A recent study finds
Amerindian mitochondrial DNA haplogroups predominate in the population of Argentina:
Amerindian haplogroups were most frequent in the north and south representing more than 60% of the sequences. A slightly different situation was observed in central Argentina where the Amerindian haplogroups represented less than 50%, and the European contribution was more relevant. [. . .] A minor contribution of African lineages was observed throughout the country.
Autosomal evidence indicates Argentinians harbor
substantial Amerindian and
minor African admixture.
Regarding autosomal evidence of admixture, the relative European, native American, and West African genetic contributions to the gene pool of La Plata were estimated to be 67.55% (+/-2.7), 25.9% (+/-4.3), and 6.5% (+/-6.4), respectively.
Argentina is generally perceived to be the
whitest country in Latin America. See Brazilian or Puerto Rican "whites" if you require further evidence "white" doesn't have the same meaning in Latin America as it does in America.
39 comments:
Why do you link to that "men's liberation" crusader Welmer? He writes casually about miscegenation as if there's nothing wrong with it.
I have always been skeptical about South American "whites." I doubt half of them that call themselves white are really white. A lot of them probably have 1/4 mud in them.
A lot of the "white" populations in Argentina have swarthy features. When I visited I just thought that was due to swarthy South Euro blood as I was always told that Argentina was mainly "European." But this study casts light on the matter.
Argentina is merely a "whiter" mix than most fmr Spanish Empire territories. But it's still mixed race in the final estimation.
Remember too, this study is not country-wide in Argentina, just in the region cited, which I remember reading about in a class in graduate school that even the Argentines believe and agree is the most 'Indio' part of their country.
Don't forget that in the 19th century Argentina, and its visionary president Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, encouraged massive European immigration, with many of these immigrants, particularly in Buenos Aries, almost completely supplanting the Indios and mestizos, of whom there were not that many to begin with (with Argentina and the southern tier of the South American continent being the backwater area of the former Spanish Empire -- Mexico and Peru being its epicenters).
Indeed, Argentina is not a typical country in so many respects, be it in a "Latin" American or a global context. It was one almost conceived from scratch, building its identity and crafting its narrative from the ground up. This book explains this rather well:
"The Invention of Argentina"
http://www.amazon.com/Invention-Argentina-Nicolas-Shumway/dp/0520082842
Julius,
Genetic studies show significant Amerindian and minor negroid admixture throughout Argentina.
Of course, there are many Argentinians who are entirely descended from European immigrants, but Argentina seems to be entirely typical of Latin America in having attempted to "assimilate" its nonwhites by freely mixing with them (as opposed to practicing hypodescent). I have nothing against Argentinians, but American racialists who imagine Argentina as some sort of white paradise they would do well to retreat to are sorely deluded.
n/a,
I think you may be on to something here, since most White Argentines I knew from my grad school days in Georgetown were indeed first-to-second generation Argentino's, usually on both the mother and father's side of their family.
I gotta tell ya though, what an overall refined bunch of guys they were. What really struck me about them is the very pro-White, pro-American stance many of 'em seemed to embody, in contrast to other Latin Americans, who were often rather White themselves (and I don't just mean Iberian White here).
Remember, these were the purported "elites" of "Latin" America, and it was not at all uncommon for them to have a fair amount of northern European ancestry. I remember quite a few being of part British, Scottish, German and Scandinavian origin, and all of 'em, with the exception of the Argentines and Uruguayans, were usually liberal jackasses, and opportunistically anti-White American, even thought they were quite 'racist' themselves.
So, definitely, those from the southern cone of Latin America were far more consistent in their pro-White, pro-Western beliefs. Essentially, they were significantly more populist than the 'White' Mexicans or the 'White' Columbians were, who were far more dysfunctionally elitist and hypocritical in all matters racial and cultural.
Why don't more people accept a racialist point of view? Because true white racialists have to spend all their time arguing with people like the one who posted this bit of trash. We spend so much time arguing with each other that it's impossible to educate anyone else.
We have a Kenyan Nig in the White House with a piratical jew as Chief Of Staff - and now we're going to attack fellow whites who speak Spanish?
I think people who post this crap are doing it for the express purpose of ripping apart the white racialist movement.
Consider this bit of stupidity from poster "Jimmy Smith" QUOTE: "I have always been skeptical about South American "whites." I doubt half of them that call themselves white are really white. A lot of them probably have 1/4 mud in them."
