RE: Stephen Hawking boycotts Israeli academic conference
May 13, 2013 at 10:46 am
(This post was last modified: May 13, 2013 at 12:01 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
@Chuck
Europe has been described as the most genetically homogeneous continent. Haplogroup maps give us the best picture of any mass migrations or displacements initiated by them from the period of time roughly 40k years ago to about 5-9k years ago, as europe appears to have been populated (by homo sapiens anyway - our first displacement targets in the region were other hominids, apparently helped along by our wonderful changing environment). At this point we see a major displacement event pushing the genetics of hunter gatherers to the fringes of europe - the spread of agriculture. People weren't buying hoes from one another - a specific group of people were carrying them from one place to another, and in a big way. The ag haplogroup (west african, some area of contention here as it's always possible that the haplogroup and ag were coincidence - but regardless of this the arrival and domination of the haplogroup is beyond question and occurred far later than the original wave of migration, and it is -not- the haplogroup isolated to h/g's). Sure, most of europe is descended - in part- from some portion of the intial wave of expansion, but all of europe is descended from a couple of choice - later- waves of expansion. I doubt that the people on the clines of these expansions thought it was all well and good, and that they were essentially the same people, though as the descendants of both groups now - it's easy for us to consider them as such, eh?
Nevertheless, "most geneticially homogeneous" can be a slightly misleading distinction, as there are - as yet- 6 major haplogroups connected to successive waves of expansion and genetic displacement - and a large handful of minor ones . In truth, the title simply means -one of the least muttly mutts we know of. All of this is really only useful to describe and identify mass displacements by a genetically dissimilar populations, however - and won't tell us much about the sort of inter cultural/ethnic conflict or competition that might move a camp to one side or another of a river. Of course, with the spread (and improvement) of agriculture and it's methods we now see an impetus to stay put in a very small area, and frankly, a means to do so. Not that this stopped us from pushing each other across the map - and in major ways it enabled us to do so in an altogether different way. After all, if you want to push a major amount of people into a occupied area you're going to need a major amount of food - but you'll need other things as well. Things which don't seem to have been present directly following the influx of our "friendly" farmers. So we see a lull and a sort of stasis for a period directly after the imposition of ag on the landscape. It won't last long. After this point displacement events -are- mostly concerned with two peoples of a broad genetic similarity because of the totality and success of earlier waves. These future displacements did often include cultural transfer, and yes, they even fucked some of the locals (leading to even greater homogenization of the pool). But genetic similarity, cultural transfer, and fucking the locals doesn't have the effect of making displacement "not displacement", and it was going on long before the celts, or the romans make their way to the scene (both, themselves, a product of this same haplogroup migration btw- and roman displacement apparently had little to no effect on genetics, and ultimately on the area itself, as it was temporary-though the culture persisted in part) It's also interesting to note here, that central europeans do not appear to be significantly descended from either indigenous hunter gatherers -or- later neolithic farmers (admittedly we have less than comprehensive sample populations- but reasonable estimations- and the sample populations of contemporary c. europeans are "contaminated" if you will, for well understood and well documented reasons).
The british isles (in lock step with the rest of the fringes of europe) does appear to have resisted the major early influxes, at least a little better than the majority of the mainland going by those haplogroups. They had the benefit of being too far out, and ended up adopting ag as part of the backwave of it's expansion - in a period that can very much be described as cultural transfer, for example. Nevertheless, they've had plenty of displacement events in their history that are not defined by genetics -some that are- (and were a major contributor in one fantastic displacement event after another as we continue along into the present that were defined by genetics). So yes, genetic evidence does suggest (not suggest, in truth, but firmly demonstrates) that at a few key points the genetic makeup of an entire continent was drastically altered by singular waves of expansion (but it also places outliers and fringes to those expansions). This isn't limited to the very distant past - or europe, of course, I did link a wonderful little study on the effect of the Mongol invasion on the -entirety of the asian gene pool-....but in defense of earlier proto-european waves...the mongols had help from some horses. With civilization, with tying ourselves down to the land we do see fewer instances of this for a time - and we would expect that, but after that lull displacement exploded as our means of transportation becames more advanced. I think that if any point could be made it;s that at a period between right around the end of the neolithic up to some point into the iron age we see a marked decrease in displacement of a scale large enough to alter the genetic makeup in the way that it appears to have done before and after this period. IMO, that probably has at least a little to do with their not being any barriers to displacement at first, then later finding a way to overcome those barriers that arose. But I'm a random joe..so, that only goes so far.
I think that you're being far too generous to Nony in concluding that he has a point to make. The only point Nony has been attempting to make is that displacement is a "zionist lie". Unfortunately, for Nony anyway, it isn't. Further, as I also mentioned, whether or not a culture is on one end or another of any displacement event has very little value or weight with regards to what should happen going forward, imo. Particularly when that event is a -past- event.
