Traits non-whites have in common, why do whites look so unique?

Don't be so angry,you little swedecuck

Attached: Screenshot_2018-09-01-00-11-21.png (480x854, 181K)

I meant to say Sub-Saharan Africans.

Can you please answer my question?

Caucasoid features are not exclusive to Europe, East Africans even share that skull type and thinner noses.

Are they white now?

Attached: horner (2).jpg (1080x720, 125K)

Attached: aboriginal-vs-slav.jpg (288x240, 39K)

Resources:
Craniometry and Functional Craniology
columbia.edu/itc/hs/medical/humanAnatomy/yuan/craniologyISlides.pdf

You're right. That's a black white man. Am I weird for straight up think of him as a white person? I suspect he has a high IQ (despite living in a bamboo hut). are these types of people nigger level or are they actually human?

what-when-how.com/forensic-sciences/determination-of-racial-affinity/

Attached: Race+Characteristics+Caucasoids—have+a+long,+narrow+nasal+aperture,+a+triangular+palate,+oval+orbi (1280x720, 99K)

You look English.

Attached: Jackwild-march1970.jpg (238x380, 20K)

Ojectively, asians and whites are much more similar to each other than either is to blacks. Just look at that image you posted. What you are seeing with faces is that both are relatively alien compared to people of your own race.

>Frontal and profile views of Caucasoid (A), Negroid (B) and Mongoloid(C)
This is an example of the shortness of the length of the mongoloid cranium and the shortness of the height of the negroid skull. This is why you can laugh when people say mongoloids are white. They are as anthropometrically disparate from whites as negroids are, if not more.

Attached: tmp3931_thumb_thumb1.jpg (445x768, 70K)

Horners are a recent mixture of Nilo-Saharan negroids and afroasiatics from the Middle East. This mixing happened around 3000 years ago at around 1000 BC. The Mota genome from 3,500 years ago from Ethiopia lacked the Middle Eastern admixture found among modern horners, and were related to the Nilo-Saharans.

These types? Your talking to one bozo.

Attached: 1510747588710.jpg (980x1154, 368K)

3000 years is recent now? 3000 years ago the world was so different it might as well have been a different planet. This is pre Jesus.. Muhammad, this is Pre Rome.. This is not recent you dumbfuck. You are recent. this nation isnt even older than a few hundred years.

Attached: 65.jpg (275x183, 5K)

>According to the Nordicist school, European achievement is primarily due to the tall, blond, dolichocephalic race. The only problem with this theory, which achieved such popularity in the 19th and early 20th centuries, is that when the skulls of prominent Europeans and Germans were measured there was no evidence of an overrepresentation of dolichocephals among them: indeed, most of them were brachycephalic, many of them tending to the extreme hyperbrachycephalic form, as the following passage illustrates.

>One can imagine the shock an intelligent German reader suffered when he remembered that many of the great German heroes from Bismarck down to Hindenburg and Hitler were brachycephalics and even hyperbrachycephalics, and that the three greatest philosophers Germany has produced-Leibniz, Kant, and Schopenhauer-had round heads in the most extreme form (Fig. 2, No. 4, Leibniz, skull index 90.3[!]; NO. 5, Kant, skull index 88.5; No. 6, Schopenhauer, head index 90.0

Dolicocephaly is a trait thst correlates with a reduced ceanial volume. Thats why the most dolicocephalic races in the world are the negroids of Africa, the aboriginals of Australia and stone age Europeans.

Racial variation in some parts of the skull involved in chewing. Pic=
>Figure 10: Overall tooth size across different human populations, both present and ancestral.
majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/racial_variation_in_some_parts_of_the_skull_involved_in_chewing/

Attached: tooth.size.gif (600x872, 206K)

In population history timeframe it is quite recent. People are acting like horners are some sort of transitional form from negroid to caucasoid, some even think they are what caucasouids evolved out of, and not just mulattoes from 2000 years after the pyramids were built. People even post pictures of these horners with henna powder in their hair as if they could be actual gingers like caucasoids.

Probably confirmation bias. Every race is better at differentiating in group members than out group members.
You look for different characteristics to differentiate whites such as eye color or hair type/color which doesn't vary in non-whites.

Negroids are long length short height skull. Caucasoids are long length tall height skull. Also the width and shape of the cranium is wider in negroids. Totally different craniofacial metrics.

Attached: main-qimg-f3e04e1694358f7694b9db71ab5aafd7-c.jpg (450x244, 24K)

All three are almost equally distant. But I can see the argument that Asians and blacks have more features in common than Asians and whites.

Sure, but you posted a picture conparing their cranial lenght. You should have compared the average volume as thats what matters.

Also, I dont know if you know this, but Europeans are many times closer to Asians than they are to Africans.