I could say the same thing about Italians in New York . . . black Irish . . . eastern Europeans . . . some Slavs . . . some French . . . I mean, what is this crap? If WHITE means to you blonde and blue-eyed . . . then go start your little Blonde And Blue-Eyed Racial Revolution.
Meanwhile, we WHITES will continue to accept that because whites are the supreme conquerors and because waves of various populations swept through Europe after the Roman Empire . . . we aren’t all Nordics.
Mr Jimmy Smith, did you ever take a look at a photo of Adolf Hitler . . . or how about Josef Goebbels?
If an Argentinian looks white and acts white - he is white and he is our kisman and our ally in the fight for SURVIVAL. Down the road we can use science to tailor genes to achieve a certain look in our offspring.
Get over it people . . . wise up and grow up.
Anonymous,
"If an Argentinian looks white and acts white - he is white and he is our kisman and our ally in the fight for SURVIVAL."
Looks and color can be deceiving, especially in Latin America:
Color and genomic ancestry in Brazilians: a study with forensic microsatellites.
[...]
We have recently published a study that used ancestry-informative markers to conclude that in Brazil, at an individual level, color, as determined by physical evaluation, was a poor predictor of genomic ancestry, estimated by molecular markers.
[...]
These results corroborate and validate our previous conclusions using ancestry-informative markers that in Brazil at the individual level there is significant dissociation of color and genomic ancestry.
Cutlass,
==
"Looks and color can be deceiving, especially in Latin America":
Color and genomic ancestry in Brazilians: a study with forensic microsatellites.
==
There are significant differences between Argentines (large European immigrant racial stock) and Brazilians (second largest Negro country outside of Africa).
So, at best, this is an invidious comparison.
Look, no one is saying that you, or your sister, has to date or marry an Argentine or an unmixed White South American; just that Whites around the world need to work together for our common interests.
Not much more, not much less.
Julius,
"There are significant differences between Argentines (large European immigrant racial stock) and Brazilians (second largest Negro country outside of Africa)."
Thanks.
"So, at best, this is an invidious comparison."
The claim isn't that Argentines have lots of Negro admixture, or that the degree of non-European admixture is to the degree of Brazil.
The claim is simply that looks and color can be a poor predictor of genomic ancestry, and that there can be a significant dissociation of color and genomic ancestry.
This isn't that surprising or controversial. Hypodescent wasn't practiced as strictly, if at all, in Latin America.
Obviously, the fact that there just wasn't as many non-whites in Argentina as in Brazil means that admixture is likely to be lower, and the data bears this out. But it is there.
Looks and color are much more reliable and robust as predictors of genomic ancestry in places where hypodescent is strictly adhered to, as in North America.
Hi Cutlass,
"The claim is simply that looks and color can be a poor predictor of genomic ancestry, and that there can be a significant dissociation of color and genomic ancestry.
"This isn't that surprising or controversial. Hypodescent wasn't practiced as strictly, if at all, in Latin America."
...
"Looks and color are much more reliable and robust as predictors of genomic ancestry in places where hypodescent is strictly adhered to, as in North America."
First, I would say that North America practiced hypodescent rather exceptionally well with Negroes, not so well with Our Mongoloid Indian ("Native American") population, though.
Totally agree with you regarding Brazil though, my friend. I have been there myself, and there are some weird-looking combinations there.
I must say, however, that even amongst the lighter-Brazilians one could detect obvious Negro and/or Indio genes. It was only amongst the Brazilians of rather immediate, European-immigrant ancestry that indeed, realistically, looked White.
Like I said, not all, but most Argentines are the descendents of late 19th and early 20th century European immigrants (check out all my comments on this thread), and many of these families practiced a very de facto form of hypodescent in Argentina, in spite of semi-official government policy to the contrary. Many Euro-Argentines would not even marry other co-nationals who were 'cabeza negras' -- those who had jet black hair, a racial trait not even appreciably found among South Euro's.
Definately, as I said in another comment, a good trait of the Argentines is they are often unabashedly pro-White and socially/economically Populist, unlike the 'dysfunctionally elitist' jerks of Brazil and other "Latin" American countries.
Genetic studies show significant Amerindian and minor negroid admixture throughout Argentina.
This is nonsense by the mere fact that the River Plate had fewer Amerindians -- Uruguay almost none -- than anywhere else on the continent. Also, most of its urban population is quite recent, derived entirely from Europe, and had no contact at all with Amerindians except in Salto, bordering Paraguay; whereas the first contingent of Spaniards came in contact with them in the far south, creating the gaucho caste. You want Argentines to be mixed, and that's fine, but they aren't; they're swarthy Europids no different from their swarthy cousins in Spain and Italy. Even the study cited bears out the same picture of peripheral mixture: "The Amerindian haplogroups were most frequent in the north and south representing more than 60% of the sequences."
