozzari et al., 1997 and Torroni et al., 1990). More work is needed to determine whether this trend peaks in recent Arctic hunter-gatherers.
3.3. Longer hunting distances = higher death rate among young men
As hunter-gatherers adapt to less tropical environments, men have to cover more terrain while hunting, partly because they need to hunt more (to offset the decline in food gathering) and partly because the game animals themselves roam over a larger territory, the land supporting less vegetation at colder temperatures (Kelly, 1955, pp. 128–132). Hunting distance peaks in the continental Arctic, where almost all potential food is in the form of wide-ranging and highly mobile herds (Hoffecker, 2002, p. 8). It then decreases further north in the extreme Arctic, where hunters cover shorter distances in pursuit of solitary game, fish, and seals (Kelly, 1955, p. 129).
As hunting distance lengthens, more young men die from starvation, accidents, or exposure. Among the Chukchi of the 18th to early 20th centuries, men died young because they followed reindeer over the tundra with a minimum of possessions; in contrast, men lived longer among the Nenets because herd dogs confined the semidomesticated reindeer to nearby pastures (Krupnik, 1985). Arctic populations that still hunted wild game thus had highly skewed sex ratios. Among 19th century Labrador Inuit, only 57 males remained for every 100 females in the 15+ age bracket because of hunting deaths from drowning or exposure (Scheffel, 1984). Among Inuit, in general, “the preponderance of adult women is generally explained by the higher death rate among men due to the natural hazards of hunting” (Weyer, 1932, pp. 135–136).
Some evidence points to long hunting distances and high male mortality on the tundra plains of Upper Paleolithic Europe. Many central Russian sites contain large quantities of black flint from sources at least 130–150 km away and other raw materials from sources up to 650 km away (Hoffecker, 2002, pp. 184–185, 248). Human remains from Upper Paleolithic Europe were once thought to be mainly males (Binford, 1968, Harrold, 1980 and Vallois, 1961), but reanalysis with improved sexing criteria has found that females predominate, suggesting either that many men died under conditions unsuited for burial, such as hunting accidents, or that male burials were less conducive to preservation, such as in aboveground coffins (Mallegni & Fabbri, 1995). The Maszycka Cave in Poland has provided the only ‘snapshot’ of a single extended family from the Upper Paleolithic: the remains of three men, five women, and eight children, all apparently killed and partially eaten (Kozlowski & Sachse-Kozlowska, 1995).
3.4. Constraints on polygyny+higher death rate among young men = skewed OSR
With less polygyny and more young men dying, the OSR is skewed toward a male shortage. Many women lose reproductive time, even among non-Arctic hunter-gatherers with less skewed OSRs. Among the !Kung, about 75% of all women lose some reproductive time while waiting between partners, and 10–20% lose 5 to 15 years. “A relative scarcity of husbands, then, is a regular and expected part of the !Kung marriage system” (Howell, 1979, pp. 247–250). One might expect that this female surplus would encourage more men to take second wives, but “having two families simultaneously is difficult to manage, both economically (in providing for a large number of dependents) and socially (in avoiding the conflicts and irritations of polygamous marriages)” (Howell, 1979, p. 272). Each additional wife, with her offspring, decreases the ratio of food-providing adults to food-consuming children (Howell, 1979, pp. 53–54).
These constraints on polygyny peak in Arctic tundra environments, where women have few opportunities for food gathering. Parallel to this trend, death rates among young men peak in the continental Arctic. OSRs should therefore be most skewed among hunter-gatherers (or rather hunters) living on continental Arctic tundra. Today, this environment is a shadow of its former self, both in the size of its migrating herds and in the extent of its land mass, essentially the northern fringes of mainland Eurasia and North America. Most of its indigenous peoples–low-Arctic Inuit, Chukchi, Yukaghir, Tungus, Nenets, and Sami (Lapps)–rely on a mix of maritime fishing and inland hunting; thus, their OSR characteristics are, at best, indicative of Upper Paleolithic conditions. Nonetheless, if we look at the Labrador Inuit of the 19th century, a very lopsided sex ratio appears at all reproductive ages, with many women, especially widows, shut out of the marriage market entirely (Scheffel, 1984). In the Siberian Arctic east of the Taymyr Peninsula, in the 18th to early 20th centuries, women outnumbered men at all reproductive ages because the men still followed reindeer on foot and suffered proportionately higher death rates. (Krupnik, 1985). OSR skewing seems to have occurred even further west, where reindeer were already semidomesticated in historic times. Sami of 18th to 19th century Finland had female-biased OSRs, although the same was true among the mainly agricultural Finns (Lummaa et al., 1998). Indeed, female-biased OSRs prevailed in most preindustrial European societies, reflecting perhaps the key importance of paternal investment and also cultural constraints on polygyny that predated Christianity (Seccombe, 1992, pp. 184–190; Sherman, 1922, Vol. II, p. 475; Tacitus, 1970, 18; Vatin, 1970, p. 201).
North of the continental Arctic, in the extreme Arctic, OSRs were more evenly balanced and sometimes had a male surplus (Schrire & Steiger, 1974). First, male mortality was lower. Men hunted dispersed marine animals and thus avoided the ‘feast or famine’ dilemma that occurred when hunting spatially concentrated terrestrial herbivores. Second, female mortality was higher, specifically female infanticide. In the extreme Arctic, parents viewed the prospects for a daughter as problematic. She would have trouble finding a husband locally (the low carrying capacity of the land limited the local group's size), and thus she would probably marry into another group and not support her parents later on, either directly or through her future husband (Balikci, 1967, Riches, 1974 and Smith & Smith, 1994). At lower latitudes, where the land had a higher carrying capacity, female infanticide occurred much less often, apparently because bigger and closer groups allowed women to marry locally and provide their parents with ‘son-in-law payback’ (Riches, 1974 and Schrire & Steiger, 1974).
4. Peopling of the Eurasian tundra belt
Modern humans penetrated the Eurasian tundra belt no earlier than 35,000 years ago, at first in its most southerly and resource-rich portion—southwestern France (Mellars, 1985). This ‘beachhead’ was dissected by valleys that offered wild fruits, grains, tubers, salmon, and non-Arctic game, as well as migrating reindeer in the fall and winter (Blades, 1999a, Blades, 1999b and Mellars, 1985). The reindeer may have drawn humans out of the sheltered valleys, briefly at first, and then for longer periods, as hunting bands adapted to the new niche. Eventually, some bands left the valleys to hunt year-round on the surrounding tundra plains. The initial founder group may have been small, as suggested by the very low genetic variability of northern Europeans today (Reich et al., 2001). There then seems to have been rapid growth (perhaps reflected in the spread of the Gravettian culture) with the front of the demographic expansion spreading eastward into the Central Russian Plain and ultimately reaching Siberia and Beringia by the end of the last interglacial approximately 25,000 BP (Goebel, 1999, Pitulko et al., 2004 and Soffer, 1985, p. 238; Soffer et al., 1993).
Thus, when the last ice age began, a single human population occupied a corridor stretching from Europe to Beringia. This inference is supported by several lines of evidence. A Y chromosome study has found that all North Eurasian peoples descend from a common ancestral population dated to about 15,000 BP (Stepanov & Puzyrev, 2000; see also Armour et al., 1996, Santos et al., 1999 and Zerjal et al., 1997). The language families of northern Eurasia, particularly Uralic and Yukaghir and more generally Uralic-Yukaghir, Eskimo-Aleut, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, and Altaic, share deep structural affinities that point to a common origin and not simply to word borrowing (Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1994, pp. 97–99; Fortescue, 1998 and Rogers, 1986). Archeological evidence (characteristic lithic technology, grave goods with red ocher, and sites with small shallow basins) also suggests a common cultural tradition throughout Europe and Siberia 20,000 to 15,000 years ago (Goebel, 1999, Haynes, 1980 and Haynes, 1982). Finally, dental and cranial remains from Mal'ta (23,000–20,000 BP) in southern Siberia indicate strong affinities with Upper Paleolithic Europeans (Alexeyev & Gokhman, 1994 and Goebel, 1999).
This Eurasian population would have broken up at the glacial maximum (20,000–15,000 BP). East–west gene flow was severely constricted by the merging of the Fenno-Scandian and Ural icecaps and by the formation of large glacial lakes along the Ob (Rogers, 1986 and Crawford et al., 1997). At the same time, both sides of this ice-age barrier saw sharp declines in human population (Goebel, 1999 and Hahn, 1987). After the glacial maximum, cultural and biological unity continued to disintegrate as part of a trend toward higher population densities, regional diversification, and probably more restricted breeding units (Formicola & Giannecchini, 1999).
As gene flow declined between the two ends of the Eurasian tundra belt, selection pressures would have become more localized. Sexual selection, in particular, would have varied in intensity with regional OSR differences. This may explain why hair- and eye-color diversity arose in Europe but not in Asia—where hair is uniformly black and eyes uniformly brown. The eastern end of the Eurasian tundra belt differed from the western end in two OSR-relevant ways. First, its narrower width constrained herbivore mobility, thus shortening hunting distances and reducing hunting deaths among young men. Male mortality would have further decreased after the glacial maximum: An absence of base camps in the archeological record suggests that residential units were dispersing to exploit a variety of resources with shorter hunting distances (Goebel, 1999, p. 223). Second, the eastern Eurasian tundra had higher latitudes, lower carrying capacity, and a more dispersed human population, thus providing the same environmental conditions that in more recent times have led to female infanticide in the extreme Arctic. These two factors, shorter hunting distances and increased female infanticide, would have resulted in a more balanced OSR and, consequently, less sexual selection to diversify hair and eye color.
Such diversification would have begun in western Eurasia no earlier than 20,000 BP, given the uniform black hair and brown eyes of populations east of the ice-age barrier in eastern Eurasia. If the beginning of human history marks the latest end date, we are left with a maximum timeframe of 14,000 years. This is fast evolutionary change for human pigmentation, which elsewhere has responded more slowly to selection by the natural environment. A full range of environments, from the Arctic to the Tropics, has not caused the Amerindians to differentiate in hair, eye, or skin color, despite their being in the Americas for approximately 15,000 years.
5. Diversification of European hair color
The MC1R gene determines hair color by controlling the production of eumelanin (brown and black pigments) and pheomelanin (red and yellow pigments). It is unusually polymorphic in humans, both in its high number of alleles and in its high ratio of nonsynonymous (phenotypically distinct) to synonymous (phenotypically identical) alleles (Box et al., 1997, Flanagan et al., 2000, Harding et al., 2000, Rana et al., 1999 and Rees, 2000). Whereas most genes have more synonymous alleles than nonsynonymous ones, the reverse is true for human MC1R (Rana et al., 1999).
Nonsynonymous MC1R alleles are distributed differently in European and non-European populations: 11 in Europeans, 5 in Asians, and 1 in Africans (Harding et al., 2000, p. 1355). Furthermore, the Asian alleles differ little in their phenotypic effects. Harding et al. (2000) attribute the high MC1R diversity of Europeans to relaxed selection for dark skin outside the tropical zone. This would account for the redhead alleles, which are linked to skin depigmentation, but not for the other alleles. Relaxed selection also fails to explain the low MC1R diversity of non-tropical Asians. Nonetheless, Harding et al. (2000) advance three arguments for relaxed selection, rather than positive selection, to explain the high MC1R diversity of Europeans. The first argument is that relaxed selection has produced a comparable level of diversity at the β-globin locus. Yet β-globin variants clearly have selective value, as indicated by heterozygote advantage and the short time span (less than 5000 years) over which the β-globin polymorphism has evolved (Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1994, pp. 149–152). The second argument is that the ratio of nonsynonymous to synonymous alleles is only 10 to 3 in Eurasia and thus comparable to the ratio of 10 nonsynonymous to 6 synonymous MC1R substitutions that separate humans from chimpanzees. The data in table 1 of their article, however, indicate a ratio of 12 to 3 (2 redhead alleles are excluded because they came from a study that specifically looked for them). In any case, the 10 to 6 ratio separating humans from chimpanzees is hardly a benchmark for neutral selection: Ratios greater than 1 are normally deemed to be evidence of positive selection, and such selection has acted on MC1R in some primate lineages (Mundy & Kelly, 2003). Finally, the third argument against positive selection is that MC1R diversity does not depart significantly from the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, there being neither excess homozygotes nor excess heterozygotes. No such departure, however, would be expected, inasmuch as MC1R heterozygotes exhibit partial effects (Flanagan et al., 2000 and Rees, 2000).
6. Discussion
One might object that sexual selection could not have diversified European hair and eye color because there is no sexual dimorphism in these traits. Had women been selected for a diversity of hair and eye colors, they would now be more diverse in this respect than men are. It should be noted, however, that both hair and eye colors are, at best, weakly sex-linked; hence, selection acting on women should have affected men and women equally until sex-linked alleles had arisen through chance mutations. The original alleles (i.e., the non-sex-linked ones) could then have been selected out, but only if men were somehow disadvantaged by the novel hair and eye colors. For most animals, the disadvantage is an increased risk of predation, which will reduce highly visible colors in the sex that does not need them. For early Europeans, such a disadvantage would have been slight. Even wolves were more likely to be prey than predators (Hoffecker, 2002, pp. 180–183, 225, 241–242).
This being said, some hair and eye colors seem to be sex linked. Blond hair darkens with age more slowly in women than in men (Olivier, 1960, p. 74). Furthermore, prenatal exposure to estrogen, as indicated by digit ratio, appears to be higher in individuals with blond hair or non-brown eyes (Mather et al., unpublished). If a sex difference does indeed exist in these novel hair and eye colors, it seems to be expressed only right after puberty. It was notably absent in the 18-to-38 year olds studied by Mather et al. (unpublished).
Besides diversifying European hair and eye color, sexual selection may have accentuated existing sexual dimorphisms. Several studies have found wider hips, narrower waists, and thicker deposition of subcutaneous fat in women of European descent than in women of other origins (Hrdlička, 1898, Meredith & Spurgeon, 1980 and Nelson & Nelson, 1986). Even before birth, Euro-American fetuses show significantly more sexual dimorphism than do African-American fetuses (Choi & Trotter, 1970). The proximal cause may be lower androgen production than in women of sub-Saharan African descent (Falkner et al., 1999) and higher estrogen production and lower fecal excretion of estrogen than in women of north/east Asian descent (Adlercreutz et al., 1994, Coker et al., 1997, Key et al., 1990, Taioli et al., 1996 and Wang et al., 1991). Prenatal exposure to estrogen, as indicated by digit ratio, may also be higher in European women, albeit with much interpopulation variation (Manning et al., 2000; Manning, J. T. (2003). Personal communication). This variation may reflect a maternal-age effect: digit ratio is higher in Catholic countries like Poland and Spain, where mothers generally bear children in their 20s, than in Germany and Finland, where more mothers bear children in their 30s (Manning et al., 2000).
Sexual selection may have also lightened European skin color. The extreme depigmentation of northern and eastern Europeans deviates markedly from the much weaker north–south gradient in skin color of other human populations (the latter gradient may reflect selection pressures to maintain a critical level of vitamin D synthesis). Yet the geographic extent of this extreme depigmentation does not coincide with a specific pattern of solar radiation: Skies are generally overcast over coastal northwestern Europe and become clearer and typically continental further east. It does coincide, however, with the area where hair and eye color has diversified (Fig. 4). Aside from red hair, the color of the hair and eyes is not genetically linked to skin color (Flanagan et al., 2000 and Sturm et al., 2001). It seems, therefore, that a common selective force has acted simultaneously on skin, hair, and eye color within this geographic area while being absent at similar latitudes in northern Asia and North America (Frost, 1994a and Manning et al., 2004).
Fig. 4. Skin-color depigmentation in Eurasia approximately 500 BP (after Brace, 1973, p. 344, reprinted with permission from Wiley).
If this common selective force were sexual selection, it could have lightened European skin color by acting on an existing sexual dimorphism. Men and women differ in complexion because of differing amounts of melanin and cutaneous blood flow; in short, women are fairer, men browner and ruddier (Edwards & Duntley, 1939, Frost, 1988, Frost, 2005, Hulse, 1967 and Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000). The size of this sex difference is still debated, largely because most studies are poorly controlled for age (girls lighten only after puberty and immediately before are actually darker than boys). Investigators also try to exclude tanning by measuring under the arm, where there is less subcutaneous fat and probably less dimorphism in skin color, given that the lightness of a woman's skin correlates with the thickness of her subcutaneous fat (Mazess, 1967). In any event, sexual selection may have targeted this sex difference, as suggested by a cross-cultural male preference for lighter complexioned women and, conversely, by some evidence of a female preference for darker complexioned men (Aoki, 2002, Feinman & Gill, 1978, Frost, 1988, Frost, 1994b, Frost, 2005 and Van den Berghe & Frost, 1986).
Among ancestral Europeans, such selection, even if acting only on women, would have lightened the complexions of both sexes because most skin-color genes are not sex linked. Nonetheless, some of these genes are; thus, there should have been some selective pressure to make European skin color more sexually dimorphic. Yet skin color actually seems to be less sexually dimorphic in light-skinned populations (Relethford et al., 1985). The reason may be a ceiling effect. As ancestral Europeans approached the phenotypic limit of maximum skin depigmentation, further lightening would have become harder to achieve for women than for men, with the result that sexual selection, although acting primarily on women, lightened men more.
In conclusion, sexual selection may have acted on all three color traits in northern and eastern Europe, with hair and eye color being diversified and skin color lightened. This hypothesis is consistent with the narrow timeframe for the evolution of these traits, their geographic distribution, and the large number of alleles involved.
Acknowledgments
I wish to thank Dr. John Thomas Manning, who independently came to similar conclusions as I did, despite his approaching the question from a different academic perspective and drawing on a different body of evidence. This ‘repeatability of conclusions’ is further support for the arguments presented here.
References
Adlercreutz et al., 1994 H. Adlercreutz, S.L. Gorbach, B.R. Goldin, M.N. Woods, J.T. Dwyer and E. Hämäläinen, Estrogen metabolism and excretion in Oriental and Caucasian Women, Journal of the National Cancer Institute 86 (1994), pp. 1076–1082.
Alexeyev & Gokhman, 1994 V.P. Alexeyev and I.I. Gokhman, Skeletal remains of infants from a burial on the Mal'ta Upper Paleolithic site, Homo 45 (1994), pp. 119–126.
Anderson, 1969 W.W. Anderson, Polymorphism resulting from the mating advantage of rare male genotypes, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 64 (1969), pp. 190–197.
Aoki, 2002 K. Aoki, Sexual selection as a cause of human skin colour variation: Darwin's hypothesis revisited, Annals of Human Biology 29 (2002), pp. 589–608.
Armour et al., 1996 J.A.L. Armour, T. Anttinen, C.A. May, E.E. Vega, A. Sajantila, J.R. Kidd, K.K. Kidd, J. Bertranpetit, S. Paabo and A.J. Jeffreys, Minisatellite diversity supports a recent African origin for modern humans, Nature Genetics 13 (1996), pp. 154–160.
Balikci, 1967 A. Balikci, Female infanticide on the Arctic coast, Man 2 (1967), pp. 615–625.
Beals & Hoijer, 1965 R.L. Beals and H. Hoijer, An introduction to anthropology (3rd ed.), Macmillan, New York (1965).
Binford, 1968 S.R. Binford, A structural comparison of disposal of the dead in the Mousterian and the Upper Paleolithic, Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 24 (1968), pp. 139–151.
Birket-Smith, 1929 K. Birket-Smith, The Caribou Eskimos. Material and social life and their cultural position. In: K. Rasmussen, Editor, Report of the 5th Thule expedition vol. 5, Nordisk Forlag, Copenhagen (1929), pp. 1921–1924.
Blades, 1999a B.S. Blades, Aurignacian settlement patterns in the Vézère valley, Current Anthropology 40 (1999), pp. 712–719.
Blades, 1999b B.S. Blades, Aurignacian lithic economy and early modern human mobility: New perspectives from classic sites in the Vézère valley of France, Journal of Human Evolution 37 (1999), pp. 91–120.
Box et al., 1997 N.F. Box, J.R. Wyeth, L.E. O'Gorman, N.G. Martin and R.A. Sturm, Characterization of melanocyte stimulating hormone receptor variant alleles in twins with red hair, Human Molecular Genetics 6 (1997), pp. 1891–1897.
Brace, 1973 C.L. Brace, A nonracial approach towards the understanding of human diversity. In: C.L. Brace and J. Metress, Editors, Man in evolutionary perspective, Wiley, New York (1973), pp. 341–363.
Brooks, 2002 R. Brooks, Variation in female mate choice within guppy populations: Population divergence, multiple ornaments and the maintenance of polymorphism, Genetica 116 (2002), pp. 343–358.
Butzer, 1964 K.W. Butzer, Environment and archaeology, Aldine, Chicago (1964).
Caramelli et al., 2003 D. Caramelli, C. Laluez-Fox, C. Vernesi, M. Lari, A. Casoli, F. Mallegni, B. Chiarelli, I. Dupanloup, J. Bertranpetit, G. Barbujani and G. Bertorelle, Evidence for a genetic discontinuity between Neanderthals and 24,000-year-old anatomically modern Europeans, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100 (2003), pp. 6593–6597.
Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1994 L.L. Cavalli-Sforza, P. Menozzi and A. Piazza, The history and geography of human genes, Princeton University Press, Princeton (1994).
Choi & Trotter, 1970 S.C. Choi and M.A. Trotter, Statistical study of the multivariate structure and race–sex differences of American White and Negro fetal skeletons, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 33 (1970), pp. 307–312.
Coker et al., 1997 A.L. Coker, M.M. Crane, R.P. Sticca and D.W. Sepkovic, Re: Ethnic differences in estrogen metabolism in healthy women, Journal of the National Cancer Institute 89 (1997), pp. 89–90.
Crawford et al., 1997 M.H. Crawford, J.T. Williams and R. Duggirala, Genetic structure of the indigenous populations of Siberia, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 104 (1997), pp. 177–192.
Dahlberg & Carbonell, 1961 A.A. Dahlberg and V.M. Carbonell, The dentition of the Magdalenian female from Cap Blanc, France, Man 61 (1961), pp. 49–50.
Dickson, 1990 D.B. Dickson, The dawn of belief. Religion in the upper Paleolithic of Southwestern Europe, University of Arizona Press, Tucson (1990).
Dupanloup et al., 2003 I. Dupanloup, L. Pereira, G. Bertorelle, F. Calafell, M.J. Prata, A. Amorim and G. Barbujani, A recent shift from polygyny to monogamy in humans is suggested by the analysis of worldwide Y-chromosome diversity, Journal of Molecular Evolution 57 (2003), pp. 85–97.
Edwards & Duntley, 1939 E.A. Edwards and S.Q. Duntley, The pigments and color of living human skin, American Journal of Anatomy 65 (1939), pp. 1–33.
Eiberg & Mohr, 1987 H. Eiberg and J. Mohr, Major genes of eye color and hair color linked to LU and SE, Clinical Genetics 31 (1987), pp. 186–191.
Ellis, 1928 H. Ellis, Studies in the psychology of sex, Sexual selection in man vol. IV, F.A. Davis Company, Philadelphia (1928).
Endler, 1980 J.A. Endler, Natural selection on color patterns in Poecilia reticulata, Evolution 34 (1980), pp. 76–91.
Endler, 1991 J.A. Endler, Variation in the appearance of guppy color patterns to guppies and their predators under different visual conditions, Vision Research 31 (1991), pp. 587–608.
Falkner et al., 1999 B. Falkner, K. Sherif, A. Sumner and H. Kushner, Hyperinsulinism and sex hormones in young adult African Americans, Metabolism, Clinical and Experimental 48 (1999), pp. 107–112.