Europe has been described as the most genetically homogeneous continent. Haplogroup maps give us the best picture of any mass migrations or displacements initiated by them from the period of time roughly 40k years ago to about 5-9k years ago, as europe appears to have been populated (by homo sapiens anyway - our first displacement targets in the region were other hominids, apparently helped along by our wonderful changing environment). At this point we see a major displacement event pushing the genetics of hunter gatherers to the fringes of europe - the spread of agriculture. People weren't buying hoes from one another - a specific group of people were carrying them from one place to another, and in a big way. The ag haplogroup (west african, some area of contention here as it's always possible that the haplogroup and ag were coincidence - but regardless of this the arrival and domination of the haplogroup is beyond question and occurred far later than the original wave of migration, and it is -not- the haplogroup isolated to h/g's). Sure, most of europe is descended - in part- from some portion of the intial wave of expansion, but all of europe is descended from a couple of choice - later- waves of expansion. I doubt that the people on the clines of these expansions thought it was all well and good, and that they were essentially the same people, though as the descendants of both groups now - it's easy for us to consider them as such, eh?
Nevertheless, "most geneticially homogeneous" can be a slightly misleading distinction, as there are - as yet- 6 major haplogroups connected to successive waves of expansion and genetic displacement - and a large handful of minor ones . In truth, the title simply means -one of the least muttly mutts we know of. All of this is really only useful to describe and identify mass displacements by a genetically dissimilar populations, however - and won't tell us much about the sort of inter cultural/ethnic conflict or competition that might move a camp to one side or another of a river. Of course, with the spread (and improvement) of agriculture and it's methods we now see an impetus to stay put in a very small area, and frankly, a means to do so. Not that this stopped us from pushing each other across the map - and in major ways it enabled us to do so in an altogether different way. After all, if you want to push a major amount of people into a occupied area you're going to need a major amount of food - but you'll need other things as well. Things which don't seem to have been present directly following the influx of our "friendly" farmers. So we see a lull and a sort of stasis for a period directly after the imposition of ag on the landscape. It won't last long. After this point displacement events -are- mostly concerned with two peoples of a broad genetic similarity because of the totality and success of earlier waves. These future displacements did often include cultural transfer, and yes, they even fucked some of the locals (leading to even greater homogenization of the pool). But genetic similarity, cultural transfer, and fucking the locals doesn't have the effect of making displacement "not displacement", and it was going on long before the celts, or the romans make their way to the scene (both, themselves, a product of this same haplogroup migration btw- and roman displacement apparently had little to no effect on genetics, and ultimately on the area itself, as it was temporary-though the culture persisted in part) It's also interesting to note here, that central europeans do not appear to be significantly descended from either indigenous hunter gatherers -or- later neolithic farmers (admittedly we have less than comprehensive sample populations- but reasonable estimations- and the sample populations of contemporary c. europeans are "contaminated" if you will, for well understood and well documented reasons).
The british isles (in lock step with the rest of the fringes of europe) does appear to have resisted the major early influxes, at least a little better than the majority of the mainland going by those haplogroups. They had the benefit of being too far out, and ended up adopting ag as part of the backwave of it's expansion - in a period that can very much be described as cultural transfer, for example. Nevertheless, they've had plenty of displacement events in their history that are not defined by genetics -some that are- (and were a major contributor in one fantastic displacement event after another as we continue along into the present that were defined by genetics). So yes, genetic evidence does suggest (not suggest, in truth, but firmly demonstrates) that at a few key points the genetic makeup of an entire continent was drastically altered by singular waves of expansion (but it also places outliers and fringes to those expansions). This isn't limited to the very distant past - or europe, of course, I did link a wonderful little study on the effect of the Mongol invasion on the -entirety of the asian gene pool-....but in defense of earlier proto-european waves...the mongols had help from some horses. With civilization, with tying ourselves down to the land we do see fewer instances of this for a time - and we would expect that, but after that lull displacement exploded as our means of transportation becames more advanced. I think that if any point could be made it;s that at a period between right around the end of the neolithic up to some point into the iron age we see a marked decrease in displacement of a scale large enough to alter the genetic makeup in the way that it appears to have done before and after this period. IMO, that probably has at least a little to do with their not being any barriers to displacement at first, then later finding a way to overcome those barriers that arose. But I'm a random joe..so, that only goes so far.
I think that you're being far too generous to Nony in concluding that he has a point to make. The only point Nony has been attempting to make is that displacement is a "zionist lie". Unfortunately, for Nony anyway, it isn't. Further, as I also mentioned, whether or not a culture is on one end or another of any displacement event has very little value or weight with regards to what should happen going forward, imo. Particularly when that event is a -past- event.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