Besides, a trip to Buenos Aires would satisfy you on the prevalence of quite fair to typically Middle European features in that city and others. Judging Argentines as a whole to be "typically Latin American" by these relatively sparsely inhabited antipodes is like classifying all Americans as Chinese or Mexican based on New York City demographics. Argentina's largest population centers are its cities, and that is where the unmixed whites are, in far greater number than the countryside. And that is the typical pattern of the Southern Cone as a whole -- Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil.
It's actually funny because you of all people would love some of the remoter places of the Southern Cone -- from the Swiss Bariloche to the Russian colony at San Xavier in Uruguay, and countless other pockets of purity elsewhere. Porto Alegre in Brazil is a sea of blond heads. Calling the thousands upon thousands of quite visibly northern European whites of these countries "mixed", or believing it based on some minor study of rural border populations, is obviously politicized and about as absurd as Argentine leftists who insist on mestizaje from their own political bias.
I must say, however, that even amongst the lighter-Brazilians one could detect obvious Negro and/or Indio genes. It was only amongst the Brazilians of rather immediate, European-immigrant ancestry that indeed, realistically, looked White.
So tentative. How many million of bona fide whites in Brazil who, in your opinion, "indeed, realistically, looked white".
In Chile, you have a small minority of unmixed Indians in some of the remote areas, a larger minority of people of pure European descent (often found in cities or in ethnic enclaves in the countryside) and a majority of mestizos spread out throughout the country.
Most of the "unmixed" whites in Chile are descended not from Spanish colonists but from people from other European countries who moved there after independence to populate remote areas and develop various industries.
In urban areas and enclaves, these post-independence immigrants married among themselves (especially if they immigrated as family units). Elsewhere they intermarried with the existing mestizo population, so that many people in Chile are of primarily European descent with some Amerindian admixture.
The same is likely true in Argentina and Uruguay, assuming any significant part of the post-independence European immigration was made up of single males.
South Americans who are of mostly European descent, and know their European immigrant ancestry, are not likely to consider themselves "mestizo" or identify with the Amerindian part of their ancestry if it exists, even if it manifests in their phenotype.
Latin America never had a "one-drop rule" for Amerindian or African ancestry, and even in North America, the one-drop rule applied to African ancestry far more strongly than to Amerindian ancestry.
but American racialists who imagine Argentina as some sort of white paradise they would do well to retreat to are sorely deluded.
And for cultural even more than racial reasons. S. Euros rarely behave like N. Euros even into the fourth and fifth generations in northern countries. S. Euro countries themselves, like Russia and the hallowed east, are cultural strangelands for any northerner. Few people would have a racial commitment strong enough to endure the cultural torture.
Julius and Cutlass, genetic studies may help you gentlemen decide what to make of the fellow standing before you (hug him, hate him, vomit etc), but they are politically impotent; I'll eat my hat if the broad masses are ever swayed by them. I think it should be obvious why this is so but it'd be better for you to come to the realization yourselves. American social commentator Fred Reed was moved by recent events enough to participate in the racialist American Renaissance conference. Is Reed subsequently more racially motivated or less? Why?
As for this: You want Argentines to be mixed, and that's fine, but they aren't; they're swarthy Europids no different from their swarthy cousins in Spain and Italy.
Yes, no different -- that is, somewhat mixed. It matters not whether that mixing occurred two thousand or two hundred years ago.
As an individual who has lived in Argentina, Uruguay and visited Southern Brasil, I can tell you that these places look no different from America.
Is Argentina 97% white? Absolutely not. Argentina has about as many whites as the USA, it is around 60 something percent white and I've traveled quite a bit. Within this 65% white population, there are probably some who are 1/8th or 1/16th Amerindian
There are MILLIONS of Peruvian and Bolivian immigrants in Argentina. DID this study only test WHITE IDENTIFIED Argentinians, OR did it study a random sample of people? I ask because in another study they found diverse % of admixture from 1.5% to 89% of Amerindian ancestry, and the average was around 15% in half of the population. But averages are jewish trickery, if you average 1.5% and 89% you will get around 50% and you could say this is the average admixture.Studies like this are done in order to make VERY xenophobic white Argentinians into accepting the "new Argentinians" from Indian nations like Bolivia.