Farr, 1980 J.A. Farr, Social behavior patterns as determinants of reproductive success in the guppy Poecilia reticulata Peters (Pisces: Poeciliidae), Behaviour 74 (1980), pp. 38–91.
Feinman & Gill, 1978 S. Feinman and G.W. Gill, Sex differences in physical attractiveness preferences, Journal of Social Psychology 105 (1978), pp. 43–52.
Flanagan et al., 2000 N. Flanagan, E. Healy, A. Ray, S. Philips, C. Todd, I.J. Jackson, M.A. Birch-Machin and J.L. Rees, Pleiotropic effects of the melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R) gene on human pigmentation, Human Molecular Genetics 9 (2000), pp. 2531–2537.
Formicola & Giannecchini, 1999 V. Formicola and M. Giannecchini, Evolutionary trends of stature in upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europe, Journal of Human Evolution 36 (1999), pp. 319–333.
Fortescue, 1998 M.D. Fortescue, Language relations across Bering strait. Reappraising the archaeological and linguistic evidence, Cassell, London (1998).
Frost, 1988 P. Frost, Human skin color: A possible relationship between its sexual dimorphism and its social perception, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 32 (1988), pp. 38–58.
Frost, 1994a P. Frost, Geographic distribution of human skin colour: A selective compromise between natural selection and sexual selection?, Human Evolution 9 (1994), pp. 141–153.
Frost, 1994b P. Frost, Preference for darker faces in photographs at different phases of the menstrual cycle: Preliminary assessment of evidence for a hormonal relationship, Perceptual and Motor Skills 79 (1994), pp. 507–514.
Frost, 2005 P. Frost, Fair women, dark men. The forgotten roots of color prejudice, Cybereditions, Christchurch, New Zealand (2005).
Goebel, 1999 T. Goebel, Pleistocene human colonization of Siberia and peopling of the Americas: An ecological approach, Evolutionary Anthropology 8 (1999), pp. 208–227.
Grant et al., 1974 B. Grant, A. Snyder and S.F. Glessner, Frequency-dependent mate selection in Mormoniella vitripennis, Evolution 28 (1974), pp. 259–264.
Hahn, 1987 J. Hahn, Aurignacian and Gravettian settlement patterns in Central Europe. In: O. Soffer, Editor, The Pleistocene old world, Plenum, New York (1987), pp. 251–261.
Hamilton & Zuk, 1982 W.D. Hamilton and M. Zuk, Heritable true fitness and bright birds: A role for parasites?, Science 218 (1982), pp. 384–386.
Harding et al., 2000 R.M. Harding, E. Healy, A.J. Ray, N.S. Ellis, N. Flanagan, C. Todd, C. Dixon, A. Sajantila, I.J. Jackson, M.A. Birch-Machin and J.L. Rees, Evidence for variable selective pressures at MC1R, American Journal of Human Genetics 66 (2000), pp. 1351–1361.
Harrold, 1980 F.B. Harrold, A comparative analysis of Eurasian Paleolithic burials, World Archaeology 12 (1980), pp. 195–211.
Haynes, 1980 C.V. Haynes, The Clovis culture, Canadian Journal of Anthropology 1 (1980), pp. 115–121.
Haynes, 1982 C.V. Haynes, Were Clovis progenitors in Beringia?. In: D.M. Hopkins, Editor, Paleoecology of Beringia, Academic Press, New York (1982), pp. 383–398.
Hodge, ([1905]1959) F.W. Hodge, Handbook of American Indians north of Mexico. Part 1, Pageant, New York ([1905]1959).
Hoffecker, 2002 J.F. Hoffecker, Desolate landscapes. Ice-age settlement in Eastern Europe, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick (2002).
Howell, 1979 N. Howell, Demography of the Dobe !Kung, Academic Press, New York (1979).
Hrdlička, 1898 A. Hrdlička, Physical differences between white and colored children, American Anthropologist 11 (1898), pp. 347–350.
Hughes et al., 1999 K.A. Hughes, L. Du, F.H. Rodd and D.N. Reznick, Familiarity leads to female mate preference for novel males in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata, Animal Behaviour 58 (1999), pp. 907–916.
Hulse, 1967 F.S. Hulse, Selection for skin color among the Japanese, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 27 (1967), pp. 143–156.
Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000 N.G. Jablonski and G. Chaplin, The evolution of human skin coloration, Journal of Human Evolution 39 (2000), pp. 57–106.
Kelly, 1955 R.L. Kelly, The foraging spectrum. Diversity in hunter-gatherer lifeways, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington (1955).
Key et al., 1990 T.J.A. Key, J. Chen, D.Y. Wang, M.C. Pike and J. Boreham, Sex hormones in women in rural China and in Britain, British Journal of Cancer 62 (1990), pp. 631–636.
Kirkpatrick, 1987 M. Kirkpatrick, Sexual selection by female choice in polygynous animals, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 18 (1987), pp. 43–70.
Kjellström, 1973 R. Kjellström, Eskimo marriage. An account of traditional Eskimo courtship and marriage, Nordiska Museets Handlingar 80, Lund (1973).
Kozlowski & Sachse-Kozlowska, 1995 S.K. Kozlowski and E. Sachse-Kozlowska, Magdalenian family from the Maszycka Cave, Jahrbuch der Römisch Germanischen Zentral Museums Mainz 40 (1995), pp. 115–205.
Krings et al., 1999 M. Krings, H. Geisert, R.W. Schmitz, H. Krainitzki and S. Pääbo, DNA sequence of the mitochondrial hypervariable region II from the Neanderthal type specimen, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 96 (1999), pp. 5581–5585.
Krupnik, 1985 I.I. Krupnik, The male–female ratio in certain traditional populations of the Siberian Arctic, Inuit Studies 9 (1985), pp. 115–140.
Lank, 2002 D.B. Lank, Diverse processes maintain plumage polymorphisms in birds, Journal of Avian Biology 33 (2002), pp. 327–330.
Lummaa et al., 1998 V. Lummaa, J. Merila and A. Kause, Adaptive sex ratio variation in pre-industrial human (Homo sapiens) populations?, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B 265 (1998), pp. 563–568.
Mallegni & Fabbri, 1995 F. Mallegni and P.F. Fabbri, The human skeletal remains from the Upper Paleolithic burials found in Romito Cave (Papasidero, Cosenza, Italy), Bulletin et Mémoires de la Société d'Anthropologie de Paris, n.s 7 (1995), pp. 99–137.
Manning, 1979 A. Manning, An introduction to animal behaviour, Edward Arnold, London (1979).
Manning et al., 2000 J.T. Manning, L. Barley, I. Lewis-Jones, J. Walton, R.L. Trivers, R. Thornhill, D. Singh, P. Rhode, T. Bereckzei, P. Henzi, M. Soler and A. Sved, The 2nd to 4th digit ratio, sexual dimorphism, population differences and reproductive success: Evidence for sexually antagonistic genes, Evolution and Human Behavior 21 (2000), pp. 163–183.
Manning et al., 2004 J.T. Manning, P.E. Bundred and F.M. Mather, Second to fourth digit ratio, sexual selection, and skin colour, Evolution and Human Behavior 25 (2004), pp. 38–50.
Martin, 1974 M.K. Martin, The foraging adaptation—Uniformity or diversity?, Addison-Wesley Module in anthropology 56, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass (1974).
Mason et al., 1994 S.L.R. Mason, J.G. Hather and G.C. Hillman, Preliminary investigation of the plant macro-remains from Dolní Věstonice II, and its implications for the role of plant foods in Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Europe, Antiquity 68 (1994), pp. 48–57.
Mather et al., unpublished Mather, F., Manning, J.T., Bundred, P.E. (unpublished). 2nd to 4th digit ratio, hair and eye colour in Caucasians: Evidence for blond hair as a correlate of high prenatal oestrogen.
Mazess, 1967 R.B. Mazess, Skin color in Bahamian Negroes, Human Biology 39 (1967), pp. 145–154.
Mellars, 1985 P.A. Mellars, The ecological basis of social complexity in the Upper Paleolithic of Southwestern France. In: T.D. Price and J.A. Brown, Editors, Prehistoric hunter-gatherers. The emergence of cultural complexity, Academic Press, Orlando (1985), pp. 271–297.
Meredith & Spurgeon, 1980 H.V. Meredith and J.H. Spurgeon, Somatic comparisons at age 9 years for South Carolina White Girls and girls of other ethnic groups, Human Biology 52 (1980), pp. 401–411.
Muggleton, 1979 J. Muggleton, Non-random mating in wild populations of polymorphic Adalia Bipunctata, Heredity 42 (1979), pp. 57–65.
Mundy & Kelly, 2003 N.I. Mundy and J. Kelly, Evolution of a pigmentation gene, the melanocortin-1 receptor, in primates, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 121 (2003), pp. 67–80.
Nelson & Nelson, 1986 J.K. Nelson and K.R. Nelson, Skinfold profiles of Black and White boys and girls ages 11–13, Human Biology 58 (1986), pp. 379–390.
Nordenskiold, 1882 A.E. Nordenskiold, The voyage of the Vega round Asia and Europe, with a historical review of previous journeys along the north coast of the old world, Macmillan & Co., New York (1882).
Remaining references in comments.
Posted by J Richards on Monday, February 27, 2006 at 11:26 PM in Anthropology, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Race realism
Comments (859) | Tell a friend
Comments:
Page 1 of 9 pages 1 2 3 > Last »
Posted by J Richards on February 28, 2006, 12:05 AM | #
Remaining references:
Olivier, 1960 U. Olivier, Pratique anthropologique, Vigot Frères, Paris (1960).
Ovchinnikov et al., 2000 I.V. Ovchinnikov, A. Götherström, G.P. Romanova, V.M. Kharitonov, K. Lidén and W. Goodwin, Molecular analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the Northern Caucasus, Nature 404 (2000), pp. 490–493.
Pitulko et al., 2004 V.V. Pitulko, P.A. Nikolsky, E.Y. Girya, A.E. Basilyan, V.E. Tumskoy, S.A. Koulakov, S.N. Astakhov, E.Y. Pavlova and M.A. Anisimov, The Yana RHS site: Humans in the Arctic before the last glacial maximum, Science 303 (2004), pp. 52–56.
Rana et al., 1999 B.K. Rana, D. Hewett-Emmett, L. Jin, B.H.-J. Chang, N. Sambuughin, M. Lin, S. Watkins, M. Bamshad, L.B. Jorde, M. Ramsay, T. Jenkins and W.-H. Li, High polymorphism at the human melanocortin 1 receptor locus, Genetics 151 (1999), pp. 1547–1557.
Riches, 1974 D. Riches, The Netsilik Eskimo: A special case of selective female infanticide, Ethnology 13 (1974), pp. 351–361.
Rees, 2000 J.L. Rees, The melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R): More than just red hair, Pigment Cell Research 13 (2000), pp. 135–140.
Relethford et al., 1985 J.H. Relethford, F.C. Lees and P.J. Byard, Sex and age variation in the skin color of Irish children, Current Anthropology 26 (1985), pp. 396–397.
Reich et al., 2001 D.E. Reich, M. Cargill, S. Bolk, J. Ireland, P.C. Sabeti, D.J. Richter, T. Lavery, R. Kouyoumjian, S.F. Farhadian, R. Ward and E.S. Lander, Linkage disequilibrium in the human genome, Nature 411 (2001), pp. 199–204.
Richards et al., 2000 M.P. Richards, R.E.M. Hedges, R. Jacobi, A. Current and C. Stringer, Gough’s cave and sun hole cave human stable isotope values indicate a high animal protein diet in the British Upper Paleolithic, Journal of Archaeological Science 27 (2000), pp. 1–3.
Richards et al., 2001 M.P. Richards, P.B. Pettitt, M.C. Stiner and E. Trinkaus, Stable isotope evidence for increasing dietary breadth in the European Mid-Upper Paleolithic, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98 (2001), pp. 6528–6532.
Riedl, 1990 B.I.M. Riedl, Morphological and metrical characteristics of the male and female Leitmotif in mate-selection and its impact on the selection of the spouse, Homo 41 (1990), pp. 72–85.
Rogers, 1986 R.A. Rogers, Language, human subspeciation, and ice age barriers in Northern Siberia, Canadian Journal of Anthropology 5 (1986), pp. 11–22.
Santos et al., 1999 F.R. Santos, A. Pandya, C. Tyler-Smith, S.D.J. Pena, M. Schanfield, W.R. Leonard, L. Osipova, M.H. Crawford and R.J. Mitchell, The Central Siberian origin for Native American Y chromosomes, American Journal of Human Genetics 64 (1999), pp. 619–628.
Scheffel, 1984 D. Scheffel, From polygyny to cousin marriage? Acculturation and marriage in 19th century Labrador Inuit society, Inuit Studies 8 (1984), pp. 61–75.
Scheffer, 1704 J. Scheffer, The history of Lapland: Containing a geographical description, and a natural history of that country; with an account of the inhabitants, their original, religion, customs, habits, marriages, conjurations, employments, etc., Tho. Newborough & R. Parker, London (1704).
Schrire & Steiger, 1974 C. Schrire and W.L. Steiger, A matter of life and death: An investigation into the practice of female infanticide in the Arctic, Man 9 (1974), pp. 161–184.
Schweder, 1994 B.I.M. Schweder, The impact of the face on long-term human relationships, Homo 45 (1994), pp. 74–93.
Scozzari et al., 1997 R. Scozzari, F. Cruciani, P. Malaspina, P. Santolamazza, B.M. Ciminelli, A. Torroni, D. Modiano, D.C. Wallace, K.K. Kidd, A. Olckers, P. Moral, L. Terrenato, N. Akar, R. Qamar, A. Mansoor, S.Q. Mehdi, G. Meloni, G. Vona, D.E.C. Cole, W.W. Cai and A. Novelletto, Differential structuring of human populations for homologous X and Y microsatellite loci, American Journal of Human Genetics 61 (1997), pp. 719–733.
Seccombe, 1992 W. Seccombe, A millennium of family change, Verso, London (1992).
Sherman, 1922 C.P. Sherman, Roman law in the modern world, New Haven Law Book Co, New Haven (1922).
Short, 1975 G.B. Short, Iris pigmentation and phototopic visual acuity: A preliminary study, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 43 (1975), pp. 425–434.
Simchuk, 2001 A.P. Simchuk, Frequency-dependent sexual selection in a natural population of oak leafroller moth (Tortrix viridana L.), Tsitologiya i Genetika 35 (2001), pp. 25–29.
Sinnock, 1970 P. Sinnock, Frequency dependence and mating behavior in Tribolium castaneum, American Naturalist 104 (1970), pp. 469–476.
Smith & Smith, 1994 E.A Smith and S.A. Smith, Inuit sex–ratio variation, Current Anthropology 35 (1994), pp. 595–624.
Soffer, 1985 O. Soffer, Patterns of intensification as seen from the Upper Paleolithic of the Central Russian Plain. In: T.D. Price and J.A. Brown, Editors, Prehistoric hunter-gatherers. The emergence of cultural complexity, Academic Press, Orlando (1985), pp. 235–269.
Soffer et al., 1993 O. Soffer, P. Vandiver, B. Klima and J. Svoboda, The pyrotechnology of performance art: Moravian venuses and wolverines. In: H. Knecht, A. Pike-Tay and R. White, Editors, Before Lascaux. The complex record of the early upper Paleolithic, CRC Press, Boca Raton (1993), pp. 259–275.
Stepanov & Puzyrev, 2000 V.A. Stepanov and V.P. Puzyrev, Evolution of Y-chromosome haplotypes in populations of North Eurasia, American Journal of Human Genetics 67 (2000), p. 220.
Sturm et al., 2001 R.A. Sturm, R.D. Teasdale and N.F. Box, Human pigmentation genes: Identification, structure and consequences of polymorphic variation, Gene 277 (2001), pp. 49–62.
Tacitus, 1970 C. Tacitus, Germania Transl. by M. Hutton. Loeb Classical library, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1970).
Taioli et al., 1996 E. Taioli, S.J. Garte, J. Trachman, S. Garbers, D.W. Sepkovic, M.P. Osborne, S. Mehl and H.L. Bradlow, Ethnic differences in estrogen metabolism in healthy women, Journal of the National Cancer Institute 88 (1996), p. 617.
Templeton, 2002 A.R. Templeton, Out of Africa again and again, Nature 416 (2002), pp. 45–51.
Thelen, 1983 T.H. Thelen, Minority type human mate preference, Social Biology 30 (1983), pp. 162–180.
Torroni et al., 1990 A. Torroni, O. Semino, R. Scozzari, G. Sirugo, G. Spedini, N. Abbas and M. Fellous et al., Y-chromosome DNA polymorphisms in human populations: Differences between Caucasoids and Africans detected by 49a and 49f probes, Annals of Human Genetics 54 (1990), pp. 287–296.
Tyrrell & Chamberlain, 1998 A.J. Tyrrell and A.T. Chamberlain, Non-metric trait evidence for modern human affinities and the distinctiveness of Neanderthals, Journal of Human Evolution 34 (1998), pp. 549–554.
Vallois, 1961 H.V. Vallois, The social life of early man: The evidence of skeletons, Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 31 (1961), pp. 214–235.
Van den Berghe & Frost, 1986 P.L. Van den Berghe and P. Frost, Skin color preference, sexual dimorphism and sexual selection: A case of gene-culture co-evolution?, Ethnic and Racial Studies 9 (1986), pp. 87–113.
Vatin, 1970 C. Vatin, Recherches sur le mariage et la condition de la femme mariée à l’époque hellénistique, Éditions E. de Boccard, Paris (1970).
Wang et al., 1991 D.Y. Wang, T.J.A. Key, M.C. Pike, J. Boreham and J. Chen, Serum hormone levels in British and rural Chinese females, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 18 (1991), pp. S41–S45.
Weyer, 1932 E.M. Weyer, The Eskimos. Their environment and folkways, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT (1932).
Zerjal et al., 1997 T. Zerjal, B. Dashnyam, A. Pandya, M. Kayser, L. Roewer, F.R. Santos, W. Scheifenhövel, N. Fretwell, M.A. Jobling, S. Harihara, K. Shimizu, D. Semjidmaa, A. Sajantila, P. Salo, M.H. Crawford, E.K. Ginter, O.V. Evgrafov and C. Tyler-Smith, Genetic relationships of Asians and Northern Europeans, revealed by Y-chromosomal DNA analysis, American Journal of Human Genetics 60 (1997), pp. 1174–1183.
Posted by friedrich braun on February 28, 2006, 12:19 AM | #
The Times of London has a piece on the study.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...058688,00.html
A study by the World Health Organisation found that natural blonds are likely to be extinct within 200 years because there are too few people carrying the blond gene. According to the WHO study, the last natural blond is likely to be born in Finland during 2202.
This is actually a hoax. The WHO has never done any such study. Very strange that they’re repeating an error that’s been debunked for four years now. Kind of makes me raise my eyebrows about the rest of the article. I expect better from the Times of London, somehow.
Posted by friedrich braun on February 28, 2006, 12:20 AM | #
here’s a link that works:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2058688,00.html
Posted by Nick Tamiroff on February 28, 2006, 04:39 AM | #
TO J.RICHARDS-Fascinating post;I had to print it out in order to throughly digest it;your references alone will keep me going for another 10 years! Thanks-I appreciate all the additional time.LOL
Posted by Andrew on February 28, 2006, 05:41 AM | #
I over here, I have Blond hair and blue eyes, I will save us, ha. 
My wife might have some difficulty accepting it, but in the name of survival, I will help.
Posted by karlmagnus on February 28, 2006, 01:36 PM | #
If that’s Nefertiti it’s a Ptolemaic representation of her, I think, and thus 1000 years from being contemporary. Of course cuteness is a survival gene, and so’s attractive but unusual coloring. As for what’s more attractive, personally I find the current blonde overmuscled US ideal pretty unappealing.
Posted by J Richards on February 28, 2006, 03:21 PM | #
Update:
Peter Frost has pointed out that his mention of at least 7 alleles for hair color among Europeans is outdated. There are 30 such alleles that exceed the 1% threshold among Europeans:
Makova K, Norton H. Worldwide polymorphism at the MC1R locus and normal pigmentation variation in humans. Peptides. 2005 Oct;26(10):1901-8.
The evidence in the paper cited above makes Frost’s case much stronger since random genetic drift is highly unlikely to have been responsible for the accumulation of so much genetic diversity in a short amount of time.
I would like to add that the leftist proponents of diversity are probably not too keen on preserving this kind of diversity.
Posted by J Richards on February 28, 2006, 03:23 PM | #
Mark,
Sexual debauchery is only part of the package, and some of it is simply a side effect of greater sexual freedom that does not lead to better looking children.
Since you mention Tacitus, note that the upper class in ancient Rome consisted of a Northern population (the Latini) that had moved South to Italy. Sexual freedom has not always remained constant in Northern Europe, and one could probably find some period where a local population punished adultery severely, but the long-term trend is clear. For instance, the Nordic fairy tale of Rapunzel is derived from a Norse practice whereby young adults were allowed sexual liaisons prior to marriage, which would often follow the woman getting pregnant; this way, the parents of the bride could be reasonably sure that the groom is virile. Presently, the majority of children in Sweden are born out of wedlock, but they are typically raised by their cohabiting biological parents, who typically marry, often after having a child together.
Regarding your comment that allowing women greater sexual promiscuity would not necessarily create more handsome children as women often select for resources rather than looks, it is of course true that women emphasize resources much more than looks, but if they have sufficient sexual freedom, a number of them will marry a rich man but secretly have their children fathered by an unrelated attractive man. This way, they will get the best of both worlds: a good looking man to father their children and a resource-rich man to ensure that the children are well taken care of. Now, this behavior is obviously morally unacceptable, but it cannot be [naturally] beaten when it comes to producing attractive children.
The third point that you mention is relevant, but focuses on an improvement of looks resulting from rich men choosing the most attractive women. Since women are the ones who give birth, the crucial sexual freedom is the one that is available to women not what is available to men. Arabs have had a polygynous system for quite a while, and it is a boon to upper class men, but their women do not have the sexual freedom to select their own mates, let alone commit adultery.
You raise a hypothetical scenario where there is no stigma attached to extra-marital sex. Well, there is always some level of stigma attached to extra-marital sex except for small sub-groups such as some tribals where such behavior may be a requisite or swingers in the West. The point is not that extra-marital sex is required to be socially acceptable for rapidly evolving better looks; all that is needed is sufficient tolerance of extra-marital sex to allow women to find better looking men to father their children than their husbands.
Posted by J Richards on February 28, 2006, 03:25 PM | #
Comment on John Hawks:
John Hawks did not correct the Times for calling Marilyn Monroe, Brigitte Bardot, Sharon Stone and Scarlett Johansson blondes. None of these women happen(ed) to have blonde hair as adults.
Fred Scrooby,
Your hypothesis relating the selection of blondness to the cloud cover invokes natural selection. Well, the cloud cover should strongly influence skin color. The greatest proportion of pale-skinned whites are found in Northwestern Europe (e.g., the Irish), but the Irish have a much lower prevalence of blond hair compared to the Swedes, who have fewer very pale-skinned people than the Irish. So, think again. Light skin but not light hair is relevant to Vitamin D synthesis from sunlight. One thing is very clear: it is not random genetic drift; some type of strong selection is indicated, and it does not appear to be natural selection.
Posted by James Bowery on February 28, 2006, 07:10 PM | #
It may be too late to point out I blogged a similar theory here at MR some time ago titled: Of Penguins, Paleolithic Gender Ratio and White Fertility and that there has been other prior support for this theory.
Posted by Alex Zeka on February 28, 2006, 07:38 PM | #
Mark R., that’s unworthy of you. You’re falling into the liberal fallacy, and failing to distinguish between freedom and debauchery. Adultery is not sexual freedom: it’s failing to keep one’s promises and refusing to take responsibility for one’s decisions.
