David Cameron: Britain Will Never Surrender The Falkland Islands

[jhungary]

By definition, each grouping by itself is selective and regional. The regional groupings will show variation between them: the urban areas have more European genes than the more remote areas, as one would expect.

The combined results give the national figures.



Y-chromosome comes from the father, while mitochondrial DNA comes from the mother.

A high percentage of European Y-chromosome and a lower percentage of mitochondrial DNA means that the fathers were mostly European, while the mothers were more mixed.

In other words, European men bred with native women but the reverse, native men with European women, was far less common.

The figures for the overall percentage of European DNA remain as stated.

Dude, you don't need a college degree to figure this out

If the variation of regional data (subset) is this large, it will render the national average inaccurate, as there are a large SD in between

Basic set, subset principle

And for the mRNA and Y chromosome stuff, so tell me this, is it only count as indigenous if you have a indigenous father, so if you have a white father and and indigenous, then suddenly you are not indigenous, but a European?

Lol how does it make sense? wW2 during Nazi trying to find/define Jewish heritage

 

[Developereo]

If the variation of regional data (subset) is this large, it will render the national average inaccurate, as there are a large SD in between

Yes, that's why the national average has such a wide range 65% at the low end, and 90-something on the high end, depending on the study.

And for the mRNA and Y chromosome stuff, so tell me this, is it only count as indigenous if you have a indigenous father, so if you have a white father and and indigenous, then suddenly you are not indigenous, but a European?

Lol how does it make sense? wW2 during Nazi trying to find/define Jewish heritage

No one is saying that the Argentinians are pure blood Europeans (whatever that means). Of course, they are a mixture. The only issue is what percent.

 

[jhungary]

He is not gonna do that again,alright?and we will keep on liking good posts of one another

Lol

I honestly don't have a problem with him, yet it's very obviously he have some beef with me

That's why he is waging a crusade against me lol, you know the funny thing is? He accuse me trying to run whole grain over because I can't take his truth about Vietnamese oppression

I never consider myself to be Vietnamese to begin with, and my mother herself was oppressed by the Vietnamese government hence moving out of Vietnam before I was born

So he is literally saying I am running people over on behalf of a government whom ran my mother out. Isn't it fun?

 

[Slav Defence]

Lol

I honestly don't have a problem with him, yet it's very obviously he have some beef with me

That's why he is waging a crusade against me lol, you know the funny thing is? He accuse me trying to run whole grain over because I can't take his truth about Vietnamese oppression

I never consider myself to be Vietnamese to begin with, and my mother herself was oppressed by the Vietnamese government hence moving out of Vietnam before I was born

So he is literally saying I am running people over on behalf of a government whom ran my mother out. Isn't it fun?

He was simply highlighting some of his reservations.Let us not derail thread,alright?
Ah,come on-be a gentlemen,let us resolve this in PMS,alright?

 

[jhungary]

Yes, that's why the national average has such a wide range 65% at the low end, and 90-something on the high end, depending on the study.

No one is saying that the Argentinians are pure blood Europeans (whatever that means). Of course, they are a mixture. The only issue is what percent.

Then I don't know what you are saying against my post

I said, it's impossible to determine an actual value of European ancestry in Argentina, you cannot say an average range cross over 30%, it will render the data meaningless

Imagine if The Australian government give out an average unemployment rate between 5-35%, what good will it do in term of data processing?

And the heritage thing is, a mixed argentine will identify himself as white, instead it should be either of mixed race or potential indigenous

People outside Hispanic world don't know the term white or European in South America often only mean they are Hispanic. It does not mean they are direct descendant of White European

Again with the example, SA consider Arab to be white, while European consider them to be middle eastern

Another example is Eurasian, they too considered to be white in South America

Hence come back to the question. Is Argentine descendant from Colonial European? No. They are descendant of indigenous and European, during immigration boom in late 1800. It have nothing to do with colonial era, unless you claim immigration is a form of colonialization . Then I will shut up

He was simply highlighting some of his reservations.Let us not derail thread,alright?
Ah,come on-be a gentlemen,let us resolve this in PMS,alright?