The vast majority of Argentina's population is concentrated in the central part, the Northern and Southern halfs are very densely populated.
jimmy smith your name sounds very Anglophone. My guess is you are British, with a political hatred of Argentinians over the war, or a North American with a lot of ignorance of this region of the world.
If you think Argentina is so "muddy" what do you make of America and CAnada? In a genetic study of WHITE identified Americans, 1/3 of them had indian or negro genes.
I suggest you take a trip to Argentina before you pass judgement. You will see what a sophisticated and beautfiul Western country it is. While you're there, take a trip to Uruguay, easily the WHITEST nation of the America's. If Uruguay is a mud country, America and Canada are Africa!
Not to mention the names of the people who do these studies are ALWAYS jewish.
"jimmy smith your name sounds very Anglophone. My guess is you are British, with a political hatred of Argentinians over the war, or a North American with a lot of ignorance of this region of the world."
Well, this could be a factor, although it is interesting that among Northern Europeans, it is usually the British, and their descendents, who have -- at least historically -- made such an issue over the racial mixture (real and alleged) of all other peoples and nations.
Maybe this also has something to do with their realistic, rather than their idealistic, racial and tribal origins -
[...] Britain and Ireland are so thoroughly divided in their histories that there is no single word to refer to the inhabitants of both islands. Historians teach that they are mostly descended from different peoples: the Irish from the Celts, and the English from the Anglo-Saxons who invaded from northern Europe and drove the Celts to the country’s western and northern fringes.
But geneticists who have tested DNA throughout the British Isles are edging toward a different conclusion. Many are struck by the overall genetic similarities, leading some to claim that both Britain and Ireland have been inhabited for thousands of years by a single people that have remained in the majority, with only minor additions from later invaders like Celts, Romans, Angles , Saxons, Vikings and Normans.[...]
[...] As for subsequent invaders, Ireland received the fewest; the invaders’ DNA makes up about 12 percent of the Irish gene pool, Dr. Oppenheimer estimates, but it accounts for 20 percent of the gene pool in Wales, 30 percent in Scotland, and about one-third in eastern and southern England.
Still, no single group of invaders is responsible for more than 5 percent of the current gene pool, Dr. Oppenheimer says on the basis of genetic data.
He cites figures from the archaeologist Heinrich Haerke that the Anglo-Saxon invasions that began in the fourth century A.D. added about 250,000 people to a British population of one to two million, an estimate Dr. Oppenheimer notes is larger than his but considerably less than the substantial replacement of the English population assumed by others. The Norman invasion of 1066
A.D. brought not many more than 10,000 people, according to Dr. Haerke. [...]
English, Irish, Scots: They’re All One, Genes Suggest
http://tinyurl.com/meu7ao
Found this additional article by British anthropologist Professor Bryan Sykes that may shed some additional light and truths on the factual genetic history of the British Isles -
(The article is short so I will post it in it's entirety)
"Scientists have discovered the British are descended from a tribe of Spanish fishermen. DNA analysis has found the Celts — Britain's indigenous population — have an almost identical genetic "fingerprint" to a tribe of Iberians from the coastal regions of Spain who crossed the Bay of Biscay almost 6,000 years ago.
"People of Celtic ancestry were thought to have descended from tribes of central Europe. But Bryan Sykes, professor of human genetics at Oxford University, said: "About 6,000 years ago Iberians developed ocean-going boats that enabled them to push up the Channel.
""Before they arrived, there were some human inhabitants of Britain, but only a few thousand. These people were later subsumed into a larger Celtic tribe... the majority of people in the British Isles are actually descended from the Spanish."
"A team led by Professor Sykes — who is soon to publish the first DNA map of the British Isles — spent five years taking DNA samples from 10,000 volunteers in Britain and Ireland, in an effort to produce a map of our genetic roots.
"The most common genetic fingerprint belongs to the Celtic clan, which Professor Sykes has called "Oisin". After that, the next most widespread originally belonged to tribes of Danish and Norse Vikings. Small numbers of today's Britons are also descended from north African, Middle Eastern and Roman clans.
"These DNA fingerprints have enabled Professor Sykes to create the first genetic maps of the British Isles, which are analysed in his book Blood Of The Isles, published this week. The maps show that Celts are most dominant in Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
"But the Celtic clan is also strongly represented elsewhere in the British Isles. "Although Celts have previously thought of themselves as being genetically different from the English, this is emphatically not the case," said Professor Sykes."
Ancient Britons come mainly from Spain| News | This is London
http://tinyurl.com/lqfa7
Julius,
Both Oppenheimer and Sykes are pretty much garbage. See here, for an example.