The ability to freely choose one’s partner would result in breeding for attractiveness. Easy adultery (and it’s legalised version, no fault divorce) and unfaithfullness reduce the point of finding an attractive mate, as they could be easily taken away from you.
Real sexual freedom (and not ersatz “volya") means taking the consequences of your choices. After all, every other sort of freedom does.
Remember and “svoboda” and “volya”, the two words that will unlock the hitherto unfathomable depths of liberal thought.
Posted by Alex Zeka on February 28, 2006, 07:41 PM | #
Add a 
to the last line, to show that I’m being mock patronising. And remove the first and.
Posted by James Bowery on February 28, 2006, 08:58 PM | #
To emphasize blonde promiscuity resulting from an oversupply of females during the environment of evolutionary adaptation is to miss the profoundly relevant condition of males of northern ancestry: a relative lack of sexual competition.
It is genocide to introduce men adapted to stronger sexual competition to the societies of northern Europeans.
Posted by Mark Richardson on February 28, 2006, 09:12 PM | #
Alex, I wasn’t attempting to define a true sexual freedom. I was replying to J Richard’s thesis, in which a greater sexual freedom (call it “latitude” if you want to), including women committing adultery by marrying rich men but having affairs with more handsome men, produces more attractive children.
J Richard’s reply was reasoned, but I still think we are in the dark as to whether the northern populations were stricter or more lax in their sexual morality. I don’t think looking at the current situation helps, as what the Scandinavians are doing now is a product of advanced social democracy. For hundreds of years before this very different conditions obtained under the influence of Lutheranism.
(Note: I doubt if the single mother’s benefit existed ten thousand years ago. A woman who had a child without securing the protection of the father through marriage would have risked a great deal in those times.)
I’ve read quite a bit of the pre-Christian history of northern Europe, and I don’t think there’s sufficient evidence to make definitive statements. I’ve mentioned Tacitus, J Richards a fairy tale. It’s not enough. In the four or five Norse sagas I’ve read, there’s little sense of sexual latitude (the sagas often deal with pre-Christian history, though they were written in the early Christian era).
Posted by JW Holliday on February 28, 2006, 09:29 PM | #
Three points:-
1. In KMacD’s SAID, we read: “20. As discussed in PTSDA (Ch. 8), one theory of the evolution of recessive genes in northern Caucasian populations is Salter’s (1996) “blank slate hypothesis” in which recessive genes act as an individualist anti-cuckoldry mechanism. Because of the commonness among the “Aryans” of recessive genes affecting physical appearance, the offspring of Jews and non-Jews in Germany therefore would tend to resemble the Jewish partner, thus leading to beliefs on both sides of the “indelibility” of the Jewish character.”
Thus, Salter has touched on this issue in the past.
2. If South Asians wish to consider their women and their morality as superior, that’s fine with me, as long as these peoples continue living in their South Asian homelands. They are not the problem. The following intelligent, thoughtful, articulate, and “Popperian” quote by Razib, from his website, does illustrate a problem with the South Asian diaspora:-
“i read in the economist that one out of four people in swedish are non-swedish ethnically. what the fuck??? where are my mischlinge kids going to get their supply of leggy-light-haired hotties?”
3. Er … BigBoobDreams.Com????? Another pictorial source may be preferred.
Posted by Zach on March 01, 2006, 04:07 AM | #
“To emphasize blonde promiscuity resulting from an oversupply of females during the environment of evolutionary adaptation is to miss the profoundly relevant condition of males of northern ancestry: a relative lack of sexual competition.
It is genocide to introduce men adapted to stronger sexual competition to the societies of northern Europeans.”
Interesting point, though I am not sure I would take the last bit too far; I think we can still be very competitive when we want to be. However the idea that we focus our competition primarily on resources, rather than women, is very interesting. Perhaps this partly explains why we have been so willing to fall for consumer capitalism and globalism over and above all else.
Of course, without wealth and resource redistribution, the issue of reproductive success would not be such a problem.
Posted by James Bowery on March 01, 2006, 09:27 AM | #
Actually, Zach, I think the northern tradition of Holmganga—formal combat between individual males to the death—may have arisen in response to the combination of:
1) A tendency toward sexual reserve.
2) Rising availability of calories due to agriculture.
Where it failed to provide the insulation required, mass warfare tended to take its place as a means of culling the male population.
Genocide of the competing males is the ultimate resort when both formal single combat and mass warfare have been successfully suppressed by them.
Posted by J Richards on March 01, 2006, 10:32 PM | #
John,
Posting the bust of a North African woman does not undermine any argument on this page. At your home page, I haven’t seen very many pictures of North African or Southern European women, and it is easy to guess what kind of women you think look best.
James,
White males need not fear being outcompeted by non-white males when it comes to attracting the favors of white women. Most white women know better than to entertain non-white males. The problem is that unattractive white women, whom most white males wouldn’t have anything to do with, happen to be often better looking than most non-white women, and are sought after by a number of non-white males. This sets the stage for gradual creeping of non-white genetics into the white gene pool.
Speaking of Holmganga, I am sure that you will find equivalent behavior in several other cultures, irrespective of the sexuality of the population. Fighting to settle disputes is very common in human history.
JW,
I wish bigboobdreams.com was not stamped on one of the pictures above, but the contrast between the waist-hip region of the white woman and that of the “most beautiful woman in the world.” i.e., Miss World 1994 Aishwarya Rai is striking and needs to be shown. If Hindus are not convinced, I will find other pictures without anything offensive stamped on them.
Peter Frost’s sexual selection hypothesis is a much more reasonable account than the anti-cuckoldry mechanism proposed by Salter. After all, in even the blondest of regions, such as Southern Sweden, you do have a white minority with dark hair, and some of the light-haired people are light brown rather than some shade of blond. Also, during the time period of intense sexual selection implicated by the molecular evidence, it is unlikely that the forebears of present-day Northern Europeans encountered a phenotypically very different population whose males were in a position to attract the favors of Nordic women.
Posted by John Ray on March 01, 2006, 11:03 PM | #
Scandinavian skin colour has been rather misrepresented above. Given much exposure to the sun, Scandinavians rapidly tan to a beautiful golden brown. We see it Scandinavian tourists here in Northern Oz all the time.
It is the Irish who are almost totally depigmented. Those of us unfortunates with Irish genes for skin-colour are more likely to go red than brown. And the sun gives us skin cancer at a huge rate.
The whole theory seems implausible to me. I see loss of pigmentation as a destructive mutation that could survive only in a very cloudy climate. Nobody would want to live in the peri-Baltic or Western Ireland who had the choice of warmer and more fertile climes
Posted by J Richards on March 02, 2006, 03:49 AM | #
John,
In my reply to Fred Scrooby, I have already pointed out that Scandinavians are not as pale-skinned as the Irish, though they are blonder. Contrary to your interpretation, this strengthens Peter Frost’s case because it argues against the notion that natural selection is responsible for across-the-board depigmentation. Whereas Peter Frost has mentioned the more feminine appearance of white women, he has probably thought it best to refrain from mentioning the finer facial features of Scandinavians compared to the Irish, which once again reflects strong sexual selection. It is difficult to imagine any advantage of finer facial features from the standpoint of natural selection.
Posted by JW Holliday on March 02, 2006, 07:21 AM | #
Nerfititi’s ethnic origin is a matter of some debate. Even is she was of the Egyptian royal family, that family had a history of ethnic outmarriage (similar to the modern European dynasties) and of course one cannot assume that the ancient and modern peoples of Egypt are exactly the same in any case.
A deeper issue is whether it is necessary to attempt to placate the “genes are mystical” crowd and justify the pursuit of ethnic interests based upon the female preferences of JJR, David B. or whomever. Every group has an interest in their own genetic continuity/expansion regardless of what anyone else thinks of their characteristics - or even what they may so think.
I still maintain that the “bigboobdreams” - particularly after the GNXP/porno link problem - is not the best idea.
Posted by SD on March 02, 2006, 12:25 PM | #
I think by racially mixing people we rarely get a more attractive population. Indeed most mixed children I have seen tend to look hideous. Only a small minority tend to be attractive as in those lucky few cases the genes for looks have matched well (but there could be mismatches for other traits). As Anthony Ludovici pointed out many years ago in his book, Choice of a Mate (http://www.anthonymludovici.com/cm_int.htm), marriage between like is very necessary for good health, character and appearance of children. Most of the attractive racially mixed people I have come across among commoners tend to be Nordic/European-Mongoloid mixes. But in both cases the original races tend to be quite attractive in the first place. I have even come across cases when both the parents one Mongoloid and the other Nordic are attractive specimen of their subspecies, the mixed children tend to come out unattractive due to mismatch in features.
South Asians and to a lesser extent people from the Middle-East and South East Asia are heavily mixed racially. As mentioned above in the original post, all the primary races, Negroid, Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Australoid have mixed in India to form the so called mixed South Asian race. This has led to the large majority of the population having ugly mismatched features. Not only that, but they also tend to have unhealthy looking misshapen bodies. Only the lucky minority where the mixing has been perfect do we see some attractiveness.
I was wondering if the poor performance of the brown belt from Arabia all the way to Indonesia in Olympic like sports be due to this basic mismatch inherent in these populations. Could it also be possible that the overall poor health among these populations (Indians and Pakistanis have extremely high mortality due to diabetes, heart failures etc.. compared to a Chinese or a German) be due to the inherent mismatches as well. Indeed Mr. Ludovici did stress that for children to beget healthy vigorous bodies like should marry like as far as their parents are concerned. Indeed he even disapproved of peoples in the various parts of Britain marrying each other. In the case of intermarriage between people from different continental subspecies the problems might be far more severe indeed. I have also noticed that the stray dogs in my country of origin (who are a result of mixing of many breeds) were uglier and unhealthier than pure breeds or subspecies of canines.
Besides if you are wondering, I am Hindu myself of the warrior Ksatriya chaste (No.2 after the Brahmins) from Bengal. As Rajib had pointed out earlier, it is common for Indian families to have family members with completely different phenotypes in looks. My Mom’s Father looked like a Chinese actor (whose name I cannot recall). My mum’s brother has green eyes. My Fathers father looked like an Englishman but was a bit dark. My father has strong Caucasian looks as well. His sister (my auntie) has brownish/blondish hair.
Posted by J Richards on March 02, 2006, 05:34 PM | #
SD,
Your ancestry is hardly relevant to your comment, but since you have mentioned it, I appreciate your looking at the matter in an objective manner and seeing it for what it is, unlike your co-ethnics over at gnxp.com. I have no problems with South Asians who are not hostile to whites and intelligent enough to function well in Western societies.
On some counts, upper caste Hindus are in a more precarious situation in India than whites are in the West. To start with, they are a small minority in India, living among a great majority that resents upper caste people. A Hindu acquaintance of mine told me about the horrible affirmative action system in India for the low caste and untouchable groups, which is much worse than its counterpart in the U.S. He also told me that whereas the West focuses on discrimination against the untouchables, it largely ignores reverse discrimination, which started from Independence [from the British] onward, and includes untouchables physically attacking upper caste people.
Anyway, to address your points, I will start from Sports. Outstanding athletes usually come from specific ethnic groups, depending on the sport, quite often because the physical requirements for excellence in the sport favor a particular ethnic group. Therefore, with the kind of race mixing in India, Indians will naturally be underrepresented among outstanding athletes since they have mostly lost the extreme physical traits that are a requisite for outstanding athletic performance in most sports. Some of this loss of athletic ability can also be blamed upon a weakened physical constitution resulting from race mixing. The high rates of major diseases such as you mention among South Asians are most likely partly related to race mixing. I have previously addressed data from a random, population-based study showing increased health problems resulting from race mixing, which largely appears to be related to biology.
Regarding your comments about the greater odds of increased unattractiveness among mixed-race people compared to enhanced attractiveness, you have related this to a mismatch of features. This is a crude way of stating what has just now begun to be documented in the scientific literature. The more technical term for the consequences of a mismatch is “loss of morphological integration,” and a new study that will be shortly published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology is among the first to show loss of morphological integration resulting from the mixing of major races. You can download the pdf of this study here. The paper is not very intelligible for laypersons, but I will address this study in a future post at MR.
Posted by James Bowery on March 02, 2006, 07:01 PM | #
J Richards writes: Speaking of Holmganga, I am sure that you will find equivalent behavior in several other cultures, irrespective of the sexuality of the population. Fighting to settle disputes is very common in human history.
Whoa there guy…
It’s a long way from formalized laws for single combat to some general notion of “fighting to settle disputes”!
Blood feud and war are “fighting to settle disputes”. A couple of guys going at each other, which is what animals frequently do, is also “fighting to settle disputes”.
I have looked into this in some depth and haven’t been able to find, outside of the pre-Christian northern European tradition, formalized rules for dispute resolution where single combat is the appeal of last resort for dispute processing. Perhaps I missed somethng among the Inuit, or other circumpolar cultures but I would be most interseted in finding evidence of such in other cultures.
Posted by AD on March 02, 2006, 07:43 PM | #
Scandinavian skin colour has been rather misrepresented above. Given much exposure to the sun, Scandinavians rapidly tan to a beautiful golden brown. We see it Scandinavian tourists here in Northern Oz all the time.
It is the Irish who are almost totally depigmented. Those of us unfortunates with Irish genes for skin-colour are more likely to go red than brown. And the sun gives us skin cancer at a huge rate.
Scandanavian skin colour hasn’t been misrepresented above. Did you read the charts? It clearly shows that they’re darker than the Celts. It also shows that Celts, particularly around Wales, often have dark features with ultra-white skin- a trait only commonly seen with cloudless dwelling Ashkenzai Jews. Nordics are the reverse. (as an aside, did you know that Norway and Sweden have the highest reported rates of skin cancer in all of Europe?).
Yes, the sun gives you skin cancer at a huge rate, when you live in bloody Northern or Western Australia which has three times the incidence than the far South East of the country. That most aboriginals live in the North and West, while whites live in the South East should tell you something.(in Tasmania the biggest problem is vitamin D deficiency from lack of sun, not skin cancer)
Nobody would want to live in the peri-Baltic or Western Ireland who had the choice of warmer and more fertile climes
Do you realise that Tasmania, NZ and the southern Great Dividing Range regions of Australia are milder than any part of Ireland? Tiny South East Australia has a bigger population than all the ‘desirable’ Tropical regions of Australia combined. I think you’re approaching this debate with the eyes of a desert dweller/cane toad.
Posted by J Richards on March 03, 2006, 10:45 PM | #
For those who come in late:
Part of the discussion above has continued in a separate entry authored by John Ray, titled ”Pigmentation loss is of itself maladaptive,” which should be read for additional comments that strengthen my arguments above.
Fred,
The finer facial features also go with a more robust body skeleton compared to Southern Europeans. In light of the evidence above, this is best understood in terms of sexual selection rather than natural selection.
James,
I have heard of fighting to settle disputes among the Japanese, the Nuer of Sudan and the Yanomamo of Brazil/Venezuela, which has been along the lines of a man challenging another to a fight/duel to claim something or settle a dispute. These fights range(d) from one-on-one duels to group warfare. The exact details vary across cultures, but it would be remarkable if something like Holmganga were found in one group only. It may be that the Norse were more formal about the duel than most others, but the basic idea cannot have been exclusive to them.
Posted by Lister on March 04, 2006, 10:32 AM | #
Very interesting topic. Can anyone tell me where I might find more information or pictures of the beautiful Ragnhild Marie Alvær?
Posted by J Richards on March 04, 2006, 09:33 PM | #
Lister,
The only other picture of Ragnhild Marie Alvær that I have is shown below. She was a participant in the 2003 Miss Norway beauty pageant, where she was identified as an 18-year-old, 177-cm-tall student from Bergen Handelsgymnasium. If you find other pictures of her, let me know.
Posted by AJ on March 25, 2006, 06:56 AM | #
I’m worried about the way the world is going right now. If current population trends continue, then blondes or for that matter whites, will become a slim minority in a world of nonwhites.
I’m sure the result would be a world with more conflicts and more unhappiness. I do believe blondes have more fun and are more fun to be with.
So let me cut to the chase. Here’s my plan to save the
blondes and the world.
There are two forces at work, natural selection and sexual selection. In order to save natural blondes from possible extinction, we have to spread the blonde genes around more.
With technology, it can easily be done, and I’m not talking about cloning. All you have to do is get attractive blond men to donate their sperm and then attractive blonde women to donate their eggs. Match the blond sperm with the blonde eggs to create embryos that will turn out to be blonde babies.
Now, here is the cool part. We can simply implant the blonde embryo into a non-blonde or even non-white woman. She will, in effect, function as a surrogate mother and give birth to a naturally blonde baby. If more non-blondes and non-whites do this, plus the natural blonde couples who have blonde offspring, then the number of blondes will greatly increase.
I have heard cases of white surrogates giving birth to Asian couples’ babies. Why not the other way around? Of course, there’s the moral debate and people will be in an uproar over the racist/eugenics undertone.
Personally, I do not advocate any “forced” campaign by
any organization or government. All I want to suggest
is that people should be given the choice and that sexual selection is the law of nature. Put it this way, if most men (regardless of race) find blondes to be more attractive, then why not make your own daughter blonde if you are not blond yourself? Commission a blonde embryo to be created and implant it into your girlfriend/wife’s womb and 10 months
later, you’ll have a blonde baby daughter. Raise her as your own. She’ll grow up to “have more fun” of her own.
Similarly, if most nonblonde women desire to be blonde, then the same logic goes. Why not give your daughter blonde genes?
With IVF and surrogacy, we can produce lots of true natural blondes. But this method is expensive and very controversial. I don’t know if society is ready to see black women, Asian women, and Hispanic women having and raising blonde babies.
A more “intermediate” or “compromise” method is to use
the donated blond sperm to inseminate more nonblondes
and nonwhites. Artificial insemination (donor insemination) is cheap and easy to perform. I mean, just inject the sperm into a woman. Any woman can practically do it herself without any assistance. At the present, society will be more likely to accept
this. We already see so many cases of intermarriage. In California, interracial marriage has probably become the norm, I would say.
So let’s say a single Asian woman desires to give her child blonde genes but does not have the money to go the full method, ie, implanting a blonde embryo, then she can go for this halfway solution. Her child will be half blonde/Caucasian, half Asian. Ideally, I would also recommend using technology to select the sex of the baby. The technique that exists currently has a 90% guarantee for female babies and 70% for male babies. Make the baby female so that when she grows up, she can also receive blonde genes again by AI. By
then, the new third generation offspring will be three quarters blonde/Caucasian, one quarter Asian. By the fourth generation, the child will be 7/8 blonde and only 1/8 Asian. And so on. Of course, at any generation, the woman can choose to have 100% blonde embryos implanted.
I’m sure my proposal will sound very racist and contentious to many people. But I would repeat my most basic arguments to critics again. They are:
1. Blondes are and have more fun because they are more
sexually attractive.
2. If you don’t believe this, it’s okay. Let the people choose.
3. People have the right to choose the “ideal” genes
for their offspring, whatever “ideal” means.
4. Sexual selection is a very powerful force.
So again, I’m all for freedom of choice. With an altruistic spirit, let’s make the choice for blondes available to everyone, not just natural blondes themselves. It’s kind of stingy for real blondes to keep blonde genes to themselves. Share the good stuff. Pass them around. That’s basically what I’m saying. Nobody is going to be forced to do anything they don’t want. Instead, the forces of sexual selection will
help people choose.
I think somebody ought to really open up a sperm bank and make some money selling blond sperm. Another business is to open up an agency recruiting blonde eggs. Yet another is to provide counseling and matchmaking service,ie, finding and matching male and female donors, advice on the medical stuff, etc.
I welcome more thoughts and feedback. Feel free to share my ideas with others.
Posted by Andrew on March 25, 2006, 07:55 AM | #
That sound to clinical and not much fun A J, what about us blond hair and blue eyed men just go and save the planet and have some fun while we are at it.
Although some pedantic black haired men might think it discriminatory, but in the name of survival, a Blond man with blue eyes must do what must be done, besides a jar is not much fun anyway and does not do much for my libido. Hope the wife does not see this.
Posted by J Richards on March 26, 2006, 08:04 AM | #
AJ,
There are a few problems with your proposal. Non-whites should be discouraged from combining their DNA with that of whites because race mixing is known to increase the incidence of health problems, which is consistent with some loss of morphological integration in the skull (apparently related to disruption of co-adapted gene complexes) resulting from race mixing. Having non-white women give birth to white offspring via surrogate pregnancy is also not recommended. How will the white child feel about his different looks, and how appealing will it be to the non-white masses to raise children that are not their biological offspring? Secondly, mixed offspring with substantial white ancestry or non-whites genetically manipulated to look whiter will be more sexually appealing to whites than other non-whites, and will thereby accelerate non-white admixture into the white gene pool since whites are a minority of the human species. The possibility that non-whites will continue to have their gametes fertilized by whites in large numbers per generation will simply not materialize. At least one of a non-white pair will object to not having his/her own DNA transmitted to the offspring that he/she wishes to raise.
Your aims will be better served by trying to keep the non-white masses out of the West. Besides, interracial marriages are not the norm in California by a long shot, though they are much more prevalent than in, say, Iowa.
Posted by Bryan on March 27, 2006, 03:07 AM | #
I am more worried about Blacks and Whites Mixing Quite honestly. I find asian girls attractive as do i find blondes attractive. Now if i had a choice i would stick with blondes or other white women.
Its more of a sexual thing with the asian women..because we all know they want to be seen and associated with white men. so they will do practically anything you want them to.
Like Most Men, i have the need to have sex. So if i cant find the right white woman, i will have to substitute with something less desirable.
Posted by Malcolm A on April 06, 2006, 05:58 PM | #
First of all let me be very arrogant and declare that I am a Biologist, and secondly that I believe that the purpose of citing these research papers [that are not really scientific] etc., are an attempt to prove something - ie white women are more beautiful than all other women - in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
In fact most beauty contest results which are the only real avaialble yardstick of beauty clearly show that INDIA and Venezuela , both countries containig mixed Caucasoids and some pure Caucasoids have won the most number of beauty contests in recent times.
India has won 7 titles and has 12 runners up and venezuela has won 8 times and has many runners up too. Someone here mentioned Ash Rai who was named the most beautiful woman in the world by wsterners themselves, and the most beautiful Miss World ever by the Miss world Organizers.
Another fact is that Saira Mohan, A Canadian model of Indian ( and Irish ) descent was chosen as the global face of beauty in 2003 when computer modeled face was matched for most attarctive features.
To my knowledge , the Biology of it is that physical attractiveness tends to favor mixed races as mixing eliminates all extermes such as , albino white skin, freckles, masculine features, slant eyes, curly hair , thick lips etc and moves the mixed race women towards the median.
And most importantly the proof is in the pudding as beauty contest results show.
If you consider the top 1% beauties of the world , I am sure mixed race women from India, Latin America, Iran etc., will produce the winners. Thats why they say thee is no beauty like an Indian beauty
Posted by Ethnocentrist on April 06, 2006, 08:08 PM | #
Malcolm, your yardstick for what is considered beautiful in this day and age is nothing but forced political correctness onto the global stage of pageantry. Nothing more. When Black women started winning these contests over gorgeous, voluptuous White women, it didn’t take a biologist to realize that the fix was in.
Posted by Guessedworker on April 06, 2006, 10:57 PM | #
Malcolm,
JR can converse with you from the biological standpoint, if he so wishes. From the political standpoint, however, I can do the job passably well.
If you are of European descent, and not of mixed-race, it is worth you quietly asking yourself how you became a carrier of anti-white opinions. How did you come to feel uncomfortable with the kind of self-advocacy that is considered healthy and normal by every people in the world but which liberalism denies to us alone? How did you come to lose touch with reality in that way?
