Thursday, November 02, 2006
Monday, October 17, 2005
“These Afghans and Pathans are in most respects as similar to the Persians as they are to each other. The Afghans, however, are shorter than the Pathans, since the former have a mean stature of 163 cm. and the latter of 170 cm. The body build of both people is slight to intermediate. A relative sitting height of 52.6 found among Afghanis is close to that of Europeans, while most of the Pathans fall a point lower. The heads of these people range in length from 188 to 192 mm. by tribes, and in breadth from 141 to 145 mm. The cephalic indices of the Afghanis and Pathans vary between tribal means of 72 and 75; except for the Khattak and Bangash, who live in proximity to the Baluchis, and who have a mean of 77. The vault height of all of these peoples is quite low, with means of 121 to 123 mm. Faces are usually long, reaching a maximum mean of 129 mm. among the Afridis, and are at the same time only moderately narrow, with bizygomatic means of 135 to 137 mm. Foreheads and jaws are of moderate dimensions; 104 mm. is the usual mean for the minimum frontal, and 103 mm. for the bigonial.
In the total face height and the three facial breadths, these Pathan speakers cannot be distinguished from Nordics. The upper face height, however, serves as a means of differentiation, since it is extremely long; and the noses, at the same time, reach the extreme length of 61 mm. Their mean facial index of 94 and upper facial index of 56 place these people in an extremely long- and narrow-faced category, while the nasal index of 61 confirms their extreme leptorrhiny.
If one compares these measurements with those from the Yemen on the one hand and from the eastern provinces of Norway on the other, one sees that the Afghanis are much closer to the Nordic mean than to that of the normal Mediterraneans. The head dimensions of the Afghans and Pathans are slightly smaller than those of Nordics, and the vault height is lower,24 but the facial dimensions are essentially similar, except that the upper face and nose heights of the Afghans and Pathans are greater.
The Afghans and Pathans, like the Persians, are usually brunet, and at the same time show a persistent minority of blondism, which in this case reflects Nordic admixture. They are heavy-bearded, and possess heavy body hair. Their facial features show a maximum of bony relief, and, on the whole, their facial skeletons seem much heavier and much more strongly marked than those of the more delicate Arabian Mediterraneans. They possess, in common with the Arabian Mediterranean group, a sharpness in definition of feature which stands in contrast to the coarser lineaments of the average Mesopotamian countenance.
It seems to be a way for McCulloch (Nordicist) to include Northwestern Euros who're not Nordic into the Nordic family, simply because they share the same geographical area. By the same token Catherine Zeta-Jones would be Nordish simply because she is from North West Europe. "Nordish" is just some unscientific way to group people together based on geography rather than actual subracial belonging.
Nordic race on other hand is a science based on anthropology. There's a reason why say Swedes as a group of people do not look like British or the Irish or the French. Scandinavians are by and large Nordic. Nordics exist in other countries as well, but most people outside of Scandinavia are not Nordic because nordics are mixed with other forms such as Alpine and Med. The only countries that the Nordic race exists in its pure form are Scandinavia, Iran and Afghanistan. There are also Aryans in Northern India. They are called nordoid in anthropology.
Anthropometrically, Nordics are closer to Irano-Afghans than they are to Upper Paleolithics (eg., Borrebys and Bruenns). The similarities between Irano-Afghan and Nordic groups are that both of them are dolicocephalic (long and slim face) and have a rounded occupit in addition to the shape of the face. Physical anthropology is a lot more than skin and hair colour which the proponents of "Nordish Race" or Nordcist imagine.
Even if it were true that Upper Paleolithics (UPs) are closer to Nordics genetically than Nordics are to Mediterraneans, or that Nordics are actually reduced Upper Paleolithics, contrary to what Coon claimed, clustering Nordics with UPs goes against mainstream anthropology and there would still be no scientific basis to group them together given their anthropometric divergence.
The Nordics are quite possibly a mixture of UPs with Neolithic Mediterraneans.