Lol, tell that to him, not to me.

I am not the one who came out and warn people lol

 

[Developereo]

Is Argentine descendant from Colonial European? No. They are descendant of indigenous and European, during immigration boom in late 1800. It have nothing to do with colonial era, unless you claim immigration is a form of colonialization

The issue isn't how people describe or consider themselves, but what their genetic makeup is.

In Australia, as you may know, it is fashionable to claim Aboriginal heritage (at least among intellectual circles). Some people brag about 1/4 or 1/8 or whatever Aboriginal heritage. Means nothing without a genetics test.

For Argentina, the genetic studies give figures between 65% and 80+% European genes -- that much is indisputable. The only issue is how people want to interpret those numbers.

A 65% European genetic link can be claimed to be predominantly European.
The same number can be claimed to show significant (35%) indigenous heritage.

 

[jhungary]

The issue isn't how people describe or consider themselves, but what their genetic makeup is.

In Australia, as you may know, it is fashionable to claim Aboriginal heritage (at least among intellectual circles). Some people brag about 1/4 or 1/8 or whatever Aboriginal heritage. Means nothing without a genetics test.

For Argentina, the genetic studies give figures between 65% and 80+% European genes -- that much is indisputable. The only issue is how people want to interpret those numbers.

A 65% European genetic link can be claimed to be predominantly European.
The same number can be claimed to show significant (35%) indigenous heritage.

I would agree with you, if the question is is Argentine descent from European?

But the question whole grain raise is the argentine are descendant from colonial European , the answer is no

The population remain the same for almost 50 years after the colonial period ends, then comes the economic migrant from all over the world not just Europe

 

[Developereo]

I would agree with you, if the question is is Argentine descent from European?

But the question whole grain raise is the argentine are descendant from colonial European , the answer is no

I don't know about him but, in your earlier posts to _me_, you were rejecting the notion that the genes were predominantly European at all. You kept quibbling about mitochondrial DNA and the low percentages in regional samples, etc.

Now, you have switched your argument to say that you are talking about European migrants v/s European colonialists.

Whatever...

 

[jhungary]

I don't know about him but, in your earlier posts to _me_, you were rejecting the notion that the genes were predominantly European at all. You kept quibbling about mitochondrial DNA and the low percentages in regional samples, etc.

Now, you have switched your argument to say that you are talking about European migrants v/s European colonialists.

Whatever...

Your original comment is

The genetic markup of Argentinians is majority European -- from 65% to 80+%.

My original reply is

The term "White" within Argentine population have a very different meaning to the European Standard

White in Argentine term mean non-coloured, everything that's not dark is white. Arab is considered white in argentine definition (not in European standard)

Since there are no official indigenous study in Argentina until late 2000 many would be "indigenous" population would incorrectly identified themselves as white or European descent

That's where you are wrong, but I can't blame you, as you don't know anything about Argentina and Hispanic American, me being half Hispanic would have know more than you

My point is, the real estimation of how much European ancestry is hard to determine as many indigenous argentine would identify themselves as either white or European

Which you already said so too

My original post to whole grain is that most European are descent from colonial European

Your a product of extreme retardation. The Argentines ARE the product of colonialism, they are descendants of European colonialist settlers, and the Argentine state is a result of colonialism, just like the United States is a result of colonialism on Native Americans.

I said no

So, effectively, you side tracked the topic and accuse me of spinning around and switching topic. BRAVO

 

[Developereo]

My original post to whole grain is that most European are descent from colonial European



I said no

Well, now we are quibbling about what constitutes colonialism. When the colonial settlers institute a migration program that brings in more of their own, then that's just a continuation of the original colonization.

Australia had a whites-only migration policy until the mid-20th century. Whatever non-whites came in did so only as servants/employees for whites. Would anyone deny that that constitutes colonialism?

 

[jhungary]

Well, now we are quibbling about what constitutes colonialism. When the colonial settlers institute a migration program that brings in more of their own, then that's just a continuation of the original colonization.