The answer, probably, is that you have not been strong enough intellectually and emotionally to stand against the tide. You probably never even tried. But here at MR you get a chance.
Now, dealing with the specifics of JR’s post ... for me there is no Marxian political barrier to clear before I can freely consider whether facial delicacy attaches to the Nordic type more than any other, and whether such delicacy is not only our ideal of facial perfection but, strangely, that of much of the world. This is the import of JR’s work. Is he right? I think he might be. But either way the issue cannot be considered until you strip out the racial Marxism from your mind, and disdain forever that familiar and infuriatingly self-destructive spasm of faux-moral correctness. There is no benefit to allowing yourself to be duped.
Posted by J Richards on April 07, 2006, 01:31 AM | #
Malcolm A,
For a biologist, it is curious that you have labeled the paper unscientific without bothering to refute anything in the paper.
International beauty pageants are cesspools of political correctness and have to deal with the dilemma of avoiding charges of racism by consistently letting the most attractive women (read white) win and alienating their audience by frequently selecting Negroids or Mongoloids as top-ranked contestants in order to avoid charges of racism. Therefore, they have shifted toward crowning non-white women that would simultaneously help avoid charges of racism and also be less likely to alienate their audience by virtue of their being closer to whites in looks, which explains the success of Hindu women from the 1990s onward. The contestants from Venezuela tend to be whiter than the Hindus, and it is apparently not enough for PC reasons to stick with Venezuela or other Latino contestants.
You mention the accolades received by Aishwarya Rai and completely fail to address her pictures that I have posted. How many white people would regard Aishwarya as a very attractive woman? Let me see you cite evidence that a large number of whites have labeled her the most beautiful woman in the world. She has a part-Mongoloid face, broad shoulders and a wide waist compared to so many attractive white women that I know of; also compare her physique to that of the white woman shown below her.
I have already addressed the [relative lack of] attractiveness of Saira Mohan. Your notion that race mixing leads to the average is incorrect. Phenotypic average is defined for a race but not for the species. Whereas race mixing averages some traits, not all traits are averaged by race mixing; there are multiple deviations from the average related to disruption of co-adapted gene complexes and loss of morphological integration (evidence here). Correspondingly, there is also an increase in health problems among mixed-race offspring. Besides, you only have to look at non-white facial features more closely to appreciate the aesthetically disastrous consequences for whites that will result from the absorption of non-white genetics into the white gene pool (see here, here and here).
Chances are that you are a South Asian and may find it difficult to understand that the top 1% of good-looking women from the PC-free perspective of whites are all white.
Posted by Malcolm A on April 08, 2006, 05:47 PM | #
Hi J Richards
Thank you for your kind comments in response to my post.
1. I am a white though born in South Asia, married to an Indian and living in N. America.
2. I am a Scientist and I believe that scientists are trained to speak the truth ( as they see it ) unless and until proven wrong.
3. Here is where I agree with you and others of my own race.
- White caucaisans are the most advanced race on earth in terms of Technological achievement and innovativeness . I totally agree with this statement as there is proof ! Almost all major scientific achievements as well as inventions were made by white Caucasians and continue to be so even now.
Te world is what it is today mostly thanks to our endeavors.
- In general our women tend to be more beautiful than most other races. Certainly so.
- But when it comes to comparing the top beauties in the world, I would disagree with you and others totally, for the following reasons.
a. The pictures you have posted of Ash Rai are not the best ones available. Perhaps you may agree that there are good pics and bad ones of any beauty. eg Liz taylor, once considered the most beautiful woman , appears rather fat and ungainly in some pics. So maybe a little bias on your part caused some of the less attactive pics of Ash Rai and other Indians to be posted against the best pics of the European beauties.
b. As for beauty contsts being cesspools, I doubt whether any of us would say that aloud if our favorite won the contest.
c. I apologize for stating that the research articles were unscientific, but what I intended to say was that these papers ( I have published in exess of 40 research papers myself ) do NOT necessarily pertain to beauty in real life, because beauty in essence is a combination of ‘physical beauty + inner charm’ that projects itself outwardly to the onlooker.
d. The biological reason that India, a real cesspool of a country in many ways, manages to produce great beauties is because of a very large genetic pool resulting from mmigrations from the caucasus, Turkey, Iran, Syria, Israel, Africa etc., compounded by a 1billion + population. I believe the British also added a considerable amount of genetic variance to that country’s genepool while tthey were there ! So blaming Indians is partly blaming ourselves ( Though I am more dutch than Brit ).
e. recent Genetic research by cavalli Sforza, Bamshad et al, Oppenheimer, Spencer Wells etc have clearly indicated that an Aryan gene exists and that the Aryans did arrive in India. In fact most high caste Hindu Brahmins carry genes that are mostly Western European in origin ( R1a1, R1b ) etc..
So the Indians should thank us whites for their beauty too, as so elegantly said by you while posting that pretty pic of Aditi Govitrikar ( Ms World 2000 ). In fact, Indians set a world record in beauty by winning all 4 major international beauty contests (Miss world, Miss Universe, Miss Asis Pacific and Mrs World ) in 2000.
Will give detailed references if required.
Posted by Malcolm A on April 08, 2006, 06:06 PM | #
Hi Guessedworker,
Thanks for the kind response.
If you would care to read my reply to J Richards you would find answers to most of what you asked me.
As I said, I am with the whites on most issues. BUT sometimes there are certain undeniable truths , such as ‘ there are some very beautiful women in other races too ‘ who might be just a tad more beautiful than our best women occasionally.
Also, I am not denying that Nordic faces are the most attractive. But, then Indians are also caucasians and some do have mostly nordic faces. Richards himself says [ in another post here ] that some good looking Hindus like Aditi Govitrikar, Ritik Rosan etc., have us nordics to thank for their beauty !! Isn’t that a tacit acceptance or what ?
It is true that there are about 75% mixed population in India but there are about 25% [ 250 million souls ] including some relatively unmixed upper caste elite as proven by Bamshad et al who studied the Aryan genetic composition in India. So Indians are a watered down version of Caucasians.
Sometimes we have to call a square a square , whether drawn by a white or someone else ! Some truths are difficult to deny.
Posted by Malcolm A on April 08, 2006, 06:21 PM | #
Hi Ethnocentrist
Beauty contests are the only yardstick avaialble. Even Richards is comparing beauty contest winners, as you can see.
If you ask the Chinese they will say that Chinese women are the best looking. So someoen has to decide, and thats what happens in beauty pageants.
If our white women won or kept on winning would you say the same thing about beauty contests ?
Posted by J Richards on April 10, 2006, 04:23 AM | #
Malcolm A,
Better looking facial pictures of Aishawarya Rai show her with heavy make-up, colored contacts and light overexposure. You need to see through make-up wizardry. Anyway, there is no way camera tricks could make her physique look anywhere as feminine as that of the white woman shown below her.
Political correctness is obvious in Western and International beauty pageants, regardless of the race of the winner. The 2005 Miss Universe and 2005 Miss World beauty pageants were won by white women, but this does nothing to change the fact that these pageants are PC-ridden.
I have not based some comparisons on beauty contests because they are an appropriate yardstick of beauty, but because the Miss India contest likely does not have to deal with the political correctness that Miss USA does, yet white women beat the Hindu women hands down.
You talk about inner charm as a component of beauty. This is true, but this entry has nothing to do with inner charm; it addresses physical appearance.
There is no Aryan gene, but genetic correlation structures that distinguish races, and I am aware of the white genetic contribution to India, but this contribution is minor and most extensively found in the upper caste people who themselves are a minority of the population. It is incorrect to describe Indians as Caucasoid when only a minority of them look Caucasoid, and in even the latter, significant non-Caucasoid genetic material can be easily shown.
Since you acknowledge that white genetic contribution is a major component of the best-looking Indians, if white contribution is what it takes to make an ethnic Hindu better looking, then it follows that the best looking people are white unless you believe that there is something about the looks of whites that could be improved upon via Hindu admixture, but I am not aware of any such features.
Posted by Westhoek French on April 10, 2006, 07:51 PM | #
Does this lady [Néfertiti] upset any applecarts?
Although much rarer, North Africans beauties do exist. I acknowledge a personal strong anti-arab bias, yet I already saw young Algerian girls like that. Especially among those whose origins go back to Kabylia.
Posted by Malcolm A on April 10, 2006, 08:37 PM | #
Hi J R
Thanks for your comments.
1. As for pic’s of Ash Rai being heavily madeup etc., pictures of both Indian as well as European beauties are always taken with the best possible makeup, camera angles and light exposure. This is a norm in the beauty industry, and therefore this factor should not play a role.
2. The contention that political correctness is a trend in beauty pageants is challenged by the fact that the Mongoloids have rarely, if ever, won an international beauty pageant, whereas Mongoloids play a significant role in both world politics and World Economics these days - vis a vis CHINA, JAPAN etc.
Also, the very fact that, as you say, Nordics won in 2005 ( Miss Australia & Miss Canada ) only goes to prove that there is NO trend towards ‘political correctness’ in these pageants.
3. Research geneticists such as Spencer Wells and Prof. Bamshad have used the R1a1 gene (M17 marker) to establish Aryan migration to India as a fact, and R1a1 is called the ‘Aryan gene’ as it helps to establish evolutionary clusters of the Aryan branch of the caucasoids and prove that the Caucasoid group known as Aryans who are further linked to
each other by a common Indo-European language did arrive in India.
4. Unfortunately, or fortunately, as it may seem, current Linnaean classification recognizes Indians as the NORDINDIC sub group of the Caucasoid race ( Nordindic and Nordic are closer than we think !) and even classifies the darker skinned Dravidians of South India as primitive Caucasians of the Dravidic sub-group.
I am aware that many of us whites like to equate CAUCASIAN to WHITE, but it is ABSOLUTELY NOT SO in scientific terms.
5. The contributions made by the British, French and Portugese etc.. to the Indian gene pool may appear insignificant at first glance, but it helped form well-defined and isolated social groups in India such as the Anglo-Indians and the Goans etc., which maintained very distinct physical features. The scientific principle that applies here is that of
Randon Genetic Drift and the Founder Principle, which cause deviations from the Hardy Weinberg Principle leading to isolated populations with phenoytypical traits that are significantly different from their parent population [Rita farian, the First Miss India to win Miss World in 1965(?) was a Goan, I believe].
6. As you say, Indians may have to thank those ancient white Caucasian Aryan ancestors ( Persians, Greeks, Turks and Russians ), and to a lesser degree, the British and other European Colonialists for the exceptional physical beauty they have inherited, but thanks are also due to the gene pool they received from those other Non-Aryan Caucasoids from
the Mediteranean such as the Semitic Syrians, Israelis, Arabs etc.. resulting in so called ‘hybrid vigor’, an unbeatable combination.
Hence, a little admixture with other groups have erased some unflattering traits of our race such as Albino skin leading to a nice peachy or creamy, off -white hybrids such as Preity Zinta, Udita Goswami and others.
Take care
Posted by J Richards on April 11, 2006, 09:30 PM | #
Malcolm A,
The heavy make-up and light over-exposure in Aishwarya Rai’s pictures are remarkable, and not your ordinary level of make-up in European models. Anyway, here are three more pictures of her. Notice her part-Mongoloid features, massive jaw, thick lips, facial masculinization, colored contacts and brown hair coloring. Are you seriously telling me that this is a very attractive woman?
And, here is a picture of the masculinized and unimpressive Udita Goswami, which I do not understand why you find to be attractive:
I have posted a picture of Preity Zinta above, but here are two more pictures of her:
How can you be a white man and find these Hindu women attractive, let alone very attractive?
To reply to your second point, I have previously mentioned that letting too many Mongoloids or Negroids win will alienate the audience, and hence they use Hindus and Venezuelans to avoid charges of racism. It is remarkable that you refute the notion of political correctness by virtue of a Nordic occasionally winning; a Nordic has to occasionally win or else the audience will be alienated. Once again, the balance for the pageant organizers to achieve is to intersperse crowning the most attractive women (read white) with crowning non-white women—generally not as different looking as Mongoloids and Negroids—to best retain the audience as well as avoid charges of racism.
To reply to your remaining points, term such as Nordindic and related classification terminology are outdated terms that are not in current usage. As the pictures above show, most Hindus do not have Caucasoid facial features and the genetic evidence for substantial non-Caucasoid ancestry among Hindus is overwhelming. Therefore, it is incorrect to describe Hindus as Caucasoid, notwithstanding European genetic contribution to the Indian gene pool. Additionally, a marker pointing to part-Aryan ancestry is best not described as an Aryan gene.
You have mentioned hybrid vigor, but have failed to back up evidence for it. I have disputed this idea in my entry on Saira Mohan and offered evidence for the negative health consequences of race mixing and craniofacial evidence for loss of morphological integration resulting from race mixing (links in a previous comment).
The only feature of whites that you identify as something that can be improved upon via Hindu admixture is albino skin. This is not the view of most whites. I prefer a slight tan myself, but want the baseline to remain albino; this way you get a pasty white woman in the winter and a tanned woman in the summer.
Posted by Malcolm A on April 12, 2006, 01:27 AM | #
Hi JR
1. It was not I who praised Ash Rai as the ‘most beautiful woman’ etc etc., It was mostly those from our own community. such as Julia Roberst, Roger Ebert ( when asked ‘who is the most beautiful woman,’ he replied ‘Ashwarya Rai’ and when asked , ‘who is the second most beautiful woman’ he replied ‘Ashwarya Rai’ again !), 60 Minutes, David Letterman etc etc.. She was also selected as the most beautiful Miss World ever, and Most beautiful woman by the Hello Magazine poll. So it is NOT my personal opinion. There are aslo 17000 websites devoted to her from what I hear !!
So obviously I am NOT the only white with a thing for Indians! I am not into Hindus, Xtians etc., etc., as that has nothing to do with the physical. I think gorgeous Uma Thurman is a Buddhist, if I am not mistaken…
2. I am NOT clear as to why choosing a Mongoloid /Negroid Miss Universe would alienate anyone as it would prove the exact opposite of ‘racism’ or ‘political incorrectness’
3. If, as you say, the Nordindic classification is outdated , could you please provide the current classification for me. I admit that I am NOT a geneticist but a Population Biologist ( Did take a lot of Genetics courses in Grad school though ).
4. As for your point about Aryan heredity, ‘Aryan’ is a now extinct group believed to have given rise to all the Indo-European speaking people of today. They form one of the 2 major branches of the caucasoids ( Aryan branch and the Semitic Branch ) and whether we like it or NOT the Dravidians as well as North Indians are classified as caucasian. The term Indo-Aryan is used to describe 72% of the indian population in the 2005 CIA World Fact book.
5. Spencer Wells studied the R1a1 distribution and discovered that it originated in the Caucasus (Kurgan culture) and traced it to India. I believe his book is titled “The Journey of Man “ if I am not mistaken.
6. I am sure you are familiar with the term ‘hybrid vigor’ which is a common term for a genetic trait, where inbreeding causes deterioration of the Genepool of a population, as opposed to admixture which adds new genetic variation enriching the gene pool.
I believe that, in the case of physical appearance, traits such as skin color, eye color and other physical traits are mostly governed by multi gene effects ( more than one gene ), and admixture with slightly different populations will smoothen out harsh or extreme features as extreme whiteness, masculine features etc.. and lead to a median off-white, soft, oval faced beauties of Italian mediterranean, Middle eastern Indian looks.
I find our white women very pretty, but on average, their bone structure, demeanor and appearance tends more towards the masculine rather than the feminine, which is compounded by the easily reddened sensitive white skin, and it is this disparity that gives an edge to the non Nordics.
I have no problem with the Caucasian facial features of white as well as non-white caucasians at all. They are the most beautiful.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 12, 2006, 02:27 AM | #
Because JR indicated a preference for tanned women (and of course Malcolm A. is going on about swarthy women as well) I’d like to chime in here and defend white skin on Euro women. I like white women’s white skin. Skin on a Euro woman that is alabaster-white, ivory-white, milk-white, snow-white—with no tan, not even a hint—is extremely beautiful, by far the most beautiful woman’s skin in the world. On some Euro women, white skin is so white it has almost a bluish cast, as if sort of marbled by the veins or something. On the right kind of white woman, that all by itself can make strong men faint from its sheer beauty—strong men of sense, that is; men who know the value of things. Women who are incapable of tanning, but only burn—natural fiery-red or orangey-red redheads, and a large proportion of blonds, in other words—have exquisitely beautiful skin. I have never in my life, ever, not once, felt a tan improved a woman’s looks. Never. To my eye white women are the most beautiful, with their swan-like white skin and everything else about them. They don’t need to be emulating swarthy women in anything, nothing: not one single thing. So that, for me, is part of the matchless beauty of white women: their snow-white skin, those divine human swans who have it. With that said, I find Subcon women among the world’s most beautiful (Euro women have them beat) and I certainly don’t have aught whatsoever against tan, brown, or black skin on a woman. But the tan, brown, or black skin itself is not as beautiful as white skin itself. White skin itself actually has its own beauty exclusive of the woman, which tan, brown, or black skin itself doesn’t have, to my eye. But tan, brown, or black skin don’t detract from a swarthy woman’s beauty. If something detracts from a swarthy woman’s beauty, for me it’s never her swarthy skin. If the rest of the package is right, the skin makes no difference for my taste. For me, if a white woman who was beautiful on other grounds had jet-black skin she’d still be beautiful. What makes Grace Jones unattractive to me isn’t her dark-chocolate skin but everything else about her looks (and the personality that shines through her looks). Anyway, I wanted to get my two cents in, in defense of whiter-than-white-skinned Euro women: they’re angels as far as looks go. They have nothing, not one thing, to envy in swarthy women (though swarthy women can of course also be very beautiful). When men talk about how much a tan improves a white woman’s looks I start yawning ... “When’s the interesting convo gonna start around here? ... Oh, that again? That ‘tan’ thing? These men don’t know beauty when they see it ... OK someone wake me up when they start talking sense around here ....
“Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz .......”
Posted by Guessedworker on April 12, 2006, 07:14 AM | #
Malcolm,
In answer to the alienation factor I blogged on the Miss America beauty pageant here.
In essence, Miss America was a testament to the moral character of America in the first half of the twentieth century. It was a show about and for women. The hugged and kissed and crowned victrix was a lodestar for young female minds, her mock-regal progress in triumph all bedecked with roses and popping flashbulbs a consummation sans Eros. Judged, chosen and yet remaining curiously but unequivocally chaste - this, it said, is what’s right, what’s best for an all-American girl. Be like this and you are all that you possibly can be in America.
... Despite some pretty flakey attempts to keep up with the times – to be more “correct” (wrong audience), to be sexier (wrong audience), to be racially blind (wrong audience and insincere) – the Miss America organisers could not hold viewer numbers. A future of low budget cable TV awaits them. It probably won’t last long.
Meanwhile, we might now ask ourselves which was better for the formation of the healthy female mind, Miss A or MTV? And we might ask ourselves where the hell we go from here?
MTV, of course, is a symbol for all that is counter-white at a political and cultural level in public discourse.
I do urge you to detach yourself from the public mind in a more scientific vein. The door to white dispossession and deracination was opened by powerful and careless people in Britain and Europe in the aftermath of WW2, and in 1965 in America. It was opened in Australia when the White Australia policy was first loosened then dumped, also after WW2.
At this point in the process, public perception among whites the world over is floating detached from its biological moorings, the plaything of a false-moral imperative towards extinction. You seem not to have realised this fact or, if you have, not formulated an inner resolve to do what you can to resist it. You argue, basically, that we are told something therefore we believe it, we believe it therefore it is true.
We are not told the truth, however. The fact that people think the haggish Aishwarya Rai is, from the non-existent standpoint of racial disinterest, objectively the greatest beauty in the world speaks more of the power of money interests and our own suggestibility than anything else. JR is commending us to return to the understanding that beauty, for white men, lies in the white woman, from whose perfection others shrink by comparison ... and whose refinement might actually be the basis for an objective beauty, if such can be said to exist at all.
I think this is a fine riposte to the “sexual socialism” we are sold everywhere everyday. What are you doing in this thread and in the rest of your life to rectify present-day wrongs and promote our survival?
Posted by Steve Edwards on April 12, 2006, 01:17 PM | #
Every single Asian woman I have ever spoken to about the subject has told me that they want to be whiter than they are. Not surprisingly, the whitest women in Asian societies are generally seen as the most beautiful (that includes the sub-continent).
I don’t really have a strong preference either way, some darker women are gorgeous as are some white women, but let’s not kid ourselves about the preferences of most women in foreign countries - they prefer to be pale.
Posted by Malcolm A on April 12, 2006, 02:51 PM | #
Hi Fred Scrooby
1]. .
I like white women’s white skin. Skin on a Euro woman that is alabaster-white, ivory-white, milk-white, snow-white—with no tan, not even a hint—is extremely beautiful, by far the most beautiful woman’s skin in the world.
I respect your opinion. We are all entitled to ours
2]. .
OK someone wake me up when they start talking sense around here .... ....zzzzzzzzzz.......
Hehe....If you find this topic boring, blame JR. It is his fault.. He started this thread. Not I.
3]. This is about whether nordic, blue eyed women with
alabaster skin are the most beautiful. In the eyes of Nordics I am sure they are. I agreed too, as stated in my earlier post that, on average, Nordic women are the prettiest. I am not a fan of dark/swarthy skin either.
There are several aspects to this topic.
1. Socio -political - It becomes a matter of racial pride.
2. Philosophical - Is beauty worth discussing
3, Scientific - Biology of beauty.
I am trying to discus the 3rd [scientific] aspect of it. I stumbled on this forum when I ran across JJ Ray’s Indian beauty thread. There are 3 related topics ; Indian Beauty, More on Indian beauty and Evolution of Nordic blue eued women.
The question is why are our beautiful women losing more these days ? All of you seem to believe ‘political correctness’ to be the key factor. I believe, once individual /racial bias is
overcome, the Biological/genetic explanation is that visual sensations prefer the median ( Not very black or very white, but just pale).
Isn’t this supposed to be under ETHNIC GENETIC INTERESTS ? So genetic explanations matter.
The question is though, like all other races, we have concluded our women to be beautiful, what happens when collective global perception comes in ? This is the crux of the matter when it comes to beauty.
Posted by Malcolm A on April 12, 2006, 03:14 PM | #
Hi G W
1]
I do urge you to detach yourself from the public mind in a more scientific vein. The door to white dispossession and deracination was opened by powerful and careless people in Britain and Europe in the aftermath of WW2, and in 1965 in America. It was opened in Australia when the White Australia policy was first loosened then dumped, also after WW2.
Thanks for a most interesting response. Could you please explain to me how your 1st statement above relates to your 2nd above.
2]
.We are not told the truth, however. The fact that people think the haggish Aishwarya Rai is, from the non-existent standpoint of racial disinterest, objectively the greatest beauty in the world speaks more of the power of money interests and our own suggestibility than anything els
Ashwarya does look a bit haggish at 32 years, though JR’s agenda of posting the most unflattering pics available is partly to blame ! But that’s what age does to most beauties white or otherwise. Personally, I have seen both white and Indian women who are much better looking than Ashwarya!
Hey, as I said, don’t blame me. Blame all those judges at Miss world,( mostly anglos Nordics ) and the likes of Julia Roberts, Roger Eberts , Bob Simon etc..
I personally don’t believe there is such a thing as the most beautiful woman.
3] JR is commending us to return to the understanding that beauty, for white men, lies in the white woman, from whose perfection others shrink by comparison
I totally agree with you on that. We whites are self destructive. See what we Americans are doing with China. Helping them to become more and more powerful so they can challenge us. I am NOT a race traitor but I also don’t believe that just saying that there maybe a scientific reason behind why there are some prettier women out there is a BETRAYAL of my race.