Ashkenazi Jews prefer the "Nordish Race" to the Nordic Race. The reason is that Ashkenazi Jews are classified together with Nordics due to geography living in Europe and Jews are then regarded as a "Nordish Race". This way Ashkenazi Jews would be included and undesirable elements such as Persians and Afghans would be excluded from "Nordish race" because of geography. There is also a lot of political and economical advantages at stake and it is attached to the category of "Nordish Race" and its members. So attaching a demarcating line inside the Nordic race to separate Scandinavian Nordics from Persian and Afghans has been the primary concern of these people. To accomplish that they have added an imaginary "hooked nosed" character to the Irano-Afghan group. In reality the hooked nosed trait is associated with both semites and Azeri Turks who reside in the region. That is why they have defined a race called Irano-Afghan race which defines 20 to 30 ethnic groups and is essentially a description of Turkomans and Azeri Turks unrelated to Persians and Afghans. And on this basis hollywood insists on stereotyping Persians as "hooked nosed" characters in their films to prove their point. They usually use Iranian Azeri Turks to depict "Persians".
The Nordish is not a race or a science. The Nordish race does not exist. The Nordish theory is looking for light haired and light skinned Europeans and classifying them as a race. Their problem is Nordish theory can not classify Soraya (Soraya is a Persian singer posted above) because it uses skin and hair color and geographical location to classify races. Soraya according to Nordish theory should be of Nordish race but lives in a wrong geographical location. That is she lives far away from Northern and North Western Europe. So Soraya is not nordish despite she qualifies for all other conditions.
According to Coon, The Irano Afghan race is defined as: "The long-faced, high-headed, hook-nosed type, usually of tall stature, which forms the principal element in the population of Iran, Afghanistan, and the Turkoman country, and which is also present in Palestine, parts of Arabia, and North Africa. It is probably related to the old Corded type of the Neolithic and Bronze Age."
This is "Irano-Afghan race" fraud theory. They have made a collection of some hooked nosed people and they call it "Irano-Afghan race". Also note that they include Turkomens and part of Arabia and Palestine and north africa in "Irano-Afghan race". Some Azeris call egyptians, syrians, Morrocans and Palestinians as Persians. All this according to "Irano-Afghan" race theory. Neither Persians or Afghans recognize any of these people as being Persians or the Aryan Afghans. Also you can not point out to any real Persian or Afghan by looking at the definition of "Irano-Afghan race". It defines more than 20-30 ethnic groups in the same race. The prototype used for this race was a Turkoman. Turkomens originate from Turks. Some of pictures used are not really pictures of any real people. They are drawings by an artist. The "Irano-Afghan race" is essentialy a description of Azeris and Turkomans but it is strangely called the "Irano-Afghan race". The "experts" state that this race has very little to do with real Persians or Afghans and it is only a generic name for a description of 20 to 30 different ethnic groups.
"Irano-Afghan race" is also called "Iranid race". Iranids cover an area from North Africa to Central Asia to even India. There are "Iranids" with Turkish influence, Arab influence, orientalid influence, indid influece and Iranids with other admixtures. A better name for this race would be "the middle eastern" race as it is used by some people.
In the middle ages people invented the concept of Ether to explain the vaccuum or empty space. They said "ether" fills the vacuum. "Ether" could not be seen ,touched or smelled. But "Ether" was there. "Iranid race" is similar to ether. Iranids fill the whole region in the middle east. But strangely enough Pashtoons and Persians are not member of this race even it is named after them.
Coon wrote that book in the 1930s. It is unclear there is such a thing as the so called "Irano-Afghan" race - It is just people with really big hooked noses, quite possibly like Azeri Turks in Iran.
It seems Coon was following a "politically correct line" at the time. Coon's book is not a serious scientifc book and and should not be taken seriously. It's pseudo-science.
Confusing and distorting the concept of racial identity is a favourite method to deny the existence of ethnic groups and control nations. They heavily rely on the pseudo concept of Caucausian and Mediternaean where everyone is identical. They conclude that "Iranian race" is caucausian and mediternean therefore it has a hooked nose.
