What is your definition of white?

I don't know what the phenotypes are called, but the ones that are for the native peoples of central and northern Europe.

Being 97+% those phenotypes is my standard for White.

do you mean phenotype or genotype?

nope

Theres a place online where you can upload your picture and a program will determine what race you are as a percentage. I would say you have to at least be 90%+ white to be considered "white", but perhaps more.

Ah yes, genotype.

Majority genetic ancestry from some combination of Ancient North Eurasian, Scandinavian Hunter Gatherers, Western Hunter Gatherer, or Anatolian Neolithic/Early European farmer. Other groups that could be included are Levantine Neolithic and Caucasian Hunter Gatherer.

Attached: 1531011739510.jpg (946x941, 137K)

My definition of white is, "a combination of all wavelengths within the spectra of visible light."

version of the graph with ancient overlays

btw Easter European Hunter Gatherer and Ancient North Eurasian are basically equivalent.

Attached: 2fdrZf8.png (1192x1174, 200K)

So? When exactly did white people begin as a distinct different people? Then? If so, is it relevant? Are the people now in modern turkey and those areas of Russia still considered white? Genetically, mind you.

What relevance does that statement have? Are there differences in the people that are in those regions, or that might have stayed in those regions, that would make them discernibly different now? Because if there is, and I would say in Turkey that is the case, then I wouldn't consider them white. I'd consider them Turks.

To sum it up, does that statement really have a lot of bearing on the accuracy of saying that those that settled in the European areas mentioned, are basically what would be considered "white people." I would say seems so. Any reasoning to say that is an inaccurate assessment?

and what of the people who are 95-99%, and created great achievements? I think if we look at the great scientists and artists of history some of them will fit into that group, but you say they are not white?

given that we can't be sure from portraits and photographs what exactly a person's genetic makeup was, does that mean we have to hold off on claiming basically all of western civilization as our heritage?

Can suck the female version of you (if male) or your (if already female)'s toes while feeling horny

>Are the people now in modern turkey and those areas of Russia still considered white? Genetically, mind you.
other people have migrated into those areas since then

all I am saying is that you need to be clear about what you mean by "arose", and in a way that also excludes the groups you don't think are white

Ethnically European. You're in luck too because experts have spent a long time to define what that means down to your DNA so I don't have to explain shit.

You don't have to like it and i don't have to give a shit what you think.

>Blue, green, or grey eyes and yellow to red hair.
>Or brown eyes, brown hair and skin, all 80% lighter than the global average.

this will probably be the most successful method in the long run but it could fall foul of the sorites paradox or other problems if you are not prepared when you say "majority genetic ancestry"

it could also end up being more broad than you would like, including people in the middle east and so on that you wouldn't necessarily say are white

lighter skin on the top of the feet than on the bottom
farmer's tan
noticeable beard growth before 20

Caucasoids whose native range is Europe

they have and the science is developing rapidly, but there is still a problem of where to put the line on this graph between white and non-white, for example iranians

European and western middle East, cuts off in Egypt, but extends through the Caucaus mountains. This doesn't include tribes that invaded and settled these areas after the fact like the Turks. If you put a European man with a big ass beard next to a middle eastern counterpart they look very similar, apart from maybe the eyes. The generic terrorist look is more towards Pakistan, but Iranian, Afghani, and Saudis often times look very white. Again, there are different ethnic groups that contradict this, but that's not the point.

>ancestors of white people migrated into europe from modern turkey and russia

I think you mean Anatolia and the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. Ultimately though light skin evolved first in the Caucasus region and then moved either north or south from there.

The earliest recorded skeleton with light skin genetics is from Satsurblia Cave in Georgia dated to around 11,000 BC

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satsurblia_Cave
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLC24A5

>people in the middle east and so on that you wouldn't necessarily say are white

The difference is largely the percent of Basal Eurasian genetics in Middle Eastern populations, a higher Basal Eurasian means you are "less Caucasian" or less white.

Iranians have a high percentage of Basal Eurasian which means they can't be considered white.

The population with the highest percent of Basal Eurasian are native Bedouins aka "True" Arabs from the Arabian peninsula.

Attached: BE.png (1054x734, 71K)

I'm using a definition that is going to piss a ton of people off but also recruit a bunch of followers.

Anyone who is lighter than a sun tan will be counted as white, more or less. Now some people will hate me for this broad definition and that's ok. They are free to be as rigid as they like in their own definition.