BEAUTY is not that important a matter for survival of our race , is it ?.
Posted by Malcolm A on April 12, 2006, 03:25 PM | #
Hi Fred Scrooby
1]
Exactly, and let’s start telling our white women that more often! They are better looking than Brazilians, better-looking than Subcons, better-looking than North Africans
Hey don’t waste your time. White women know this already and believe it too ( at least my 1st wife did !). I am with you on that one.
But, and I repeat, what we wanna do here is debate WHY our beautiful gals don’t win as much. As far as I can see there are 2 explanations given so far.
a. Beauty contests are rigged ( political incorrectness )
b. There maybe a genetic reason that affects perception of beauty.
That’s all .
Posted by Malcolm A on April 12, 2006, 03:35 PM | #
Steve E
1] Every single Asian woman I have ever spoken to about the subject has told me that they want to be whiter than they are. Not surprisingly, the whitest women in Asian societies are generally seen as the most beautiful (that includes the sub-continent).
In India the ‘ Fair and Lovely cream’ , a skin whitener is doing great business for the very reason you have mentioned. That is because the browner women want to get fair skin. Does that mean they wanna be 100% white ? I dont know that for sure.
Many North Indians , Punjabi, Kashmiris etc , who are very very fair, don’t use any creams, which I know from personal experience.
It is a craze in China too for sure. But that I believe is ‘cos fair skin is about the only really beautiful feature they have ( their facial and bodyshape attractiveness is very marginal )
Posted by EV, EF, ER! on April 12, 2006, 03:40 PM | #
Malcolm must be one those millions of smallish, dusky subcons whom imagine themselves to be blue and blonde Teutons, a delusion that won’t survive the purchase of a mirror (which they cannot yet afford on India’s $300/year wages).
Posted by Lurker on April 12, 2006, 03:45 PM | #
EV, EF, ER! - I dont like the sneering tone of your comments. Malcolm has stated various things here in a polite and open-minded manner, I think you could manage the same.
Posted by Malcolm A on April 12, 2006, 04:02 PM | #
Hi JR
Try this one
1.http://www.santabanta.com/wallpapers/rating.asp?catid=475004
more here ;
http://www.santabanta.com/wallpapers/category.asp?catname=udita goswami&page=2&thumb=
cheers
Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 12, 2006, 06:22 PM | #
“If you find this topic boring, blame JR.” (—Malcolm)
I apologize—I didn’t mean to say I found the topic you and JR are discussing boring. What I find boring is when white guys start talking about how much better white women look with a tan. When I hear that, my eyes glaze over. But as for your comments and JR’s in this thread, I’ve found them quite interesting.
“This is about whether nordic, blue eyed women with alabaster skin are the most beautiful.”
That’s true but to make it clearer, it’s not about whether their alabaster skin is what makes them more beautiful, but about a whole series of physical qualities.
“I am not a fan of dark/swarthy skin either.”
OK but for my part, I wouldn’t say I “wasn’t a fan” of swarthy skin in women. I certainly have nothing whatsoever against swarthy skin in women. Not a thing. What I’d say is I find white women’s white skin ravishing, I find white women (complete with untanned white skin) the planet’s most beautiful, and I find Hindu and Paki women often quite beautiful also, though Euro women have them beat (sorry, all you subcon girls out there ... hey you’re often gorgeous but Euro women are the undisputed queens of gorgeous ...). I added somewhere that, esthetically, I have naught whatsoever against brown skin on a woman per se (or tan skin, or yellow, or red, or literally jet-black for that matter, assuming jet-black exists somewhere—maybe among the North-African Tauregs? or somewhere in the Subcontinent? I think it or damn close to it can probably be found)—if the whole package is right, brown skin or skin of any color is fine with me. I’m literally never attracted to Negro women and it’s not the chocolate-fudge color of their skin that makes it that way but other qualities that make it that way, including non-physical ones (personality). Their particular skin color by itself is perfectly fine. Put the exact same chocolate-fudge skin color on a woman I find very attractive and I’ll still find her very attractive.
Posted by Alex Zeka on April 12, 2006, 06:46 PM | #
For what it’s worth, in my opinion darkish skin tones (i.e. Mediteraneanish) combined with Euro features are the most attractive. A. Rai looks fairly attractive, but then she also looks like a Euro with dark skin. You should look at a real Indian. Indian friends tell me England is a huge relief!
Oh, and EV, EF, ER!- you are a scandal and should be ashamed of yourself.
Posted by Guessedworker on April 12, 2006, 08:08 PM | #
Malcolm, the lady has a hook nose, thick lips, masculine jaw. In a white women these things would be sexually disadvantageous, no?
I don’t believe that there there is a general mean to which all peoples can assent. I believe we all fight like hell for our own reality, for not to do so is to relinquish power to an enemy.
On my two statements, the link is liberalism. Everything I scribble is anti-liberal. I accept that my scribblings do not state at the outset, “this is an anti-liberal statement.” I expect people to take that as read. And now I have explained it clearly, you, at least, can do exactly that.
But for the sake of absolute clarity, I am against liberalism, modernity, cultural Marxism, white racial dispossession and deracination, feminism, buggers’ licence, democracy and universal suffrage, equality, anti-Darwinism, anti-traditionalism, anti-racism, Jewish racism, Firedoglake-ism ... In fact, you had better just assume I am against everything in the modern liberal zeitgeist unless I specifically exclude it!
Geez, with all this goin’ down inside my head how do I manage to be so happy?
Posted by J Richards on April 13, 2006, 01:18 AM | #
Malcolm A,
The reason that a huge number of websites are devoted to Aishwarya Rai is that there are a billion-plus Indians. Given the looks of the average Hindu, it is understandable that Indians would hold Aishwarya Rai in high regard, but look at her photos carefully and tell me how a white person could see her as a great beauty; once again, notice the part-Mongoloid face, facial masculinization, thick lips, big cheekbones, massive jaw, hooked nose, masculine waist-hip region, etc.—and these are not an illusion based on me posting the most unflattering pictures of her; the pictures that I have selected are the ones that clearly show these features; for instance, most of her pictures show her from the front, and it is easy to miss her hooked nose in these pictures. The examples of whites that find her attractive are hardly impressive. Some of these people are giving politically correct comments, Julia Roberts is far from the best looking white woman, and since Roger Ebert married an ugly black woman, Aishwarya Rai would naturally appear to be a beauty queen in comparison. If Miss World Organization can crown the likes of Aishwarya Rai as a Miss World, then given the voice of a billion-plus Indians, it can surely say that she is the most beautiful Miss World ever.
The reason choosing a lot of Mongoloids and Negroids as pageant winners will alienate the audience is as follows. Whereas many non-Caucasoids find Caucasoid facial features attractive, few non-Negroids and non-Mongoloids find Negroid and Mongoloid faces attractive, respectively. Therefore the best choices of non-white winners are those that have facial features leaning toward the Caucasoid.
Regarding the obsolete term Nordindic, there is no official scientific racial classification anymore. Geneticists avoid the word race and use, instead, population stratification and populations clusters, and most South Asians fall into a South Asian cluster that is clearly distinct from the cluster that Europeans fall into. Besides, genetic studies have revealed substantial East Asian genetic affinity in South Asia. It is for this reason that if you insist of using traditional terms such as Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid and Australoid, then South Asians are correctly classified as a mixed population with varying levels of Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid and Australoid ancestry.
Regarding hybrid vigor, there is also something known as outbreeding depression, which is what applies to human races, and I have cited literature on this in an entry on the negative health consequences of race mixing and the paper on loss of morphological integration as a result of race mixing.
You mention soft, oval faces as attractive. Well, oval faces are the classic ideal for Northern European women, and most extensively possessed by these women, and several of my entries have pointed out the finer facial features (read soft features) of Nordic women compared to other women. Race mixing involving Nordics will be less likely to produce such traits. It is remarkable that you describe Nordic women as having a more masculinized bone structure, when my entries, common observation, and Peter Frost’s data show that Nordic women have a more feminine appearance overall than other women. The strongerbetter chins and smaller breasts in Nordic women may appear to be less feminine than in women in some other populations, but overall, Nordic women have a more feminine appearance, on average.
The link that you posted to Udita Goswami’s pictures doesn’t help your argument. Most of the pictures don’t show her facial features clearly enough, and masculinization is evident in one picture where her features are clearer, but the woman’s torso is clearly manly. Since you have mentioned that you have seen Indian women who look better than Aishwarya Rai, and you obviously know much more about Indian women than I do, why don’t you post or link to images of attractive Indian women? You can host images at imageshack.us and hotlink them in your comment.
Your argument is that Nordic women are, on average, better looking than Indian women, but between these two groups, the best looking women are the lighter-skinned and more Caucasoid Indian women. We can have a contest and see who can come up with the best looking women; the rule being that facial features should be clearly evident in the pictures. I’d be interested to see you come up with Indian women who look better than beautiful Nordic women from a facial structure standpoint (we will ignore pigmentation). If you plan on posting plenty of images, it would be best to do this in a separate entry. Thus, you find the pictures that you are going to use and upload them to rapidshare.de, zupload.com or equivalent and post the link here, and I will post your pictures besides pictures of beautiful Nordic women in a separate entry and we can ask the blog readership to compare the pictures.
Posted by Malcolm A on April 13, 2006, 06:19 PM | #
Hi GW
1. On my two statements, the link is liberalism. Everything I scribble is anti-liberal.
2. But for the sake of absolute clarity, I am against liberalism, modernity, cultural Marxism, white racial dispossession and deracination, feminism, buggers’ licence, democracy and universal suffrage, equality, anti-Darwinism, anti-traditionalism, anti-racism, Jewish racism, Firedoglake-ism ... In fact, you had better just assume I am against everything in the modern liberal zeitgeist unless I specifically exclude it!
Why so radical ? ...Sounds very extremist to me.
Aren’t the statements, given above, proof that you are NOT SO MUCH concerned about the TRUTH, but just a firm supporter of anti-liberalism at any cost and NO MATTER WHAT.
i.e. If an Anti Liberal says ‘Horses have 8 legs’ would you blindly support him, because he is anti-liberal ? Isn’t that a perversion of truth on your part ?
And do these thoughts apply to your perception of beauty too ?
Take care.
Posted by Malcolm A on April 13, 2006, 06:39 PM | #
Hi Fred
1.That’s true but to make it clearer, it’s not about whether their alabaster skin is what makes them more beautiful, but about a whole series of physical qualities.
2. if the whole package is right, brown skin or skin of any color is fine with me.
This is the very issue that I have been grappling with so far.
If, as you say, skin color does not matter, is there any clear scientific proof that Nordics and other Caucasoids have dissimilarities in bone and skeletal structure what would make them statistically significantly different populations. I think NOT.
Most genetic differences between Nordic and Non-Nordic Caucasoid females are largely superficial and can be found in the eye color, height and skin tone. If significant differences existed they wouldn’t fall into Caucasoid group. See Mongoloid and Negroids have major, very obvious structural differences and are classified accordingly.
The most admixture has done , especially in middle eastern populations, is to smoothen out some sharp features of nordic populations.
This is where I disagree with JR.
Cheers.
Posted by Malcolm A on April 13, 2006, 07:01 PM | #
Hi JR
Thanks for the detailed response.
1. I have a question about the 4 pics you have posted from the Miss USA , above..Miss California, Kentucky etc…
Is your point that they are white but non-nordic and therefore won for reasons of political correctness ?
2. About Ash Rai, why beat a dead horse ? I think she got attention from the West only after she appeared at Cannes [ 2001 or 2002 ?]in a yellow saree...Looked good that day!
3. I am trying to post the latest Linnaean classification of Homo Sapiens for you. Give me some time. As a Biologist, I do not accept your claim that there is no current classification of the human species. I am a Population Biologist ( now semi retired ) who worked for over 25 years in the pest management field, and I am sure I can locate the latest classification .. The one I have posted might be the one, but I will check whether it has changed.
4. As for Udita I will try to post the correct link. I am very bad at posting pics and maybe you can help me out by posting one or 2 that I will provide links to. I think she looks pretty difficult to identify separately, especially in this one photo with a blond wig, I thought she was a nordic 1st.. There are also some other beauties that you might not have even heard of
( My wife is a beauty contest fanatic ). I also like Adrianna Lima, Letitia Casta, etc.
5. But, I think the most important factor is the biological aspect of this debate and would you post what you say are the significant bone structure differences between Nordic and Non -Nordic caucasians. The detailed paper you have posted does not clearly indicate the differences.
Also why do you use the term Nordic if you believe it to be outdated ? maybe as a point of reference ?
In a hurry.
Will be back later.
Cheers
Posted by J Richards on April 17, 2006, 07:49 PM | #
Malcolm A,
My point is not that the non-blond white women won because of political correctness. There is a great deal of hair and eye color diversity in Europe, and minus political correctness, it is unlikely that all the top white contestants will be blonde, though one would expect them to be overrepresented if you average over multiple beauty contests.
Linnaean classification is old stuff. Cladisitics is more popular, and whereas a scientific classification of human races is possible and can be inferred by anyone who takes the trouble of looking it up, such classification is not official and discussion of it is generally avoided.
I have been able to get the pictures of Udita by copying your link and pasting it instead of clicking on the malformed link. Anyway, Udita is an unimpressive woman by European Standards, especially her physique. See if you can come up with better examples, and I am especially interested in you coming up with lots of examples of Indian beauties so that we can see whether the best looking Nordic women or best looking Indian women look better.
Adriana Lima and Laetitia Casta look better than many women, but there are plenty of much better looking Nordic women around.
Nordic is not a racial term per se, but it is short for Northern European or something that pertains to Northern Europe.
There are a number of skeletal differences between European populations. Perusing the [mostly old; e.g., C. S. Coon] anthropological literature will provide you with plenty of examples: more slender skeletal build of Southern Europeans, rounder crania in Central Europeans, especially elongated crania in several Northern European populations, greater height in Northern and [related] Eastern European populations, relatively greater leg lengths in some Northern European populations, finer facial features in Northern and Central Europeans compared to Southern Europeans, etc.
Posted by Malcolm A on April 18, 2006, 05:29 PM | #
HI JR
1.My point is not that the non-blond white women won...etc
Thanks for clearing that up.
2. Linnaean classification is old stuff. Cladisitics is more popular ...etc.,
I am not aware of Linnaean classification being outdated at all. The old classifcation of human races was suppressed for the very reason we are discussing- political corectness.
Following WW II related race-based atrocities committed by Nazi Germany etc., scientists hastened to disown the human race concept and adopt theories such as geographical Clines, Clades etc. However, Cladistics is beset by a whole set of scientific problems and is not at all a widely accepted concept in systematics. The old Linnaean classification of binary nomencalture still holds ( Genera; Species).
However, all that is largely irrelevant to our discussion.
Replying to your contention in regards to differences in height, finer bone structure, skull shape etc., between nordic and non nordic caucasian women ( S. European etc ), do you know of any studies that show a statistically significant difference between such populations, because this question can only be answered by comparing representative samples from each population and conducting a statistically valid study.
3. Your usage of ‘Hindu women’ is misleading because, all Indians are not Hindu per se. There are many Xtians, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Pharsis (persian ancestry) as well as Anglo-Indians and other Eurasians etc in India
4. I made a little mistake while posting the Udita Goswamy link by pasting it next to 1. Sorry about that. I never quite managed to master the art of posting pics. Also, some links are too long and breakup into 2 lines causing a bad linkup. In such cases copy-pasting the link should take you to the pic.
5. I am posting below, one with Udita in a blond wig and I would like to hear your opinon as to how close her look in that pic is to Nordic and if NOT how so ? If you wanna compare this with a Nordic woman, please post both pics side by side here so we can each see what the other is talking about rather than having to go back to the web site.
I am posting 2 more links to Amrita Rao and 2 others, who, in my opinion, has very narrow jawline and sharp aryan features. My main objective is to demonstrate that there isn’t that great a difference between the physical features ( especially facial parameters ) of these women and Nordics except in hair, skin and eye color.
1.Udita Goswami
http://www.indiadaily.com/images/editorial/Udita_Goswami/01.jpg
2.Amrita Rao
http://www.bollywoodblitz.com/stars/Amrita Rao/pictures/4.shtml
http://www.bollywoodblitz.com/stars/Amrita Rao/pictures/9-y.shtml
3. Katrina Kaif
http://screenindia.com/wall/pics/k/katrina_kaif1_1024.jpg
http://www.pixparty.com/ftv/photos/2.jpe
4. Diya Mirza
http://bollywood.infoctionary.com/misc/DiyaMirzaWP.jpg
http://www.reachouthyderabad.com/images/diya.jpg
More links will follow.
Cheers.
Posted by Malcolm A on April 18, 2006, 05:50 PM | #
Hi JR
Re above post.
I notice that the 2 Amrita Rao links did not post fully when uploading to your site. Others are working.
Please type in percent symbol followed by 20 in the dotted gap after Amrita and before Rao to complete the link.
com/stars/Amrita......... Rao/pictures/4.shtml
Posted by J Richards on April 19, 2006, 06:56 PM | #
Malcolm A,
Classification of organisms in terms of genus and species is, of course, the norm, but it is a different matter when it comes to subspecies, i.e., race. There is no official acknowledgement of whether there are subspecies within humans, and for reasons that you have described correctly.
Anyway, there is no way South Asians can be classified as Caucasoid when they have a substantial non-Caucasoid element in them. Even aside from genetics, only a minority of South Asians look Caucasoid.
In my previous comment, I linked to a paper that shows finer facial features in Northern and Central Europeans compared to Southern Europeans and Middle Easterners; read it. I don’t believe I need to cite any papers on some of the more obvious differences such as height differences between European populations. You can look up W.W. Howell’s data for differences in skull shape between European populations:
Howells WW (1989) Skull shapes and the map: craniometric analyses in the dispersion of modern Homo. Peabody Museum Papers 79:1-189.
Howells WW (1995) Who’s Who in skulls: ethnic identification of crania from measurements. Peabody Museum Papers 82:1-108.
I know that not all Indians are Hindu, but I believe that the Indian women that I have shown above are all Hindus, and Hindus being the dominant group in India, I might as well use Hindu as a proxy for Indian because Indian in the U.S. typically means Native American.
Even though your links are malformed, I have been able to see the pictures of the women by copying and pasting the links. Anyway, now you are talking! Nothing beats an actual comparison of some of the best looking Indian women with good-looking Nordic women to see who looks better. Like I said previously, we will ignore pigmentation.
First up is Udita Goswami. As you can clearly see below, Udita Goswami does not have European facial features, let alone Nordic facial features, and I cannot imagine any white man finding the face of Udita Goswami better than that of the Nordic woman shown to her right. Udita Goswami has facial features in between Caucasoids and Mongoloids, and there is no way colored contacts, bleached skin and blonde hair dye could make her look Nordic.
Next we consider Amrita Rao, who once again does not have European facial features, let alone Nordic facial features, and as in the case of Udita Goswami, her facial features lie in between Caucasoids and Mongoloids. Once again, I would be surprised if any white man found the face of Amrita Rao better than that of the Nordic woman shown to her right.
Now, let us consider Diya Mirza. Diya Mirza clearly does not have Nordic facial features; the gracile jaw and facial fineness seen among attractive Nordic women is simply lacking in Diya.
Finally, we consider Katrina Kaif. Katrina Kaif looks European, and is the closest to a Nordic among all your examples, but she is nowhere close to being among the best looking woman within a European context.
Between Katrina Kaif and attractive Nordic women, some white men will likely prefer Katrina, but in all other cases, few to no white men will prefer the facial features of the other Indian women that you have mentioned. Additionally, among the four Indian women that you have mentioned, only two—Diya Mirza and Katrina Kaif—have Caucasoid facial features, and your choices of the four women are no match for the fine facial features seen in attractive Nordic women.
More importantly, your choices do not help your argument that between Indian/Hindu and Nordic women, the best looking are the ones with some combination of Indian and Nordic looks because of all the women that you have pointed out, the whitest, i.e., Katrina Kaif, will be seen as the most acceptable to the majority of white males.
See if you can come up with better looking Indian women.
Posted by Malcolm A on April 20, 2006, 04:16 PM | #
Hi JR
Thanks for the side by side comparisons. A I said, I am not good at posting pics. This, in fact, is the first time I am trying this stuff. Sorry about the bad links.
2, Some of your assumptions are correct while others are incorrect. Some of the women I have posted are not hindu ( religion ) I am pretty sure that Brahmins like Udita , Amrita Rao has no Mongoloid blood in them.
3. These wome certainly aren’t the best looking women in India. They are just good looking women with acting talent. If you have no acting talent you would not be an actress.So beauty is not the only criterion though it is a major one. ANd the same goes for the Nordics too.
1.Priyanka Chopra (Miss world 2000)
http://www.cinemaexpress.com/archaics/150204/images/15Priyankachopra.jpg
2.Amisha Patel
http://www.bollywoodpicturesgallery.com/pictures/amisha02.htm
http://www.bollywoodpicturesgallery.com/pictures/amisha10.htm
3. Celina Jaitley ( Miss universe 2nd runner up)
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y219/niloo_net/wallpapers/Celina-Jaitley.jpg
More will follow. I really must find time to go into the various sites and get some more pics for you. Perhaps by the week end!
As for your scientific argument I will post a detailed response as soon as I have time.
Also one more thing before I go. As you’ve said here, the Nordics would certainly prefer the women you posted but then that is not the criterion. What would the whole world prefer ?
Also we were discussing fine facial features and jawlines , and I think I see no difference between Amrita and the Nordic girl in you comparison. Also this comparison illustrates my point that Nordic women look too intense and masculine and aggressive as compared to the sweet, innocent and soft look of Amrita etc.. Also check out Amsiha Patel for the same reasons.
Talk to you soon.
Take care.
Posted by Malcolm A on April 20, 2006, 04:26 PM | #
JR
I would have liked to see that one link of Udita with the blond wig that I posted , but perhaps you overlooked to post that pic. Gives a very good comparison. The one you have posted here is not from the link I posted ..
Also some of Diya’s and Katrina’s pics are not from the links I have given above.
Those would have given a better comparison !
Cheers
Posted by J Richards on April 23, 2006, 01:25 AM | #
Malcolm A,
I said that the women whose pictures I posted above my previous comment were probably all Hindus, not that all pictures of Indian women on this page feature Hindus. Anyway, I am just using Hindu as a proxy for Indian, as explained previously.
You are mistaken that Brahmins do not have any Mongoloid ancestry. Some of the genetic data about castes in India that you have cited shows absorption of the mitochondrial DNA of low caste Hindus by the higher caste people, revealing female-biased Asiatic ancestry of the upper caste Hindus. Besides, Mongoloid ancestry is clearly evident in the facial features of Udita Goswami (there is no way you could say that her face is Caucasoid).
Acting ability is required on the part of an actress and may not coincide with good looks, but given India’s large population and the romantic theme of the vast majority of Indian movies, one expects to see some of the best looking Indian women as lead actresses, and so far your choices are nowhere as good looking as the best looking Nordic women.
You have asked what would the World prefer? I think most would prefer the Nordic women to the Hindu/Indian women in the comparisons above and also below.
How can you not see any differences in the jawline and degree of fineness of facial features between Amrita Rao and the Nordic woman to her right? The Hindu has more massive jaws, larger cheekbones, a broader nose and a pasty face. The Nordic woman has much more refined and sharper features. I don’t see how you see the Nordic woman as having more intense and masculine features!
The pictures of the Indian women that I have used are mostly different from the ones that you have linked to for good reasons: your pictures are not clear and often too small. For instance, you asked me to use a picture of Udita Goswami with a blond wig, but the photo you linked to was too small. I found a larger version of it, and as you can see below, her hair is obscuring a lot of her facial features, and she does not look Nordic at all.