Mediteranean puts together whites and white looking non-whites as a mediteranean race. Both Arabs and Gypsies are members of mediterranean race. This is despite Iran is not even located near the mediteranean sea. Arabs and Azeris and Persians and Swedes are caucasians. So this concept can not describe anything useful about any race.
To understand this kind of nonsense terminology used by these people, one has to understand that the whole world is caucasian. It is only a matter of degree how much caucasian you are. The only exceptions are Mongols and black africans who are not caucasians. So Caucasian can not explain very much about any ethnic group. According to this "scientific report" Azeris are more Caucasian than Russians. Azeris are %87 caucasian and Russians are %85 caucasian. In US they define Caucasian as white European Americans. So are Azeris more white than Russians? This is all confusing terminology.
Most of these theories are based on the most complicated terminology to confuse ordinary people. Most of their terminology is nonsense. These theories do not explain anything. It is similar to creating a race of people with two hands. The whole world is a member of this race. Now you can imagine that this race will not be able to explain anything. All explanations are on a ad hoc basis. It just tries to make up something when the theory can not explain the facts.
Also look at the genetic chart below. They classify Iranian with Turks and Lebanonese. Iranians are far away from Kurds, Caspian (Gilaki, Mazandarani) and Iraqis (there are many Persians in Iraq in addition to Kurds). It is a very strange chart. There is no Iranian race. What they mean by Iranian is an Azeri Turks. Only on that case the chart is correct. That is if all Iranians are Azeri-Turk. This chart is actually a future chart for Iran where they identify all Iranians as Azeriturks . For Persians then the chart should show that Iranians cluster with British and Danish and Italians as it does here.
The genetic "research" from University of Chicago assumes an Iranian is an Azeri-Turk. They have eliminated Persians as an ethnic group in Iran. For the result of their "Research click here"
They think the Persians as an ethnic minority will disappear into Turkish Azeris by heavy immigration of Azeris into Persian areas and as a consequence of this turkification policy then Iranian mean Turks.The future model for Iran is based on a model like New York. So provinces having different ethnic groups have to disappear and replaced by mixed Azeris. The racial profile of a Iranian is an Azeri-Turk.
These schemes requires that Iranian be very clear on how they identify themselves. Iranian is not a race. It points to many different ethnic groups in Iran. In west, those people with an agenda use Iranian as an equivalent with Persians. And they always use an image of a Turk to represent Persians. And with genetic charts as the evidence it is very evident that a Persian is really an Azeri-Turk. All these schemes are supposed to devalue the word "Persian" and its historical heritage as Aryans. To clear the confusion it is necessary for Iranians to make clear identity demarcations as Persian-Iranians or just Persians or Kurdish-Iranians as they do in US with German-American or Italian American. Persians should abandon the "Iranian" term and let the "Iranian" to denote an Azeriturk as it is understood in common daily usage in West. Persians should identify themselves as Persians.
The Persian phenotype is clearly different from the Azeri-Turkish phenotype and the Azeri natioanlist claims that Azeris and Persian are indistinguishble or strikinigly similar is not valid. The way they prove their theory is to show a picture of an Azeri and then show a picture of another Azeri but calling the second Azeri a "Persian". This way they prove that Azeris and Persians look the same. To disporve this theory it is very simple to post the pictures of Afghans to see a non-Azeriturk Iranian phenotype. There are no Azeris in Afghanistan and the line between a turk and a Persian is very clear. In Western countries Azeris are mixed up with Persians in terms of terminology. These Azeri phenotypes do not exist in Afghanistan as there are no Azeris in Afghanistan.
For an explanation of the Turkification policy in Iran please click here. For a discussion on "Iranian as Hooked Nosed Race" see here. Click on the images for a bigger picture.