You're reading race denialist gouldian bullshit

"In a 1978 paper and later in The Mismeasure of Man (1981), Stephen Jay Gould asserted that Morton had, perhaps because of an unconscious bias, selectively reported data, manipulated sample compositions, made analytical errors, and mismeasured skulls in order to support his prejudicial views on intelligence differences between different populations. Gould's book became widely read and Morton came to be considered one of the main cases of the effects of unconscious bias in data collection, and as one of the main figures in the early history of scientific racism.
Subsequently, two separate studies of Morton's data and methods, one conducted in 1988 and the other in 2011, argued that Gould had overstated or misrepresented the case, and that Morton's measurement's were essentially correct.

In the latter study, entitled "The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias" and authored by six anthropologists, it was concluded that the bias came from Gould, who failed to examine and remeasure the crania in order to determine Morton's level of accuracy."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_George_Morton

No, they are not. The first genetic division in this world is sub-Saharan - out-of-African. All non-Africans with no recent African admixture are closer to all other non-Africans than they are to Africans.

Its been proven that the original humans were from Africa, and the stock that ventured out were from the horn via Djibouti to Yemen, the redsea wasnt even a sea at one point. Yemen was connected to the horn.

This is why horners who have children with other races always make kids who look like the other races. Our genes are totally malleable unlike bantus. We might be the progenitor or precursor to the North African race, who then created the white/Semitic race. We do have language links and y dna links. I'm just saying what I think might be possible. We sure do look whiter than everyone else in subsaharan Africa. Some of us went south and colonized the great-lakes region they became the Tutsi/Maasi,etc.

It definitely makes for sense than that Jewish hogwash about 1 man having offspring that were 3 different races..

Attached: Horners.jpg (2400x2400, 845K)

>All three are almost equally distant.
Morphologically, maybe. It's hard to measure that in an exact way though. Subjectively I see a number of similarities between caucasoid and mongoloid skulls, such as nasil opening shape, forehead slope, and jaw prognasthism, while a negroid skull seems different in virtually every way. Genetically, on the other hand it's not even close, with negroids branching off long ago but certain mongoloids groups being closer to caucasoids even than certain other mongoloids, at least by certain metrics, perhaps indicating that mongoloid features are either a sort of baseline or something that is selected for by many environments.

Attached: human_genetic_variation_by_agahnim.png (600x892, 138K)

The cephalic index is a ratio
>a number expressing the ratio of the maximum breadth of a skull to its maximum length.
and so saying that negroids and caucasoids are both dolichocephalic is not the end of the story or not evidence of overall similarity of cranial morphometrics. But I mean what is your game here? Are you arguing that negroids and caucasoids aren't anthropometrically dissimilar? And why would you be attempting to muddy the water?

>Why is a smaller population with recent phenotype mutations often different looking from the other mutants who aren't???

Attached: Mystique_04.jpg (973x1300, 393K)

That's not from Gould, its from Franz Weidenreic's, "The Brachycephalization of Recent Mankind" from 1945. Franz was a mentor of Charleton Coon. Gouldians would never argue like this, since I'm defending the view that cranial capacity is linked with intelligence. You just want to deny the science like the Gouldians do so you can cling to your shitty subrace horoscopes from the 19th century. It's a fact that there is a correlation between ceohalic index and cranial volume, and that there is a correlation between cranial volume and intelligence. You, like the Gouldians, would like to deny this because youre not championing for science, youre championing for your race, and whats the point if the science shows that some other groups are even more intelligent than your own?

Whatever lunatic. KYS.

So what? Dont you think the genetic landscape of the area could have changed a little since the out-of-Africa migration? The people Eurasians split off were not like the modern Nilo-Saharans. It was at least 60,000 years ago. After that time differentiation happened, and those differentiated lineages stayed separate until they mixed around 3000 years ago. Again, the horners are a recent mulatto people, not some proto-caucasoid remnants. The middle eastern admixture that makes them look different from the Nilotics was absent in the area 3,500 years ago. Its like looking at Mexicans and assuming that Native Americans came out of a transitional white to indio root population.

I'm arguing that the morphometrics youre talking about are irrelevant when compared with others with actual real life consequence like difference in intelligence.

>starts posting his obsolete race memes from the 19th century
>gets engaged in actual debate about morphological differences
>K-kill yourself I didnt want to be right anyway I dont care

Not sure what point you're trying to make. If whites have a pretty distinctive look, then groups that are closely related to whites would also be sorta distinctive looking, relative to the rest of humanity. Obviously.

what

Attached: RACISM-NO.jpg (498x483, 48K)

>Caucasoid features are not exclusive to Europe, East Africans even share that skull type and thinner noses.
It's almost like East Africans have North Africa, Arab and Indian admixture.

Attached: 1534757347407.png (640x640, 108K)

>That's a black white man

Attached: 1505248698928.png (410x410, 32K)