And yes, creepy as it sounds, I do want to see the breeding of rare colored people be encouraged. For no practical reason except that it looks beautiful.

All of you reading this of all colors: You need to start grilling the social engineers on why they want to turn everyone into one indistinct color pattern. I bet a lot of them can't give a decent answer beyond "it will end war." It won't end war. Violence is something common to all humans. It will end the beautiful variations in the human species.

and what do you mean native?
if you are in the balkans then it wouldn't be a surprise to find that some of your ancestry is from outside europe

I think terming whites as the traditional, vast majority of inhabitants circa last 2000 years of Europe excluding some couple of immigrants (berbers, turks, jews, gypsies, mongols) is pretty accurate. It gives a very generally true assessment.
Ultimately it's genetics, and while people that aren't experts in the field (coupled with the current situation of people even mentioning such findings being suppressed, much less being funded to do so) can't tell people "well we notice that in all 'white' people that x,x2,y,z,&b groups of genes seems to be found in what are termed the white people at quite X% majority rates, while not in these people from Nigeria or this guy in Fiji."

But that information I feel is going to be there and in far more availability as time goes on.
Note I'm saying your statement of being clear with terms is wrong. I just don't think it's an inaccurate way of description. I wish people didn't have to be dishonest and actually seek truth.

>a higher Basal Eurasian means you are "less Caucasian" or less white.
sure but you will still face questions from angry leftists as to why basal eurasian doesn't count, and what percentage the cut off point is

at least you have a good understanding of the genetics, which is worryingly rare on pol if this thread is anything to go by

Balkans have little to no Non-Euro (that is non Eastern European Hunter Gatherer/Ancient North Eurasian, Western European Hunter Gatherer, Scandinavian Hunter Gatherer, or Anatolian Neolithic/Early European Farmer ) admixture.

see
Not even Bulgarians have much non Euro admixture

>why basal eurasians don't count

Because they are very distantly related from from all other West Eurasians, in fact West Eurasians would be more closely related to a East Eurasian (Mongoloid) than to a "pure" Basal Eurasian, that's how far removed they are.

But since modern Arabians and Persians are mixed between Basal Eurasians and Levantine Neolithic/Caucasian Hunter Gatherers, those populations today are only somewhat related to the more typical West Eurasian populations which is listed above (EEHG, WEHG, CHG, ANE, ,etc)

here's another problem for all the genetic answers:

let's say I pass all your genetics tests, and then I convert to islam and reject western culture altogether

still white? really?

defining the cultural component us important too, but is harder to deal with and less "scientific" than genetics

That's unlikely to happen, so it's an irrelevant argument. Genetics is what primarily determines culture in the first place. What exactly are you trying to argue against anyway? White identity?

what do you think about people who have curly hair, like in this picture?

Attached: springy-curls6.jpg (244x400, 25K)

"Race" originated as a term from French related to horse "breeding" or "breed" as in the the physical charaitaristics of a certain group or genetic line of horses.animals which was eventually applied to humans.

So racially, speaking, as in your "breed" you are white, but since you have adopted a non-white (Arab-Basal Eurasian mix) culture and your children will probably be mixed I think it's safe to right you off as having decided to "leave" the white race since your children won't be white.

Same thing would go for someone that moved to Japan and married a Japanese girl, you have effectively left your breed/race.

I'm not trying to argue against anything. I'm trying to find out how bad your arguments are so I can create and spread better ones.

It's not unlikely to happen, I see white people acting like they are another race all the time.

whiter than talc

No, you don't see it all the time. You hear about it. That is to say, you fell for the sensationalist attitude of modern journalism and believed it represented reality.

millions and millions of white people listen to rap music

white is what i am and what your average mutt is not

So you're conflating listening to rap music with converting Islam and rejecting Western culture? I do believe you are being disingenuous. The people who listen to rap music are nothing more than simpletons, easily swayed by the current trends of the day. Quite the contrary to what you are trying to espouse, they are embracing culture to the best of their ability, not rejecting it.

Yes. Really absolutely genetically white.
Probably not in couple generation's time, he'd be highly likely to end up having 3/4ths semite grandchildren, because Islam is indeed practically a qualifier for being an arab/turk/persian, or else if he stays in white lands inevitably and his descendants would drop the outlier Islam novelty and convert back, but yes; he's individually very much so white. There aren't very many white muslims in Greece, the Balkans or Spain anymore, but there likely were a certain number in the past, until the Turks were kicked out en-mass.
Cultural correlations to races are correlations.