Intriguingly, the population of present-day Iran, speaking a major Indo-European language (Farsi), appears to have had little genetic influence from the M17-carrying Indo-Iranians. It is possible that the pre-Indo-European population of Iraneffectively an eastern extension of the great civilizations of Mesopotamiamay have reached sufficient population densities to have swamped any genetic contribution from a small number of immigrating Indo-Iranians. If so, this may have been a case of language replacement through the "elite-dominance" model (29). Alternatively, an Indo-Iranian language may have been the lingua franca of the steppe nomads and the surrounding settled populations, facilitating communication between the two. Over time, this language could have become the predominant language in Persia, reinforced and standardized by rulers such as Cyrus the Great and Darius in the mid-first millennium B.C. Whichever model is correct, the Iranians sampled here (from the western part of the country) appear to be more similar genetically to Afro-Asiatic-speaking Middle Eastern populations than they are to Central Asians or Indians. This finding contrasts with a recent analysis of Eastern Iranian populations, which have high frequencies of Y-chromosome haplogroup 3, defined by the M17 analogue SRY-1532A (30). It is likely that the Dasht-e Kavir and Dasht-e Lut deserts in the center of the country have acted as significant barriers to gene flow.
The Turkish and Azeri populations are atypical among Altaic speakers (Table 1) in having low frequencies of M130, M48, M45, and M17 haplotypes. Rather, these two Turkic-speaking groups seem to be closer to populations from the Middle East and Caucasus, characterized by high frequencies of M96- and/or M89-related haplotypes. This finding is consistent with a model in which the Turkic languages, originating in the Altai-Sayan region of Central Asia and northwestern Mongolia (31), were imposed on the Caucasian and Anatolian peoples with relatively little genetic admixtureanother possible example of elite dominance-driven linguistic replacement.
Oslonor Comments: This "Scientific Research" is trying to prove that "Iranians" are actaully related to semitic population of Iraq and Persian language is adopted by these people. Also it is claiming that Azeris are not turks and a more related to Armenians who are an Indo-European people. However this "research" can not explain why Persians and Afghans look like Europeans and why Azeri Turks do not look like Armenians!!!!
Sunday, October 16, 2005
Author: KEVIN FRAYRE
Filed: 28/03/2002, 02:44:27
Source: PubMed (2 articles)/Cavalli-Sforza/Ruiz-Linares/Me
Readers' Comments: (0)
COMPARITIVE ESTIMATIONS OF GENETIC ADMIXTURE AND RELATIVE MIGRATION
This weekend I found plenty of up to date articles on the web and here at my "Northern Illinois University" that totally prove them (whoever they me be) wrong.......
One rather interesting one by MEYER AND LINARES (1995) supports how the increase of loci used doesn't make any significant difference on results of population genetics.....IN FACT, IT IS VERY LIKELY A BIAS AGAINST HETEROGENEOUS POPULATIONS AND TOWARDS HOMOGENEOUS ONES. Don't ask for a mathematical explanation of this, please. THE USE OF 42 populations at 120 allelles with a 24% GAP, using Neighbor-joining is a better study; 98.6% confidence as shown; than using a measly 25 populations(of course, avoiding the extreme african populations too,and many other european groups don't leave room for proper reference). But CAVALL-SFORZA is a genius and examined heterogenius populations by region and plotted averages. That's where you get the gene map on this site. If people want a study using 25 populations...why do it?? It's obvious then that some studies are biased and politically based. Disgusting to the point of disbelief. Im glad LINARES and MEYER figured it out and were honest. You gotta love science!!
Instead of pondering over which studies are more accurate, I decided to compile as many as I could find and give relative summaries on various populations. The following is the average stats on Caucasians from around the world.
2 studies (P. Keiffer, D. Schelden, Inst. Mid East studies)
**"North eastern**" Aryan Iranian (10% of the nation) : a relative, unbelievable,102.5% caucasian in origin. This sub-pop is usually never considered seperate in studies from the general eastern 'aryan' iranians.