Australia had a whites-only migration policy until the mid-20th century. Would anyone deny that that constitutes colonialism?

I would consider both US and Australia as a constitutional colonialism

Both country have a racist immigration policy which allowed only European settler in their country for a period

NOT the case in Argentina

1895 to 7.9 million in 1914, and to 15.8 million in 1947; during this time the country was settled by 1.5 million Spaniards and 1.4 million Italians,[citation needed] as well as Poles, Russians, French (more than 100,000 each), Germans and Austrians (also more than 100,000), Portuguese, Greek,Ukrainians, Croats, Czechs, Irish, British,Dutch, Scandinavians, and people from other European and Middle Eastern countries, prominently Syria and Lebanon. Argentine immigration records also mention immigrants from Australia, South Africa and the United States.[citation needed] All these immigratory ******** made Argentina the second country with the most immigrants, with 6.6 millions,

The argentine immigration policy is unrestricted, goes as far as South Africa and Asia. The argentine immigration policy is predominately the same suit followed by any number of fellow South American country

A immigration policy open to anyone does not constitute as constitutional colonialism, unless what you claim is colonised by The World

 

[Developereo]

NOT the case in Argentina

That list of source countries for Argentina that you posted looks awfully white to me (except for a couple of countries).

In any case, the empirical evidence from the genetic studies shows that the migrants/colonialists/whatever were predominantly of European stock.

PS. Anyway, we are splitting hairs over what I think is a non-issue, so I will let you have the last word.

 

[jhungary]

That list of source countries for Argentina that you posted looks awfully white to me (except for a couple of countries).

In any case, the empirical evidence from the genetic studies shows that the migrants/colonialists/whatever were predominantly of European stock.

The constitute of Argentina have work in a way they encourage a different type of constitution with North America, as Wikipedia article put it

The model, elaborated by the constitutional deputies from the precedent constitutional attempts and the pioneer work of Juan Bautista Alberdi, has been the target of repeated critics; the mechanism of federal model has been objected, and its true effectiveness has been questioned for being based in foreign experiences instead of following the peculiar Argentine history, far different from the North American colonialism by the British. Nevertheless, the historical importance of the constitutional project has been unquestionable, and virtually all disputes regarding the political theory and practice in modern Argentina include an either positive or negative reference on the political consequences of the 1853 constitution.

Constitution of Argentina of 1853 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The policy is opened to everyone, but who can afford to get there is another issue altogether. In fact the only people in that period can freely move around is predominately white European, that does not mean the Argentine work thru with White European colonialism

The fact stated in the constitution in Argentina is very clear, EVERYONE can migrate to Argentina, to fill empty land and take up responsibility to support the country. But who can get there is another issue that not in argentine control

Today, we see Indian and Chinese flooding top immigration list in both US and Australian, can you say US and Australia is now being constitutionally colonised by India and China?

 

[Wholegrain]

Well, now we are quibbling about what constitutes colonialism. When the colonial settlers institute a migration program that brings in more of their own, then that's just a continuation of the original colonization.

Australia had a whites-only migration policy until the mid-20th century. Whatever non-whites came in did so only as servants/employees for whites. Would anyone deny that that constitutes colonialism?

And most of the Arabs who were admitted into America, Australia, and south American countrie like Chile, Argentine, and Brazil during this period were mostly Syrians (from Syria and Lebanon) who were considered "white" on the census. People from the Levant were considered on the same level as southern Europeans- such as Italians and Greeks, while not as high status as "Nordic" German Europeans.

Even then, southern Europeans and Mediterranean people were discriminated against since they weren't "Nordic".

http://revistahistoria.uc.cl/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/rebolledo-antonia-28.pdf

An Arab Christian Community « Latin Arabia

The hierarchy was that Nordic Europeans were given the higest status, followed by mediterranean people and pretty much anyone else (non white people) were banned from obtaining citizenship in America, Australia, and south America.

 

[liall]

China can take Hongkong back we took GOA back so can Argentina. Grow some balls!