Now, I will post the pictures that you have linked to, followed by clearer comparisons. You linked to the following picture of Priyanka Chopra.
However, a clearer picture of Priyanka Chopra clearly reveals non-Caucasoid facial features and nothing approaching the fine looks of a Nordic woman.
You linked to the following pictures of Amisha Patel. Both your links show obscured features.
On the other hand, a clearer picture of Amisha Patel shows heavy-set non-Caucasoid features that are completely devoid of the refined features of attractive Nordic women.
You linked to the following pictures of Celina Jaitley.
However, the following clearer picture of Celina Jaitley shows non-Caucasoid facial features that are far removed from Nordic fineness.
This time all three women that you have chosen have non-Caucasoid facial features with clear evidence of part-Mongoloid ancestry. How can the heavy features of these women compare to the fine features of attractive Nordic women?
Posted by Malcolm A on April 24, 2006, 04:00 PM | #
Hi JR
First of, several inconsistencies in the points you have raised.
1. It is the differences in the pic’s ( angle, light etc ) rather than the differences in the faces that stand out ; i.e : compare the 1st 2 pics of Udita and Priyanka with those of the 3 Nordics you have posted and I see hardly any difference in the overall facial structure/features. It is just differences in the angles of the specific portraits that stand out .
2. I agree that Amisha and Celina do have somewhat more smaller and less angular facial bone structures, but so do lots of nordic like Britney Spears etc. It is just that you have
selected Nordic women with somewhat longer faces to prove your point.
Second of, my point in posting Amisha and Celina’s pics was to demonstrate that they have much more feminine, softer looks compared to the Nordic women in you next to last post
that males find more attractive.
The woman you have posted next to Amrita Rao ( Sarah Peachez) looks like she could kill some one, point being projection of aggressive appearance ( not saying she is really that way). Indian women are on average, much more respectful, gentle and tolerant to adversities in life, which probably accounts for the very low divorce rates (<7%) in the
subcontinent as compared to ours (50%). I should know. Married both kinds. Their nature reflects in their look.
3. Some of the Nordic women you posted apear to have brown hair ( Charlize Theron ) showing that it is all in the pic ( brown filter). Also most of them have a very unhealthy looking pinkish skin color ( Annah next to Amisha Patel ).
4. As for Celina Jaitley, she was 3rd runner up in Miss Universe, and her boyfriend is a Nordic movie producer ( ? Teague ), who is lving in India for the last 3 years . I don’t think Charlize even compares. Maybe someone like Kate Beckingsale ? ( One good looking Nordic in my book )
5. As for Udita's blond pic, her jaw looks pretty pointy to me and if you are calling her Mongoloid, what about Catherine Zeta Jones and Rene Zeilweger ? Pretty chinkish looking
right there.
In regards to Brahmins Maternal DNA ( mitochondrial ) being mixed with lower castes it is the otherway about. Brahmins were infusing their genes into the lower castes. Brahmins could sleep w/ any women they wanted.
6. A VERY IMPORTANT POINT before I go. You mentioned that this non-Nordic beauty trend is a recent phenomenon ( '90s) caused by political correctness, but Indian women have been appreciated for their beauty as early as in the 1950s and 60s too.
i]. Ayesha , Queen of Jaipur :
named one of the 10 most beautiful women in the world by Vogue in early 1960s
ii]. Leela naidu :
Indian fashion model -votd one of the 10 most beautiful women in the world by Vogue in
the 1960s
iii] Rita Faria : Miss world 1965 ?
1v] Shakira Baksh : Miss Guyana, and 2nd runner up in Miss World (1967)
( married Michael Cane who went bonkers for her after seeing her in a coffee commercialand immediately went and proposed to her ( RE: Whats It All About - Autobiograpby of Michael Cane ; says he went all sweaty palmed after seening the commmercial and couldn’tsleep whole night )
Find below, some more south Indian filmstars who are supposed to be Dravidian Caucasoids , but look pretty northern. Also as you’ve posted Grace Kelly etc., I am posting a coupla pics of Indian movie stars from yesteryear.
i]Asin (South Indian)
http://www.behindwoods.com/features/Gallery/actress/actress1/Asin-Gallery/Asin 17.html
http://www.veenaimovies.com/WallPaperImage.asp?ImgName=16032005_B2.jpg&Id=515
http://www.veenaimovies.com/WallPaperImage.asp?ImgName=asin_11_05_05_B1.jpg&Id=633
ii]Simran (south Indian)
http://www.dinakaran.com/cinema/glam1/simran.jpg
http://members.tripod.com/~Thianesh/actress/sim11.jpg
http://movies.indiainfo.com/wallpapers/albums/album124/simran2.sized.jpg
iii]Sneha Ullal(2000s)
http://www.apunkachoice.com/people/act755/sneha_ullal-stills6.html
http://www.apunkachoice.com/people/act755/sneha_ullal-stills.html
iv]sonali bendre(1980s)
http://members.tripod.com/azgar/actresses/sonali9.jpg
http://members.tripod.com/azgar/actresses/sonali7.jpg
http://members.tripod.com/azgar/actresses/sonali8.jpg
http://members.tripod.com/azgar/actresses/sonali11.jpg
http://chantu.com/bollywood/sonali/chantu_dot_com_sonali_bendre_006.jpg
http://movies.indiainfo.com/gallery/albums/album97-Sonali-Bendre/sonali04.jpg
v]sadhana (1960s)
http://www.bollywood501.com/classic_f/sadhana/index02.jpg
Posted by Phil Peterson on April 24, 2006, 05:23 PM | #
“Malcolm A”,
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too.
Earlier on this thread you said that Indian women were the most beautiful because they were of mixed race.
Now you say Indian ("Upper Caste") women are not mixed because the mixing occured lower down in the social structure because the ("Upper Caste") men could have sex with any women they wanted.
Posted by Malcolm A on April 25, 2006, 03:48 PM | #
Hi Phil
JR’s contention was that Brahmins are mixed with Mongoloids and low castes etc..And I was trying to show that Brahmins could cause their genes into the lower castes but the lower castes were not able to infuse theirs into the Brahmins. Maternal DNA is carried from mother to progeny, and means that the Brahmin men took non Brahmin women and not the other way around.
2. When it comes to Indians ‘mixed’ is often used but is misleading . The proponents of the Aryan Theory like Spencer Wells argue that Aryans [ (M17) R1a1 carriers] displaced and later admixed with darker Dravidians who were non aryans, BUT were and are still considered Caucasian in Systematics.
They may NOT be Nordic Caucasians, but they are still Caucasians. I know JR will comeback with the ‘ this classification is outdated’ argument, which I don’t buy.
3. Also, for a Brahmin, a lower caste could mean the warrior caste (Kshatriya) or merchat caste ( Vaishya).
So here the word ‘mixed’ has to be considered in a totally different context.
Posted by J Richards on April 26, 2006, 01:43 AM | #
Malcolm A,
You have to be kidding me that you cannot see any differences between the facial features in the specific pictures of Udita Goswami and Priyanka Chopra you mention and the Nordic women that I have compared them to. Notwithstanding the obfuscation (by hair or angle) and the small size, some prominent differences are clearly visible. For instance, in the photo of Udita Goswami with blondish hair coloring, you can see widely spaced eyes, a somewhat flattened nose (especially in the upper region ), somewhat flared nostrils, a tendency toward having slanted eyes and massive cheekbones; all these traits are leaning toward the Asiatic rather than the European. You address Udita’s chin, but most of the variation in humans as far as the chin is concerned is within populations, and you need to look at the overall face to see evidence of racial ancestry. You are right that Catherine Zeta Jones and Renee Zellweger do not have very European facial features, and this is the major reason why these women are unattractive. Their glamorous portrayal is make-up magic. More importantly, very few Nordics (and Catherine Zeta Jones certainly isn’t one) have multiple facial features shifted toward East Asian facial features, but most of the Indian women shown on this page have facial features shifted toward East Asian norms, including the aboriginals in southeast Asia.
I did not say anything about Amisha Patel and Celina Jaitley having smaller facial bones; their facial bones (especially cheekbones and jaws) are more massive than those of the Nordic women. Controlling for face size, Nordic women have longer faces than Indian women, on average. Anyway, Britney Spears is not an attractive woman and it is pointless to address her looks.
Amisha Patel and Celina Jaitley have less angular features than white women, and this is what you are calling softer features. Well, having more Mongoloid ancestry than Nordic women is bound to make their features less angular, but the reduced extent of angular features in them is not due to greater femininity but because of greater Mongoloid ancestry, instead. Their facial bones are more massive than those of the Nordic women, and this makes them look less feminine. Additionally, the part-Mongoloid pasty features of their faces are not what most whites prefer. Besides, I doubt that there are very many white men who would prefer the robust facial features of Celina Jaitley to that of the finer facial features of Charlize Theron.
The Nordic woman next to Amrita Rao looks aggressive? Are you kidding me? She has much more refined looks and a finer bone structure than Amrita.
I cannot comment on the gentleness of Indian and Nordic women since I have barely interacted with Indian women, not come across any relevant studies, and have known plenty of good-natured Nordic women, but the most likely reasons for the low divorce rate in India are 1) massive female illiteracy and low status of women, which make women dependent on men, forcing them to suffer male abuse without divorce as a practical option, and 2) a biased sex ratio, whereby reduced female availability implies than some men who do not like their wives would rather have a helping hand at home than try their luck at getting a new wife.
Yes, Charlize Theron does have brown hair, but so what? Not all Nordics have blond hair. With the exception of some parts of Scandinavia, only a minority of Northern Europeans have blond hair in adulthood.
Brahmins surely have been transferring their genes to the lower castes, but they also have absorbed lower caste genes among them—including the lowest caste and untouchable people—via upwardly mobile lower caste/untouchable females. Here is proof:
Figure legend. Neighbour-joining networks of genetic distances among caste communities. a, Network estimated from 411 base pairs of hypervariable region 1 of mtDNA. Distances between upper castes (Brahmin, n=41; Vysya, n=10; and Kshatriya, n=10), middle castes (Yadava, n=48; and Kapu, n=52), and lower castes (Relli, n=20; Mala, n=25; and Madiga, n=28) are correlated with social rank. Pairwise estimates of the proportion of genetic variation attributable to differences between groups indicate that the genetic distance between upper and lower castes is fourfold higher than between upper and middle castes (P<0.001). A neighbour-joining network of unique haplotypes reveals a star-like pattern (data not shown) with a few short central branches linking nodes from which tufts of long branches emerge. Lineages from different castes are scattered throughout the network, consistent with gene flow between communities or the sorting of lineages before the separation of castes. Analyses limited to transversions or excluding rapidly mutating sites within mtDNA HVS1 (ref. 9) do not substantially alter these results (data not shown). b, Network of genetic distances among caste communities estimated from Y-chromosome STRs (DYS19, DYS288, DYS388, DYS389A, DYS389B, DYS390 and DYS392) and SNPs (SRY10831, SY57 and RPS4Y)10. Upper, middle and lower castes do not cluster together, and distances between upper, middle and lower castes are not correlated with social rank.
Bamshad, M.J., Watkins, W.S., Dixon, M.E., Bhaskara, B.R., Naidu, J.M., Rasanayagam, A., Hammer, M.E., and Jorde, L.B. 1998. Female gene flow stratifies Hindu castes. Nature 395: 651-652.
How Brahmins got substantial Asiatic ancestry is not relevant to showing that they indeed have a large amount of Asiatic ancestry. You curiously keep calling Indians Caucasians when most of the pictures of Indians here as well as what you see in real life overwhelmingly show non-Caucasoid facial features, which hardly necessitates genetic studies to address how Caucasian they are, but as the example above and numerous other studies show, how can substantial East Asian genetic contribution to the South Asian people be reconciled with their being allegedly Caucasian?
So you find pink skin unhealthy looking? Like I said, this comparison should ignore pigmentation because we are addressing facial features, but as far as I am concerned, pink skin is preferable to yellow or yellow-brown skin. Besides, pink skin can usually be changed with a little help from the sun, and in Nordics this produces a beautiful bronze tone that is devoid of the yellowish tinge in Asiatics, and one can always resort to a spray-on tan to avoid unnecessary skin damage and/or if the Nordic cannot tan.
I did not say anything about a recent non-Nordic trend in beauty pageants; a focus on appreciating Nordic beauty has been problematic since the time the Nazis were in power. What has been seen in recent years is a sudden notable improvement in the placement of Indian women in beauty pageants.
You mention four examples of Indian women being appreciated for their beauty in the 1960s. Big deal! A population of several hundred million people with a significant Caucasoid element is bound to produce a handful of very good looking women. And, here are some pictures of the four women that you have mentioned.
Maharani Gayatri Devi, with features in between Caucasoid and Mongoloid, but she does look good.
Leela Naidu, with Caucasoid facial features but nothing approaching a fine Nordic nose.
Rita Faria (on the right; couldn’t find a better picture of her).
Shakira Baksh, with nothing Caucasoid about her looks, and she looks much worse than both the white women next to her.
If the 4 women above were among the best looking among hundreds of millions of Indian women in the 1960s, then the apparent conclusion is that beauty is largely alien to Indian women, with the best looking also happening to be the closest to Caucasians.
And, here are some more comparisons based on the newer women that you have mentioned.
Asin, with a hooked nose (apparent in lateral view); compare the fineness of her nose and other features to that of the Nordic woman.
The manly Simran who doesn’t look Caucasoid, compared to a Nordic woman whom I don’t particularly like, but I am going easy on Simran.
The aboriginal-featured Sneha Ullal.
The coarse-featured Sonali Bendre.
The masculine and part-Mongoloid Sadhana.
Once again, none of the Indian women that you have pointed out are any match for the fine facial features of Nordic women.
Posted by Jules on April 26, 2006, 11:20 AM | #
Well I read a lot of the post and as a Nordic woman, I can honestly say I am NOT ATTRACTED To most white men, unless they have brown hair or eyes. Those of English descents with their dark features, I find attractive. Now I agree with Malcom to some extent, some of the women are attractive, however some of them not to my standards of taste, such as Rai, whose figure I would say is “Overweight.”
However someone posted pictures of indian women next to nordic women, an on the contrary, I found that most of the indian women were actually better looking then the nordics. Yes majority of inidan people are indigeneous and not appealing to me, but those women are prettier then the nordic women compared to them.
Just because you have blond hair blue eyes does not mean you are beautiful. You are beautiful because certain features are attractive and overall your face is shaped nice etc
I am constantly sunning myself because I hate the paleness of skin colors and I would hate for people to say that I or any other Nordic women tan because we are trying to be more ethnic, just as I can understand when someone says a negroid or mongloid or asian or latin wants to have lighter skin because they want to be white. If one was smarter and well traveled, you would know that in those countries, perhaps not latin america as most do seem to want to be white, but in those of Indians or asians, they want lighter complexion to show that they are not poor field hands but rather wealthy people who are pale due to being in their house all day.
Again, yes I wish to preserve the aryan roots, but unfortuantely, mine and many of my nordic friends are always attracted to the dark haired men whether they be latin, white or anything else that deems attractive. You know how they say, opposites attract, so perhaps, you could date women who dyes their hair blond.
Posted by Guessedworker on April 26, 2006, 12:51 PM | #
Jules,
Try to seperate the influence of your biology, which is eternal and true, from your own suggestibility, as evinced by your interest in obtaining a tan. Little in what you have said is free from influence from without your own psyche, and strongly infers the powerful embrace of modernity.
As freedom is not self-expression when the expressions are acquired from without, so sexual preference is not genuine when it favours other races over one’s own for the same reason. In that regard, women are situated somewhat differently to men, since sociobiologically they must adapt to accept tribal victors so as to pass on their own genes in whatever circumstances prevail. But in evolutionary time tribalism is not antipathetic to racialism - tribal competitors, victorious or not, would likely be extremely close genetically.
The golden letters inscribed on the entrance of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi remain a better guide to freedom than liberalism.
Posted by Malcolm A on April 26, 2006, 04:24 PM | #
Hi JR
Thanks for the detailed response. This time I will try to respond in detail too.
1.
You have to be kidding me that you cannot see any differences between the facial features in the specific pictures of Udita Goswami and Priyanka Chopra you mention and the Nordic women that I have compared them to...etc..
I assume you must have some grounding in science. I am a field Biologist who has authored over 40 research articles in accredited journals and know something about scietific research methodology. Why I state this is for the following reasons.
i) There are individual variations within populations ( chance or random ) and often two close but different populations overlap at their tail ends. The diffferences between Udita, Priyanka etc and the Nordics you have posted are individual variations within a population or ones that fall within the overlapping zones. These do not prove anything. (Type I and II errors in Biometry).
ii) This is why I inquired whether you possess or know of any publications proving a significant statistical difference between a combination of facial featues ( not just one or two ) between nordic and non-nordic Caucasians, which may prove that their facial structure pputs them in entirely different statistical populations.
iii ) The research papers you have provided are largely theoretical and do not provide any methodology, data or analysis thereof.
2.
You are right that Catherine Zeta Jones and Renee Zellweger do not have very European facial features, and this is the major reason why these women are unattractive. Their glamorous portrayal is make-up magic....
Catherine Zeta Kones was voted the second or 3rd most attractive woman in the world ( behind Aishwarya Rai ) by a recent poll in the UK. SO I am not sure whether you are on solid ground with the above theory of yours..
3.
I did not say anything about Amisha Patel and Celina Jaitley having smaller facial bones; their facial bones (especially cheekbones and jaws) are more massive than those of the Nordic women. Controlling for face size, Nordic women have longer faces than Indian women, on average. Anyway, Britney Spears is not an attractive woman and it is pointless to address her looks
Amisha and Celina would certainly look different and appear to have less ‘massive’ jaws, if the angles were different and if I could post pics I would be able to post some Nordics with ‘massive’ jaws too..So you have the edge over me in posting the pics…
About longer faces , again, do you have a definitive statistical study ?
About Britney’s looks , we Americans would disagree with you totally. Folks here were crazy about her [before marriage]...Nordic and everything you know…
4.
Besides, I doubt that there are very many white men who would prefer the robust facial features of Celina Jaitley to that of the finer facial features of Charlize Theron.
The Nordic woman next to Amrita Rao looks aggressive? Are you kidding me? She has much more refined looks and a finer bone structure than Amrita.
In fact, as I said, Celina’s boyfriend is a white man who moved to India to be with her ! And about Charlize , did you know that her mom shot her dad ? So some aggressiveness is certainly present.
As for Charlize having brown hair that whole pic was brown tintd, indicating a brown filter ? SO my point there was that pics can and do make a difference.
4.
the most likely reasons for the low divorce rate in India are 1) massive female illiteracy and low status of women, which make women dependent on men, forcing them to suffer male abuse without divorce as a practical option, and 2) a biased sex ratio, whereby reduced female availability implies than some men who do not like their wives would rather have a helping hand at home than try their luck at getting a new wife.
This is wrong. If the women were aggressive the men would divorce them. So the women’s status does not apply. THe availability of women does not apply to all parts of India equally ( true only in a few parts ) and in China it is even lower.
5.
You mention four examples of Indian women being appreciated for their beauty in the 1960s. Big deal! A population of several hundred million people with a significant Caucasoid element is bound to produce a handful of very good looking women
I did not say anything about a recent non-Nordic trend in beauty pageants; a focus on appreciating Nordic beauty has been problematic since the time the Nazis were in power. What has been seen in recent years is a sudden notable improvement in the placement of Indian women in beauty pageants.
As i said,
1. The Bollywood women nor the 4 women Ayesha, Leela , Shakira and Rita represent the most beautiful women in India for the following reason
i. In India the elite families look down on movie industry and women who act in them ( a a form of exhibitionism and prostitution ) and would rather die than send their women to Bollywood. Though some change has occured in recent years ( Amisha Patel )
ii. India has 1 billion + and even if 1% of them were pretty it would be a very big number ( more than 4 ). As I said I move a lot in elite Indian circles here in N America and have seen Indian girls who can beat even Ash Rai in looks and no body even heard of them.
iii. Actually there were a lot of Nordics winning in the 50s to the 80s. It is just that the Indians , Latins etc are beginning to TRAIN better and speak and carry themselves better so that their superior looks are not masked by POISE.
5.
Shakira Baksh, with nothing Caucasoid about her looks, and she looks much worse than both the white women next to her.
Your argument does not hold.
Did you know that a panel of judges voted Aishwarya Rai (India, 1994 ) the most beautiful Miss World EVER, Claudine Auger (France in 1958 ) the most beautiful 1st runner up EVER, and Shakira Baksh (Indian 1967 ) the most beautiful 2nd runner up EVER, as recently as in 2003..
The judges were [ international panel w/ NO Indians]
Ms. Janet Boring (photo), Miss New York State and Miss United State’s 1st runner-up from 1961, Dawid Baraniak, Poland , Nick C, Turkey/NewZealand , Markku Erkkila, Finland , David Aizik, Israel, Donald West, Canada, Heidar Jonsson, Iceland, Lee Grindley, England , Peter Sereno, Australia/Philippines , Woojae Chung, Korea, Alberto Dubal, Brazil , Rafael Delfin, USA/Philippines , Marjukka Nieminen, Finland , Jimmy Steele, Canada and Julio Rodriguez,Venezuela
http://www.globalbeauties.com/contests/mw2ndru.htm
So please dont say that this was a poll result with Indians voting en masse.
7. Asin has a hooked nose etc..
This is mostly because of selective posting of pics. I am sure you have seen better pics of most of these women but did not post them. Would you post the 3 pics of Asin that I linked and then maybe we will compare.
6. Brahmin ancestry
As this is a scientific subject I will reply below with some references.
Cheers
Posted by Malcolm A on April 26, 2006, 05:12 PM | #
JR
As for your theory about the ancestry of Brahmins, here is an abstract of a very recent study published in Ann. Hum. Biol. using Mt DNA variations.
Mitochondrial DNA variation in ranked caste groups of Maharashtra (India) and its implication on genetic relationships and origins.
Ann Hum Biol 2003 Jul-Aug;30(4):443-54.
INTRODUCTION
Polymorphism in mitochondrial DNA have been proven to be useful in studying genetic relationships and origins. ...CONCLUSIONS:
....The upper caste group, Brahmin, is genetically distinct from the middle and lower caste groups. However, ...... it appears that there may have been recruitment from other populations into this group....
This clearly indicates that whatever genetic infusion it was that took place into Brahmins was not sufficiently significant to alter their racial sub-group status.
If it is your contention that even mild incorporation of non Aryan genes would contaminate the Aryans, welcome to the real world ! Even we Nordics carry a lot of non Caucasian genes that are common to other groups as we all emanated from Africa ( re Stephen Oppenheimer’s The Real Eve. Modern Man’s Journey Out of Africa ?? not sure if the title is exact ).
Also, responding to Phil Peterson’s commnets above, no one is arguing that Indo Aryans and Nordics are different sub groups. relative to Nordics the Indo Aryans ( Iranians ) are indeed different ( ‘mixed’ if you will ). But my contention in stating that brahmins aren’t mixed is that they remained largely isolated form other non-aryan groups such as Mongoloids and Dravid Caucasians, which is proven by the above study
Think Iranian when I refer to Aryans and not the Nordic aryans. These two groups split , reconnected and split again many a time durng the course of history.
Accounts for the lighter, peachier pale skin color of the Iranians [ as opposed to the less pigmented Nordic paleness] that most Northen Indians (Punjabis, kashmiris, konkana Brahmins etc ) carry.