3 studies (cavally sforza, Keiffer, Meyer)
ARYAN IRANIAN "eastern iranian" (remaining 55% of aryan stock): a relative 97.6% caucasian
34% remaining: a relative 88.8% caucasian in origin ( This Isn'T very good at all as most may think just by numbers as you will see)
7 studies (Cavalli, D. meyer, Willford, Hensen, Godfrey, Matsari, Nei)
Iranian average: 95.7% caucasian in origin
**The average is still well within a fairly safe range ==== <>
5 studies w/ gene distances (various compilation)
ITALIAN: A RELATIVE 97.9% caucasian
GERMANIC: 98.1% caucasian (NO SURPRISE)
ENGLISH: 95.0% relative caucasian there only weakness is a couple of particular african tribes, obviously in accordance w/ admitted history)
DANISH: a relative 96.4% caucasian in origin. (DAMN)
FINLAND: a relative 96.8% caucasian in origin
**CENTRAL EUROPE IS A LARGE, HIGHLY CAUCASIAN, REGION.
5 studies "total" ("GENETICS" , Cavalli-sforza, Domillo, Gertoff, Nei)
Russian: 85% caucasian (perhaps more or less depending on region)
West russian: 88% caucasian
Azerbijan: 87.4% CAUCASIAN
CHUCKCHI: 56.1% caucasian (OOPS)
TAJIKASTAN 86% caucasian
AND HERE ARE SOME OTHER REFRENCE POINTS"
All by Institute of mid east studies. and/or cavalli sforza or nei.
or T. Caldwell or Notsori or D. Meyer.
7 studies used
Asian Indians (hindus): 72% caucasian in origin
North "aryan" Indian (sub pop): 88% caucasian in origin.
Armenian: A relative 93.7% caucasian in origin
IRAQI: 87.3% caucasian in origin
SAUDI ARABIAN: A relative 84.1%caucasian in origin.
EGYPT: a relative 81% caucasian in origin (**however, I know that north egypt is more caucasian sorry for no stats!)
THESE POPULATIONS AS YOU CAN SEE HAVE, AT LEAST SOME CLEAR ADMIXTURE (BESIDES ARMENIANS. IRAQI ISN"T DOING "TOO" BAD EITHER??)
* note: In all I used 15 studies with large numbers of (Fst, Nei or cavalli-sforza modified for genetic distances)the extreme populations.(minimum 35 pops in Nei a study) that were done anywhere from 1988 to 2001 using NEIGHBOR JOINING (only one study used UPGMA - but I converted it to NJ; CAVALLI-SFORZA).
Oslonor: It is clear from this that Caucasian is another fraud terminology. According to this study Azeris are more Caucasians than Russians. Azeris are Turks. They are not even caucasians. So Caucasian does not mean anything.
different blood groups, each coloumn represents : O A B AB
Arabs 34 31 29 6
Armenians 31 50 13 6
Asian (in USA - General) 40 28 27 5
Austrians 36 44 13 6
Czechs 30 44 18 9
Danes 41 44 11 4
Dutch 45 43 9 3
English 47 42 9 3
Finns 34 41 18 7
French 43 47 7 3
Germans 41 43 11 5
Greeks 40 42 14 5
Gypsies (Hungary) 29 27 35 10
Hindus (Bombay) 32 29 28 11
Hungarians 36 43 16 5
Icelanders 56 32 10 3
Indians (India - General) 37 22 33 7
Indians (USA - General) 79 16 4 1
Irish 52 35 10 3
Italians (Milan) 46 41 11 3
Japanese 30 38 22 10
Jews (Germany) 42 41 12 5
Jews (Poland) 33 41 18 8
Kikuyu (Kenya) 60 19 20 1
Norwegians 39 50 8 4
Persians 38 33 22 7
Russians 33 36 23 8
Sudanese 62 16 21 0
Swedes 38 47 10 5
Swiss 40 50 7 3
Tartars 28 30 29 13
Turks 43 34 18 6
Ukranians 37 40 18 6
United Kingdom (GB) 47 42 8 3
USA (blacks) 49 27 20 4
USA (whites) 45 40 11 4