Posted by Jules on April 27, 2006, 11:48 AM | #
Whoever quoted that Catherine Zeta Jones was not attractive is absoulutely crazy!! there is nothing about that woman that isn’t perfect! Rene I find unique looking, not beautiful but rare and different. Blond hair and blue eyes have become so common nowadays.
As for someone’s comment saying that white men prefer to date Nordic women over other races, please tell me where, I am a very attractive Nordic woman and get plenty of attention and admiration, however my friend who is half nordic and half asian of some sort, as soon as any man or woman sees her, its as if I or anyone else does not exist!! We have traveled all over the world, and no matter where we go, whatever race we encounter, the girl seems to hold some sort of spell over people because as long as she is around, its as if men who love nordic women forget that they do.
So to say that most white men prefer a nordic woman is based on my experience and many other people’s experience absolutely wrong!! I wonder where are you based that such an argument can be made??
Posted by Guessedworker on April 27, 2006, 12:45 PM | #
Jules,
Personal experience is no basis for disinterring Truth, and even popular conceptions are invariably misconceptions.
For what it’s worth, I find non-white skin and facial features disinteresting. I look at a woman through a race-aware sexuality, and regard those of my countrymen who do not do likewise as slaves to fashions of which they are sublimely ignorant.
Posted by Phil Peterson on April 27, 2006, 04:24 PM | #
I am a very attractive Nordic woman and get plenty of attention and admiration, however my friend who is half nordic and half asian of some sort, as soon as any man or woman sees her, its as if I or anyone else does not exist!!
Some Asian-white mixes do look good. But then there are many that do not. I have seen many Asian/white mixes in London and there are some that do not even deserve a second glance. It all depends.
In addition, I have never been attracted to Mongoloid or Negroid women. But there are lots of white men who prefer asian women. I would say that those who do are generally incapable of winning over the better looking white women (this may not be universally true but it generally holds).
Culture also plays a part. I hope I will be forgiven for saying this by my American friends and colleagues here. I have never, with one notable exception, been attracted to any American women I ever met (although they may not be a representative sample). Even the better looking ones sounded more masculine (and Im not alluding to the tone of someone’s voice but more to the manner and style of speaking and their demeanour). European women tend to be more feminine (although there are many that are obviously not). Incidentally, the American girl I found attractive grew up in Britain!
This has less to do with race (if we consider that there are many Nordic women in America too) and more to do with culture.
Also, unlike JR, I do find some Italian and Greek women very attractive. As I have written on a previous thread, the best looking woman I have yet seen, IMO, is probably Monica Bellucci (when she was younger).
Posted by Phil Peterson on April 27, 2006, 04:40 PM | #
and regard those of my countrymen who do not do likewise as slaves to fashions of which they are sublimely ignorant.
Someone should do a study as to what types of women and shapes very considered beautiful in which age. Looking at paintings a from a few centuries ago and we find most of the women in the paintings (when seen from my 21st century lens) obese or at least very plump. I would not consider them attractive. But they were clearly the standard of beauty at one time and that is why they were chosen as models for those paintings.
At the other extreme, we have anorexic women with little more than skin and bones on their body dominating the fashion ramps (for reasons we all know) these days.
So fashions obviously keep changing. And given the modern/post-modern obsession with multiculturalism, it comes as no surprise that race-mixed women are elevated to some sort of platform (which may not have happened in another time).
Posted by J Richards on April 28, 2006, 10:50 PM | #
Jules,
Nobody here is arguing that blond hair and blue eyes make one beautiful. The issue is the attractiveness of people with a high frequency of these traits (Nordics) versus those with an absence of these traits (e.g., South Asian Indians), and with Malcolm, the debate specifically is about the best looking Nordic and Indian women. The comparisons are one of facial features and the physique [most of the data pertaining to the physique are in the form of citations rather than pictures]. The fact that you like dark eyes and dark hair is not relevant, and is in fact true of several white women, but if you find the facial features of the Indian women better than those of the Nordic women in the comparisons, on average, then you surely are an outlier among whites. Once again, the aforementioned comparisons address facial features, not pigmentation.
Regarding your tanning, you are just tanning and not trying to have your facial features surgically altered to make it more non-white, which cannot be described in terms of your trying to look more ethnic, but the non-whites who are trying to lighten themselves are also disproportionately going for plastic surgery to make their features look less ethnic and are thereby trying to look whiter.
Regarding your argument that you, an attractive Nordic woman, barely gets noticed if you are standing next to a white-Asian friend, I will believe you if I see a picture of you and your Asian friend together. Host it at imageshack.us and link to it or click on the contact link at the top of this image and email it to the site owner (use the email address mentioned since emailing the owner from within this site will not allow you to send attachments).
As far as my being absolutely crazy for not finding Catherine Zeta Jones attractive goes, I will let the following image speak for itself; even with extensive plastic surgery, she is no match for Nordic beauty.
Malcolm A,
Regarding your comment concerning Type I and Type II errors, even if you compare blacks and whites, the majority of the overall variation with respect to several skeletal parameters will be found within populations and only a minority between, yet there will be no difficulty in separating blacks and whites if a sufficiently numerous cluster of traits are examined.
More relevant to our discussion, yes there are Nordic women with massive cheekbones, Nordic women with large jaws, Nordic women with weakly developed chins, Nordic women with somewhat flattened noses, Nordic women with hooked noses, etc., but examining the cluster of traits such as jaw shape, nose shape, cheekbone shape, etc. clearly reveals Indians to be physically distinct from Europeans and especially Nordics. Your own pictures reveal that the majority cannot be said to have Caucasoid features, let alone Nordic facial features, and most show some combination of European and East Asian features, which dovetails with the two major population affinities of South Asians.
You have asked again whether there are data that show statistically significant differences between the facial features of Nordic and non-Nordic Caucasians. Did you not notice that I cited two of W.W. Howells’ books on this issue in a previous comment? They have all the skull measurements you could want and are not devoid of data analysis. You can download W.W. Howells’ data and run a cluster analysis on it to see if all Caucasoid populations are indistinguishable from each other. Howells’ did not include South Asian Indians, but then South Asian Indians are not Caucasian, as shown below.
In a study of racial variation in facial flatness, South Asians, including people from Punjab and Delhi, both in the Northwestern part of the Indian subcontinent, thereby comprising of Indians that are closest to Europeans genetically, had, compared to whites, multiple facial features shifted toward Australian aborigines, Melanesians and related people in Southeast Asia; the Indians had flatter forehead profiles, a deeper infraglabellar notch, less projecting nasal bones and more protruding jaws at the level of the teeth. See:
Hanihara T. Frontal and facial flatness of major human populations. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2000 Jan;111(1):105-34.
So you have multiple shifts in average features of South Asians toward southeast Asiatics, even in people in Northwestern India, and an aboriginal contribution to South Asians is self-evident to any astute observer of the facial features of South Asians. Is this an example of variation within a race supposedly comprising of both whites and the majority of South Asians?
Consider the following genetic study.
A study of 199 ancestry-informative DNA markers showed that South Asians, comprising of mostly upper caste people, do not cluster with Europeans.
In the two figures below, EUA = white, AFR = black African, AMI = Native American, EAS = East Asian, SAS = South Asian, AFA = black American, PRN = Puerto Rican, MAM = Mexican-American and MXN = Mexican.
Cluster analysis of 199 ancestry-informative markers at k = 6 (i.e., 6 clusters) produced the following average contribution of the six clusters in the populations studied.
When the proportion of each cluster in an individual (shown on the y-axis) is plotted for each consecutive individual (on the x-axis), the following results are obtained.
Yang N, Li H, Criswell LA, Gregersen PK, Alarcon-Riquelme ME, Kittles R, Shigeta R, Silva G, Patel PI, Belmont JW, Seldin MF. Examination of ancestry and ethnic affiliation using highly informative diallelic DNA markers: application to diverse and admixed populations and implications for clinical epidemiology and forensic medicine. Hum Genet. 2005 Dec;118(3-4):382-92. Epub 2005 Sep 29.
Here is another study you need to look at.
A study of 993 microsatellite markers in 1000-plus individuals showed greater East Asian contribution to the gene pool of Central Asians and the Northwestern inhabitants of South Asia than Europeans (except for the Euro World bordering the Mongoloid World). You say that some whites have non-European genetics, and this is true, but other-race admixture is nowhere as extensive in whites as in Central Asians and the Northwestern inhabitants of South Asia. Had this study included Hindus, the non-European component among them would have been much greater since the Northwestern inhabitants of South Asia are obviously much more European than those in other parts of South Asia.
In the figure below, the population clusters are color coded as follows.
Orange = Black African, Blue = European, pink = East Asian, Green = Melanesian/Papua New Guinean, Yellow = North American Native American, and Purple = South American Native American.
Individuals are consecutively plotted on the y-axis and the proportion of each population cluster in an individual is plotted on the x-axis.
Rosenberg NA, Mahajan S, Ramachandran S, Zhao C, Pritchard JK, Feldman MW. Clines, Clusters, and the Effect of Study Design on the Inference of Human Population Structure. PLoS Genet. 2005 Dec 9;1(6):e70 [Epub ahead of print]
Thus, the facial features of Central Asians and the Northwestern inhabitants of South Asia would be in between Europeans and East Asians, just as several Russians bordering the Mongoloid World clearly show Mongoloid influence in their facial features. So do you believe that there is anything anomalous about the pictures of Hindus/Indians on this page, most of which show features in between Europeans and East Asians, and will you still insist on classifying the majority of South Asians as belonging to the same race as whites?
Mitochondrial DNA behaves as one locus, and notwithstanding the mtDNA paper that you cite whereby Brahmins can be distinguished genetically from low caste Hindus, the multi-loci studies above are quite informative and show Hindus as not belonging to the same race as whites. As a group, Northern Europeans can be genetically distinguished from Southern Europeans just as Brahmins can be distinguished from non-Brahmin Hindus, but both Southern and Northern Europeans belong to the same race but Hindus do not belong to the same race as whites. The important thing that you do not seem to appreciate is that the classification of Hindus as outside the race of whites can be made using a cluster of facial features alone.
Continued below.
Posted by J Richards on April 28, 2006, 10:52 PM | #
Reply to Malcolm A. continued from above:
Regarding the placement of the likes of Catherine Zeta Jones and Britney Spears in some prominent lists of attractive/sexy women, these lists are based on celebrities, and famous women who look decent though not really good and have some talents will invariably end up on such lists. This does not mean that these women are particularly good looking.
Regarding my edge over you when it comes to posting pictures, this is half true, and the reason is your ignorance. For instance, you can host images at imageshack.us or a similar free host and hotlink to the images in you entries.
Yes, you could find pictures of Amisha Patel and Celina Jaitley where their jaws look less massive, but this will be because of the obscure nature of the pictures rather than because these women do not possess massive jaws in reality. Note that in the comparisons that I have shown, I have tried to show pictures that are sufficiently large and the women posed in a roughly similar manner.
So what if Celina Jaitley has a white boyfriend? This is a sample size of one and doesn’t prove at all that many white men will prefer her facial features to those of Charlize Theron.
You have made the absurd claim that some aggressiveness is present in Charlize Theron because her mom shot her dad! Behavior genetics studies of the heritability of aggression do not reveal anything close to genetic factors explaining the majority of the variance in aggression.
You have argued that pictures can and do make a difference by pointing out Charlize Theron’s brown hair. Well, her brown roots are evident in the picture, and once again we are not discussing pigmentation. More importantly, I have myself pointed put that your pictures are sometimes too small or obscure as in the two pictures of Amisha Patel that you linked to. Therefore, I am acknowledging that the angles and obfuscations in pictures can make a difference. This is the reason that I have tried to provide sufficiently large pictures and similar posing angles in the comparisons.
Regarding my comment on the most likely reasons why the divorce rate is low in India, you have ignored a major reason and pointed out that if the women were aggressive then men would divorce them and therefore the women’s status does not apply! All right, look at it this way. A desire to divorce can arise in either partner. However, if you have massive female illiteracy and low status of women such that few can lead an independent existence, then women-initiated divorce will generally not be feasible. This should substantially reduce the divorce rate. Then, it is very reasonable to postulate that if a man doesn’t like his wife for any reason (not necessarily aggression), and there is a shortage of women, and the man is guaranteed of a woman that cooks and cleans for him if he remains married to her, then why would the man want to divorce the woman unless he was forced to? India does not having a widespread dating culture, especially in its villages, and if a man who is not young divorces his wife, then how easy will it be to obtain another woman and how easy will it be for a not-young woman to obtain a new husband? Therefore, the appropriate conclusion is that the discrepancy in divorce rates between the U.S. and India do not suggest that the supposed greater aggressiveness of Nordic women plays any role in the discrepancy.
First you post pictures of Indian women, apparently mostly actresses, to point out really good looking Indian women and now you claim that these are not the best looking women because elite families will not let their women act in movies. Well, the page where I got the picture of Leela Naidu from mentioned that Leela, a high caste Hindu, was an actress at a time when high caste women would generally not be among the movies stars, but this was decades ago and things have changed considerably. Therefore, your point doesn’t apply.
You have mentioned that you move in elite Indian circles in the U.S. and have seen Indian women who look much better than Aishwarya Rai [whose lack of attractiveness is apparent in the pictures posted in the entry and comments]. Why don’t you photograph some of them and post their pictures? Then I will see whether they look anywhere as attractive as beautiful Nordics. You can tell them that this is for modeling opportunities. This site does get a decent amount of hits and if these women are good looking, then some people may enquire about contacting these women.
On the other hand, your statement about having seen really good looking Indian women—who look better than the best looking Nordic women— is a mere statement and you need to come up with actual pictures to make others believe your point. Like you, I could mention anecdotal experiences, too. For instance, I have been to India and have traveled through Bombay and New Delhi. I don ‘t recall seeing any Indian woman whose facial features looked Nordic, and I found none of them attractive, and most of my interactions were with upper class people who were presumably upper caste people. Two of the people that I interacted with extensively had the last names of Sharma and Chatrvedi (not sure of the spellings). Maybe you can tell us what caste these people belong to based on their last names.
In a previous comment of yours, you asked why I was beating a dead horse, i.e., mentioning more about the looks of Aishwarya Rai? However, you have rehashed your argument by pointing out that Aishwarya Rai has been named the most beautiful Miss World ever—by an international team of judges—and mention Shakira Baksh in a similar vein. Well, all Miss World competitions are judged by an international team of people with some distinction. Therefore, if Miss World organization can crown an unattractive woman like Aishwarya Rai as Miss World 1994, then why should it be surprising if she is named the most beautiful Miss World ever by it? Once again, it is evident from her pictures on this page that she is part-Mongoloid, has massive cheekbones, thick lips, large jaws, a hooked nose and other unappealing features in a European context. Try to understand that international beauty pageants are hardly about beauty or else the likes of Aishwarya Rai or Shakira Baksh would not even be competing.
And do you believe that the hook-nosed appearance of Asin is because of the selective picture that I have posted? The picture that I have posted does not reveal a hooked nose, but I mentioned this because I saw her hooked nose in a different picture, and I am posting it below.
On the other hand, not one of your links to Asin’s pictures reveals that the woman has a hooked nose because the pictures don’t show her in profile view.
Posted by Malcolm A on April 29, 2006, 02:30 AM | #
Hi J.R.
Hey, thanks for the detailed technical analysis including citations and references which purportedly support your view.
Perhaps, these references would be of use to me too..sometime in the future.
However, I wish to raise a couple of points…
1.
I think you have misinterpreted some statements made by me. I am posting here a portion of my reply ( italized) to Phil Peterson.
Also, responding to Phil Peterson’s comments above, no one is arguing that Indo Aryans and Nordics are not different sub groups. relative to Nordics the Indo Aryans ( Iranians ) are indeed different ( ‘mixed’ if you will )..........Think Iranian when I refer to Aryans and not the Nordic aryans. These two groups split , reconnected and split again many a time durng the course of history.
As you may observe, I have clearly said they are different sub groups of Caucasians.(i) The Nordindic Indo Aryans and (ii) the Nordic Aryans.
The arguments laid out by you only support this very superficial difference ( skin color, hair color, eye color differences ). Your references including those of TT Howell, Hanihara et al, Yang et al, Rosenberg et al are merely cluster studies based on cluster analysis , which is specifically a technique used in taxonomic studies. These are useful in placing various inter-related groups in common clusters rather than prove significant morphological variation. I have done a few of those myself.
In fact, L.L. Cavalli Sforza’s A MAP OF HUMAN HISTORY AND GEOGRAPHY ( Title ?? ) almost solely depended on such claustering and ran into some criticism, though I agree with his basic assumptions within the confines of Cluster Analysis.
BUT, what you need for conclusive proof of your hypothesis is a simple statistical study like a 2 sample t, F test etc showing that these 2 groups fall into entirely morphologically different sub groups statistically.
2.
but both Southern and Northern Europeans belong to the same race but Hindus do not belong to the same race as whites. The important thing that you do not seem to appreciate is that the classification of Hindus as outside the race of whites can be made using a cluster of facial features alone.
A very general and erroneous statement. Hindus ( Indians ) are not from one race anyway. There are Mongoloids (Assam etc ), Semitics (Jews ) among others in India. What would you call Nepalese Hindus ?
You rely on cluster analysis way too often. Clustering can prove that Toy Poodles and Regular Poodles fall into different clusters , BUT they are still poodles.
3.
Regarding the placement of the likes of Catherine Zeta Jones and Britney Spears in some prominent lists of attractive/sexy women, these lists are based on celebrities, and famous women who look decent though not really good and have some talents will invariably end up on such lists. This does not mean that these women are particularly good looking.
So how about Grace Kelly, Chynna Phillips, Charlize Theron etc.. that you posted. Same theory applies to them then ? So both of us are wasting time comparing women who are NOT particularly good looking ?
4.
Regarding my edge over you when it comes to posting pictures, this is half true, and the reason is your ignorance. For instance, you can host images at imageshack.us or a similar free host and hotlink to the images in you entries.
I have already admitted and apologized for my weakness in posting pics, and was hoping that you would act in good faith by posting only the very same links that I post for the sake of our discussion. This would enhance the quality of our debate and strengthen each other’s hand, as otherwise I could always maintain that you have overlooked the pics I wanted posted because you were afraid they would PROVE my point.
5.
.So what if Celina Jaitley has a white boyfriend? This is a sample size of one and doesn’t prove at all that many white men will prefer her facial features to those of Charlize Theron
Obviously Celina is NOT the only one. I am married to one too !! and that makes two. What matters is NOT what whites prefer but what the whole world prefers ( Remember we are comparing universal beauty ?)
6.
As for comparing actresses, I have already stated that they are good looking women BUT NOT the most good looking women (Nordic or Indian ) .Only reason we are comparing them and beauty quens is becuase of easy access to pics.
There are many terrific looking women who cant act !
7.
I can assure you that I have indeed seen Indian girls who are either as good looking or better than Ash Rai, BUT you know very well I am not gonna take pics of strange women that I meet casually over a dinner/wedding party or some such occasion . YOu must know Indians are pretty sensitive to that type of stuff. Are you saying Ash rai is the best looking Indian woman ever ? Of course NOT.
8.
You may have traveled in Indian high society, and I ahve moved in lots of high societies like in the Phillipines, Singapore, Thailand etc.. but that does not mean I consider Thai girls pretty. Individual tatse does not translate into universal taste.
Sharma , Chaturvedi ( Not Chtrvedi) etc could belong to a lot of different castes as Indians change their last names all the time. My wife is Kashmiri hindu ( paternal) and Punjabi/Farsi Xtian (maternal) who has lived 3 generations in the USA. She’s Been to India only twice and does not even speak Pun..
9.
Asin does have a little pointed nose but I’ll bet she looks better than Charlize any day of the week. Ask JULES . She seems to give an unbiased opinion.
10.
As for Aishwarya, the panel who chose her as the best ever Miss World was not the same panel who voted for her in 1994 .
I am also taking up your argument that she looks pudgy etc.. in the post below and I challenge you to post both pics that I have linked below, they are. and compare them with any other Nordic that you may care to, for slimness of figure, beauty, skin tone, and symmetry as well as excellence of facial featues etc..
Gotta go. My challenge appears in the post below.
Cheers
Posted by Malcolm A on April 29, 2006, 03:13 AM | #
Hi J.R.
Here is the challenge that I talked about in the previous post. Please post these pics as theyare and in No 1, I have a very clear shot of Ashwaryas face when she was at her peak and
in No. 2 I have a full shot showing a very slim, toned and shapely body. You can post any of our Nordic beauties for comparison. on a similar scale and angle pic.
1.
http://aishwaryaworld.com/fans/images/gallery/ar4.jpg
2.
http://www.famousbabes.com/pics118/aishwaryaR/aishwaryaR055.jpg
For the sake of comparison, please do post the pics as they appear ( regardless of whether in your opinion, they are obfuscate or links were broken etc )
Ash Rai, when she was at her peak, was declared
1. Miss World, 2 The best Miss World ever 3. voted the most beautiful by Hello UK, 4 the most beautiful by 60 Minutes, Julia Roberts, R Eberts, david Letteman, Oprah etc )
So it is difficult to accept your word at face value that she is a rather unattractive woman, and as they say “ A pic is worth a 1000 words “ Although. pushing 32 now, she was a stunner when she was at her peak.
P.S. Here’s a bonus of Urmila matondkar, declared one of the sexiest women in the world by MAXIM mag
http://www.phoolwala.net/filmstars/images/urmila/urmila matondkar3.jpg
http://www.phoolwala.net/filmstars/images/urmila/urmila matondkar14.jpg
http://www.phoolwala.net/filmstars/images/urmila/urmila matondkar1.jpg
http://www.phoolwala.net/filmstars/images/urmila/urmila matondkar5.jpg
Cheers
Posted by Jules on April 29, 2006, 09:00 AM | #
On the posting of Catherine Z Jones, There is no comparison to posting a pic of a girl when she was 16 to now a woman of 38. NO ONE looks the same, either you get worst or you get better!! She doesnt look like she has had plastic surgery, on the contrary their are bogus websites out there that claim that so and so had this done which is all bull, because they take a pic of someone at a different lighting or different make up and say look, he had this done or she had that done. Thats rediculous! But thats how those sites make money and attract people to them. Dont believe all the crap they put out there on the internet!
On posting a picture, 1) I am not savvy enough to post on the image thing and 2) Do not wish to expose myself so disgustingly and 3) would never betray anyone that I care about and post their pictures up for the world to see. Just put it this way, we both went in for modeling and got the agents interest, but shes the one that books all the ads. Maybe she just has a charm about her. Why dont whoever asked me to post, post some pictures of themselves up and I will tell you if you are an attractive nordic man or not??
I also want to say Phil, Are you from England?? Do you think Keira Knightly is attractive?? Women in america are attractive, but it depends on where you go.
Posted by Phil Peterson on April 29, 2006, 11:37 AM | #
I also want to say Phil, Are you from England??
Yep
Do you think Keira Knightly is attractive??
Yep
Women in america are attractive, but it depends on where you go.
Well, I think my argument might have been misunderstood. I wasn’t saying that American women don’t look good. They do. But feminine charm is less common among American women than among European women.
I am open to being contradicted on this obviously. It isn’t a very strong opinion I have. Just an observation from personal experience.
Posted by Steve Edwards on April 29, 2006, 10:14 PM | #
The film depicting Aishwarya and Will Smith, as husband and wife, or perhaps as lovers, simply has to be made. It will certainly test the true convictions of a few bloggers out there, but I don’t have to name names, now, do I?
Posted by Phil Peterson on April 30, 2006, 09:00 AM | #
Steve,
That’s an interesting point. I have a feeling those chaps will swallow a few bullets on that one.
Here are my own thoughts on it. I think I disagree with the majority of people on this blog who say that the Subcon and Oriental bloggers act in furtherance of their respective EGIs in promoting race-mixing for whites. I don’t think that is the real motive. Their actual motives are more petty than that - individual self interest in being able to do as they please since that is the defining principle of everything they hold politically. Note that petty self interest and EGI do not always converge.
I don’t think they will object too much. The majority of those people are believers in borderless cosmopolitanism (which serves their petty individual interests). Will Smith had an oriental play opposite to him in one of his earlier films (Wild Wild West, I think it was). I don’t think they complained too much.
The reaction in Aishwarya Rai’s native India might be different though.
Posted by Malcolm A on April 30, 2006, 03:55 PM | #
Hi Phil
I have no doubt but that there’ll be protests against the film in India and all these “hip” Subcon bloggers here who claim to view as neanderthals any whites who question white race-replacement will be unhappy about it whether or not they attempt to hide their unhappiness behind their usual façade of “anything-goes” hipness.
In regards to the above comment, I must say that I do NOT view anyone here as Neanderthals. What J.R. and I are trying to discuss , I believe, is does beauty fall on a curve, or is it more dependant on the degree of the purity of gene expression.
My contention is, though individual racial groups or sub-groups may contend that theirs is the most beautiful, gene expression tends to favor the average global gene pool rather than any isolated gene pool, and in India such a global representation exists due to migrations from all over the globe into India during the course of history . J.R. obviously has other ideas .
As I said earlier I was born in the sub continent, but I can assure you I am not a sub con.
As for Ash Rai and Will Smith, explicit sex scenes are not popular in India even among Indian film stars. So naturally it will be body double or nothing if such a scene is in the script. I am sure Ash rai will NOT jeopardize her global status by doing such a scene.
cheers
Posted by Malcolm A on April 30, 2006, 04:23 PM | #
The film depicting Aishwarya and Will Smith, as husband and wife, or perhaps as lovers, simply has to be made. It will certainly test the true convictions of a few bloggers out there, but I don’t have to name names, now, do I
The film can be made. But, in India no one acts out explicit sex scenes with any one, white, black or blue. Would be suicidal. So body double it is, if at all.
Also, no one here is advocating race nixing. It is a debate about admixture and beauty statistics. Not whether admixture is advisable or NOT. I have both white and admixed offspring
cheers
Posted by raj on May 02, 2006, 12:38 AM | #
J Rich
you could have chosen better looking Indian women then the pic posted above.
go through all the pages
http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=8875&st=80
Posted by J Richards on May 02, 2006, 01:27 AM | #
Jules,
Where have I posted a picture of Catherine Zeta Jones at 16? Both pictures show her as an adult. Now, how is it possible for a woman in her mid-30s to have a better looking face than in her early-20s? Hint: Heavy make-up and plastic surgery; look at the picture carefully.
Anyway, I don’t see how you would be exposed in a disgusting manner by posting your picture here (hotlinking an image hosted at imageshack). If you indeed are an attractive Nordic woman, you will only be praised, and if you are not so attractive, then I will not be picking on your looks. Alternatively, you can email your picture to us and I won’t post it; I just need to look at it to believe that your white-Asian friend is indeed better looking than an attractive Nordic woman. On the other hand, judging by the fact that your friend has made a much better impression at modeling agencies than you and you have also gotten some agents interested, my guess is that both of you are somewhat masculinized women, with your friend being more masculinized than you. This is so because fashion models are rarely feminine. Thus, you are probably better looking than your friend.
Posted by J Richards on May 02, 2006, 01:46 AM | #
Malcolm A,
I have not misunderstood your argument that South Asians are a sub-type of Caucasians that are different from other Caucasoid sub-types. However, if the term Caucasian describes the race to which whites belong, then it is clear than Hindus and other South Asians do not belong to this race, i.e., are not Caucasians.
You are mistaken that the arguments that I have put forth only support superficial differences. Firstly, in mentioning the superficial differences, you have included pigmentation variables and conveniently left out the skeletal differences that I have mentioned. Secondly, the superficial traits are related to genetics. The genetic studies address neutral DNA markers, i.e., DNA markers not involved in gene expression. Therefore, there are multiple markers, a cluster of which are classifying Hindus as outside the race of whites.
I am surprised that you undermine the important of the cluster analyses that I have cited and mention t-tests and F-tests as somehow more relevant. You can run these analyses on Howells’ data and see the differences for yourself, but these tests are not useful when it comes to determining whether there is a correlation structure underlying multiple differences between two groups, and it is the correlation structure that is relevant to taxonomy, which is what our interest lies in. Therefore, cluster analysis is appropriate and it shows South Asians as lying outside the European racial cluster.
Regarding Cavalli-Sforza, as far as I recall his study did not run a cluster analysis, but used principal components analysis, instead, whereby he extracted the principal factors underlying the variability of DNA samples from different populations. The first two principal components separated the populations into four groups, and the graphical depiction of these groups into 4 quadrants is all over the net. The 4 groups were Europeans, blacks Africans, N.E. Asians and S.E. Asians. South Asians were placed in between Europeans and East Asians, which is what most of the pictures of South Asians here clearly show. Regarding the controversy over this study, it wasn’t over the methodology but over the evidence for racial clustering of humans.
You wrote that my argument that Hindus are outside the race of whites is a general and erroneous statement and then follow this comment by saying that Hindus are not from one race anyway. Irrespective of whether Hindus belong to their own race or are a people resulting from the mixing of several races and cannot be said to have their own race, the evidence that I have cited makes it clear that they are outside the race of whites, something that you have not been able to disprove by citing evidence.
As to what is the racial status of, say, Nepalese Hindus, it is like this. This question can be addressed in a standard manner by examining a large, random sample of neutral DNA makers around the world and examining whether there are correlation structures that result in population clusters. The studies that I have seen so far do not reveal a separate South Asian cluster, but show the contribution of several racial clusters to South Asia. Thus, South Asians are readily genetically distinguished from others, as in the example of the Yang et al. study where South Asians turned out to have their own cluster based on ancestry-informative markers, but randomly selected neutral DNA markers have not shown a separate South Asian cluster. Thus, South Asians are not assigned a race. A crude analogy to help understand this scenario is to picture a rainbow. A rainbow has distinct color bands but the region where a color band blends into another color band is not assigned a particular color.
Regarding my statement that the placement of a female celebrity in prominent lists of attractive/sexy women does not mean that the woman is particularly good looking, it is not the case that none of these women are good looking; some are good looking, and the faces of Grace Kelly and some of the other celebrities that I have shown look good regardless of what lists they are in or not in.
There have been a couple of occasions where I have posted exactly the pictures that you linked to (e.g., Priyanka Chopra, Amisha Patel, Celina Jaitley), followed by clearer pictures of the women to show the obfuscation in your selections. Besides, people can copy and paste your links and see for themselves all your linked pictures. Additionally, like I have pointed out, I have tried to provide clear photos and comparisons using roughly similar angles. Therefore, there is no inadequacy from my part in the comparisons.
All right, Celina Jaitley has a white boyfriend and you have a Hindu wife. This makes a sample size of two and is hardly of any significance. Of course, there are other white men married to Hindu women, but none of this proves that white men generally appreciate the looks of South Asian women. As far as the whole world is concerned, why should I believe that the world would preference South Asian women over Nordic women? As far as I know, Japanese men have a preference for Russian prostitutes, not South Asian prostitutes; rich Arab sheiks have a preference for European prostitutes, not South Asian prostitutes; Eastern European rather than South Asian prostitutes are especially hot in Israel, and so on. The reference to prostitutes is because non-prostitute white women will generally not have anything to do with non-white men except if they are unattractive, obese, mentally ill or if the non-white men are rich.
You have said that Hindus have changed their last names frequently. Then how do Hindus keep track of their castes?
So what if different panels of judges voted Aishwarya Rai as Miss World 1994 and the most beautiful Miss World ever? Both these events occurred under the auspices of the same organization—Miss World Organization—which has not shown any commitment to focusing on beauty in beauty contests.
Anyway, I see that you will just not let off Aishwarya Rai and have asked me to compare her to a Nordic woman for slimness of figure, beauty, skin tone, symmetry as well as excellence of facial features. It is not necessary to compare skin tone, and there are plenty of pictures of Aishwarya Rai and Nordic women here, which should allow the reader to compare facial features, but I will address the physique of Aishwarya Rai.
First up are the pictures that you have posted. The face of Aishwarya Rai is from an obscure angle, not showing her hooked nose and the massiveness of her cheekbones and jaws.
Here is the picture of Aishwarya Rai’s physique that you linked to. You should have posted a picture of her in a bikini so that it is easy to see how shapely she is.
I tried to find a picture of Aishwarya in a bikini and wasn’t successful, but I found some other pictures that reveal her shape.
Aishwarya Rai does not have very feminine hips.
Aishwarya Rai has almost no butt.
Aishwarya Rai has the kind of legs that are seen in Negroid and Australoid women, and do not even approach the shapeliness of Nordic women.
Aishwarya Rai also has shoulders on the broad side, as seen in some pictures above.
Now tell me is your idea of a shapely woman or is the world’s idea of a shapely woman a woman with the physique of Aishwarya Rai?
Next up is Urmila Matondkar. I am posting all the pictures that you linked to.
To please you, I have been able to find a picture of Urmila that makes her look close to white and am comparing her to a woman that I am not fond of, but she will do.
However, the following pictures of Urmila Matondkar show her ethnic features and a hooked nose.
On the other hand, showing the white woman at different angles does not reveal ethnic features or a hooked nose.
I tried to find pictures of Urmila in a bikini, but was not successful and the following pictures are the closest that I came to.
Now, Urmila has a nice, shapely figure, but does she beat the shapeliness of the white woman? I don’t think so.
I recommend that you re-read Peter Frost’s paper and note the references to the more feminine appearance of white women compared to non-white women (the references do not specifically cite the more feminine appearance of Nordic women (except for breasts), but this can be inferred by careful observations). Therefore, you had best stick to comparing facial features and not bring the physique into this debate.
Posted by Indian Girl on May 02, 2006, 05:16 AM | #
konkana Brahmins etc
The Konkani Brahmins have lived in the South for centuries, and they don’t acknowledge their northie roots. They are South Indians now.
I hope people also know that Punjab and Kashmir doesn’t make up the entire North India. Why are people always using them to represent Northies (North Indians)? North India also consists of Uttaranchal, Rajasthan, UP (Uttar Pradesh), Himachal Pradesh, and Haryana. Some people might debate that MP (Madhya Pradesh) and Bihar might be considered North, but it has an unusual place on the map.
Not all Punjabis and Kashmiris are “very fair.” They might have a higher amount of light-skinned people due to climate, but a brown/dark one isn’t rare. Punjabis that live in Delhi and in the South become dark/brown due to climate. Southern Punjabi farmers also are dark, due to working in fields.
If you ask me, the Konkani Brahmins, South Indian Tulus, and the Iyers have a higher amount of light-skinned AND light-eyed people.
No, I’m not a South Indian if you think I am.
Posted by IndianGirl on May 02, 2006, 05:36 AM | #
To the author of this blog.
I’m not going to try to “prove” my point of view to you, lol. BUT, I’m just curious as to what you think about these women? These are some of my favorites, but I’m not over-analytical about a girl’s jawline or how Caucaoid/Mongloid she looks. I just like their overall look. That would be funny to see you talk about these girls in detail, lol.
Rajshree Thakur
Anu Agarwal
Rekha
Sheetal Mallar
Leena Chandrevekar (from the 60’s)
Bipasha Basu
MadhuBala
Sonal Chauhan
Posted by Malcolm A on May 02, 2006, 08:08 PM | #
Hi J.R.
1. I have not misunderstood your argument that South Asians are a sub type of caucasians that are different from other Caucasoid sub types....
However, if the term Caucasian describes the race to which whites belong , then it is clear that Hindus and other South Asians do not belong to this race...i.e are not caucaians
i. Unfortunately, though you and I would very much prefer to believe the above as true, Systematics as well as Genetics tells us a whole different story. Cavalli Sforza, Spencer Wells, Bamshad et al ..etc ..support the theory of a Caucasoid Race that includes Indo Aryans and Nordic Aryans .
Eg: The Map of Genetic Diversity - LLCavalli Sforza 1994.(History and Geography of Human Genes )
The color map of the world shows......it does show the unity of the other Caucasoids from Europe,and in the West, South and much of Central Asia.
[Note : South Asia = India etc }
2.
You are mistaken that the arguments that I have put forth only support superficial differences etc....
You conveniently left out the skeletal differences that I have mentioned etc ......
a cluster of which are classifying Hindus as outside the race of whites etc…
i. Not only are they superficial but eye color etc., are simply not acceptable statistical tools unless they do NOT show dissimilar within and between group variance ( ie are uniform ). Iranians, Afghans , Kashmiris etc., display a range of eye colors including blue, grey etc too..
ii. I did not disregard skeletal differences. They are most important tools. BUT for such data clustering alone would not prove anything. For such data one needs significance tests with known power, reliability and precision. ( perhaps a comparison of fiducial limits of parameters.) skull length, breadth, height, sagittal contour, face length, face breadth, orbital opening, nasal opening, lower nasal margin, nasal
profile etc are some of the data points to be considered for a two way ANOVA .
iii. Again sadly, the scientific communitly does not recognize the biological race “whites.’ We must keep this debate within the confines of science.
3.
I am surprised that you undermine the importance of cluster analysis etc ...
You can run these analyses on Howells’ data etc....
These tests are not useful when determining whether there is a correlation structure underlying etc…
i. I have included the following review of Cluster Analysis for your perusal…
Cluster analysis is an exploratary data analysis tool for solving classification problems. It’s objective is to sort cases (people, things, events etc) into groups....Cluster analysis is thus a tool of discovery. It may reveal associations and structure in data which, though previously not evident, nevertheless are sensible and useful once found
RE : http://www.clustan.com/what_is_cluster_analysis.html
ii. In order for me or anyone else to run a test on Howell’s data, such data should be from an experiment designed for such tests. So unless that information is avaialble it is not possible.
iii. Correlation, Regression analysis establishes covariation/association of data sets and inter dependency.
Not whether they belong in the same statistical population.
4.
Cavalli Sforza did not run cluster analysis etc…
The controversy wan’t over the methodology etc..
i. Here is an excerpt which refers to clustering in Cavalli’s 1994 book
The book devotes a chapter to the data on each of the nine genetic custers or population groups identified in previous cluster analysis ( Cavalli Sforza et al. 1994 )..
RE : http://en.wikipdia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn.
I believe cavalli even developed his ow clustering methods for some of this stuff.
ii The controvercy was over the results but that led to the methodology being questioned.
5.
It is clear the my argument that Hindus are outside the race of Whites etc.....
I have cited makes clear that they are outside the race of whites. ..
you have not been able to disprove by citing evidence etc......
I do NOT find the need to disprove the difference between the white race and the hindu race because these 2 races do NOT exist. There are NO such races or even sub races in Biological vernacular.
6.
Placement of female celebrities etc…
some of the celebrities that I have shown look good etc..
Your contention is that the celebrities selected by you are good looking while, those selected by me or others are NOT. I find such a statement from a learned man like you very biased..
7.
Japanese men like Russian prostitutes not south Asian ones etc..
Saudis also prefer European prostitutes.etc..
As I said Indian street people and poorer classes are not that great looking. It is the elite society that produces most of the beauties. I don’t think either any Jap man, A Muslim Saudi or a White could even get close to a elite Hindu family ( recently here, an Indian killed his daughter ( jailed or 16 years ) for trying to marry a white kid). I faced great opposition and had to elope with my wife. Still not fully accepted into her family. Indian apartheid makes S. African apartheid look like child’s play. Know for sure that many old Saudis marry young muslim Indians and recenty India passed a law against it.
8
Different panels voting for Ashwarya but it is the same Miss World Organization etc… hasn’t shown commitment to focussing on beauty
Well, Miss World Organzn’ has also selected a lot of Nordics and other groups. So are you questioning their ability to select beauties in general ..
9.
You have NOT let off Ashwarya ...
Ash’s face is obsure
Ash does not have feminine hips..no butt…
i Well we came back to Ash when I brought up Shakira being selected as the most beautiful 2nd runner up..Also you focussed a lot on Ash at the beginning of your thread and posted rather flabby pics of hers.. SO it is fair game for me to contest that
ii. Looks to me like she is staring straight ahead at you and me...Very clear frontal shot..All facial featuresare clear and visible..So bring it on !
iii. That was when she was 20. Now she does have those assets you are so critical of. But the pic shows how slim and elegant she looked earlier on…
iv. About butts and hips, it is considered rather peasant and lower classy to have large child bearing hips and hottentot butts as you may know from Victorian values. High class = tall, slim and willowy..hehe.. Think Uma Thruman, Gwynneth Paltrow etc.. always in Victorial dramas..
v. Urmila has a great figure; Bikini or no bikini. Why are you comaparing her with that Rudolf the red-nosed and freckled Nordic gal ( We must look for better Nordic specimens. Kate Beckinsale was voted one of the 100 best looking women w/ Angelina topping the list this time by PEOPLES ). Those are the types of women you should dig out if you wanna even get close to comparing with these Indian women.
Gotta go. Please read Cavalli Sforza a lot more carefully for he is totally for classifying Nordics and Indo’s together.
Here is Manisha Koirala , a Nepalese Hindu, Indo Aryan who ruled Bollywood in the 90s. Andrew Lloyd Weber made Bombay Dreams after watching her in the Bollywoof flick Bombay .
http://www.phoolwala.net/filmstars/images/manisha/manisha koirala13.jpg
http://www.karmicastro.com/manisha_koirala.htm
http://www.phoolwala.net/filmstars/images/manisha/manisha koirala7.jpg
http://www.dialindia.com/bollywood/actress/manisha_koirala/manisha_koirala_5.shtml
Cheers
Posted by IndianGirl on May 03, 2006, 08:10 PM | #
Just to let the author know,
Diya Mirza is half-German from her dad’s side. LOL, how do you know she didn’t get her “manly features” from her white dad’s family?
She has a Muslim last name, because her Muslim step-father adopted her.
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on May 04, 2006, 12:04 AM | #
IndianGirl, in my experience whites (both sexes) tend towards gracility more than non-whites.
We must look for better Nordic specimens. Kate Beckinsale was voted one of the 100 best looking women w/ Angelina topping the list this time by PEOPLES ). Those are the types of women you should dig out if you wanna even get close to comparing with these Indian women.
Neither woman you mention is a good example of the Nordic type. Beckinsale has east Asian blood and Jolie has some non-white blood, I forget from where.
Page 1 of 9 pages 1 2 3 > Last »
Next entry: Multiculturalism and false concessions
Previous entry: Christians singled out
Existential Issues
Of note
Recent Comments
Søren Renner commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 03:52 PM. (go) (view)
ilan commented in entry 'Majority Radio: Bill White’s 2009/11/16 Letter to Alex Linder' on 03/19/10, 11:56 AM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 11:38 AM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/19/10, 10:46 AM. (go) (view)
Drifter commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 01:58 AM. (go) (view)
Guessedworker commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/19/10, 01:13 AM. (go) (view)
cladrastis commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 12:59 AM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/19/10, 12:42 AM. (go) (view)
Søren Renner commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 12:25 AM. (go) (view)
Guessedworker commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/18/10, 11:30 PM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 11:08 PM. (go) (view)
Guessedworker commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 10:32 PM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 08:02 PM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 06:38 PM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 02:19 PM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry 'Romilly Jenkins: Truth and 'Ethnic' Truth' on 03/18/10, 04:10 AM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 02:39 AM. (go) (view)
Wandrin commented in entry 'Europe's Future: Is this what "they" want?' on 03/18/10, 02:17 AM. (go) (view)
Wandrin commented in entry 'Serious Crime - The Ethnic Dimension; Fact and Fantasy' on 03/18/10, 01:45 AM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 01:24 AM. (go) (view)
Guessedworker commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 12:35 AM. (go) (view)
Borvo commented in entry 'Europe's Future: Is this what "they" want?' on 03/17/10, 11:44 PM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry 'Diasporal Hijinks: Christopher Hitchens and the Janjaweed' on 03/17/10, 10:31 PM. (go) (view)
Maximilio commented in entry 'Is Dr. David Duke, Ph.D., a Kosher Nazi?' on 03/17/10, 10:12 PM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/17/10, 08:01 PM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/17/10, 07:44 PM. (go) (view)
Robert Reis commented in entry 'Europe's Future: Is this what "they" want?' on 03/17/10, 07:29 PM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry 'Blowing Bubbles' on 03/17/10, 07:27 PM. (go) (view)
Dan Dare commented in entry 'Blowing Bubbles' on 03/17/10, 06:33 PM. (go) (view)
Dan Dare commented in entry 'Blowing Bubbles' on 03/17/10, 05:44 PM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry 'Blowing Bubbles' on 03/17/10, 05:22 PM. (go) (view)
g commented in entry 'Blowing Bubbles' on 03/17/10, 05:06 PM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/17/10, 03:16 PM. (go) (view)
Guessedworker commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/17/10, 02:30 PM. (go) (view)
DRS commented in entry 'Blowing Bubbles' on 03/17/10, 02:22 PM. (go) (view)
Recent Posts
- Automatic for the Sheeple
- Blowing Bubbles
- Serious Crime - The Ethnic Dimension; Fact and Fantasy
- Saturday Riddle Classic
- Apologies for the down-time
- It’s Official – fake money is as good as the real thing (if not better)
- Wadham and the EHRC win. The existential will go ballistic.
- DDR or Third Reich, which would you choose?
- Greece thwarts Barbarossa, yet again
- Europe’s Future: Is this what “they” want?
- ‘Enlightened’ Child Abuse
- My latest teleology
- The Revolution of Kai Murros
- Linda Carty, the Reprieve lie machine, and the bleeding heart of Clive Stafford Smith
- Humour and the English Disease
- True Science is Barbaric
- The New Rome; or, the United States of the World (1853)
- Cameron on Griffin and the MultiCult
- Absurd assumptions about life’s advantages
- Was It Real For You?
General News
Science News
Science Categories
All Categories
The Writers
Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.
Links
Endorsement not implied.
Crime
General
- American Renaissance
- Age of Treason
- Balder
- Brussels Journal
- Civic platform
- CofCC
- Chronicles
- Crosstar
- Culture Wars
- Dissecting Leftism
- Face Right
- Fallen Freedom
- Fred on everything
- Freedom Site
- From The Wilderness
- Frontierist News
- Gates of Vienna
- God help Britain
- Hogtown Front
- I am an Englishman
- Inductivist
- iSteve
- Modern Tribalist
- National Policy Institute
- Occidental Dissent
- Occidental Quarterly
- Our Way of Life
- Oz Conservative
- ParaPundit
- The Political Cesspool
- Romanian National Vanguard
- Rusty Mason
- Renaissance Press
- Right Now magazine
- Salisbury Review
- Sam Francis Column
- Scotchfriend
- Signals From The Brink
- Spoils of War
- Snouck Hurgronje
- Songlight for Dawn
- Stop ACLU
- Tomorrow in Vinland
- Turnabout
- UK Commentators
- Viking Observer
- Western Survival
- White civil rights
Immigration
- American Patrol
- Immigration watchdog
- Immigration Watch Canada
- Limits To Growth
- Migration Watch
- Minutemen
- Numbers USA
- Private police
- Project USA
- Team America
- Vdare
Islam
Jews
- 9/11 – #1, #2
- Banking – #1, #2
- Eric Hufschmid
- Holocaust – #1, #2, #3, #4, #5
- Immigration
- Jewish deception
- Judenfrei
- Michael Delaney
- Subverted nation
- Why the Jews?
Nationalist Political Parties
- British National Party
- Front National (FR)
- Nationaldemokraterna
- Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands
- Vlaams Belang
New Right
Science
Whites in Africa