Hi n/a,
Well, I suspect that it certainly could be an exxageration on the 'Spanish fisherman' thesis, but I feel it is still plausible that some of the aboriginal inhabitants of the British Isles came from the area what is now known as the Iberian peninsula.
Remember, way back then there was no 'Spain' as we know it today, just various tribal peoples, of which the Celts were a part of, where they were known as the Celt-Iberians, with even the province of Galicia, of course, being Spanish for Gaul (Kelt).
They most likely migrated from northern Spain, across the Bay of Biscay, to the land of what became Britain. Seems to make sense, since their indeed is some Mediterranean racial elements throughout the UK.
I don't know much about Oppenheimer, but Sykes seems to be a fairly well-respected academician on the subject. Even the blogger Vanishing American (who became of late the 'Vanished American'??) who is/was a VERY out-spoken Anglo-phile, said she considered him a reliable source on British ethnology.
The problem, of course
Julius,
"I feel it is still plausible that some of the aboriginal inhabitants of the British Isles came from the area what is now known as the Iberian peninsula."
This is not what the genetic or archaeological evidence say.
"I don't know much about Oppenheimer, but Sykes seems to be a fairly well-respected academician on the subject."
Sykes is a sensationalist and profiteer. The analysis in the article you posted is based on low-resolution STR haplotypes and is contradicted by more detailed analysis. The best current evidence suggests European R1b came from the east in the Neolithic or Bronze Age, and that most western British R1b came from Northwestern Europe.
Well n/a, since much of the Indo-European peoples originally came from outside of continental Europe, particularly the Celts, how would it be possible for them not to go through Spain and France before they arrived in Britain?
And again, the ancient Iberian peninsula is not the same thing as contemporary Spain.
Overall, from my observations traveling in Britain, most people look more typically Celtic than German or Scandinavian, with these types found more commonly in the southeast of England.
I still think the data is correct with the post-Roman Germanic population of Britain being around 30% of the overall gene pool.
Since the German/Germanics, rather than the Celts, were the British upper classes/aristocracy for so long, it gave the impression that Britain is more Germanic than it in reality is. This was also probably why the elites strongly emphasized an Anglo-Saxon identity over all others for as long as they did.
"how would it be possible for them not to go through Spain and France before they arrived in Britain?"
Why are you conflating France and Spain?
There's simply no evidence, genetic or archaeological, of a special connection between Iberia and Britain.
As for Germanic ancestry proportions in Britain, I await further studies. Of course admixture will vary depending on location, but as for specific numbers, Sykes and Oppenheimer are unconvincing.
It's not even just that Julius , but the greatest trait of Anglo people is their shameless hypocrisy. North Americans have some nerve to question the identify of Argentinians, when Argentina is by far closer to Europe in life, race and culture than the USA ever will be. There are probably millions of "white Americans" who have indian DNA, and I bet a larger number have negro DNA as well. Sure, miscegenation was illegal, but mostly in the case of mixing with negroes, there was always a strong political current to assimilate Amerindians in the USA.
I think such a rootless, culturally mongrelized, judaic place like the USA should look in the mirror before insulting Argentinians with phoney, taken out of context studies like this one. I can bet that a genetic study of "White Americans" alone, who make up about 60 something % of the population, will show you that America is more like BRAZIL than they think.
On my mother's side (mostly German, old-stock Anglo-Saxon and Scots) there is a tradition of Cherokee ancestry, as there is in many old-stock American families.
I don't think I'm much more than 1/64 Cherokee, so even if I found it to be a shameful thing (which I certainly do NOT) it wouldn't count for much of anything.
A lot of old-stock Americans, especially southerners and westerners from pioneer families, probably do have trace amounts of Amerindian ancestry, particularly from the Five Civilized Tribes and Plains/Woodland tribes involved in the fur trade. I suspect that genetic studies with higher sample sizes and more SNPs would find evidence of this.
As for Argentina, obviously Argentines are not of predominantly Amerindian ancestry like Mexicans, Central Americans and citizens of the Andean countries, and they obviously have far less Amerindian and far more post-independence European ancestry than most Latin countries. On the other hand, it is highly unlikely that the percentage of white Argentines actually translates to the percentage of people of unmixed (as opposed to predominant) European ancestry.
AS,
I think that part of the motivation of British and British-descended Americans has been a 'more Nordic than thou' attitude when it comes to race and genes.
Remember, that Britain, like contemporary America, has traditionally had a bit of a schizophrenic approach to social and class relations.
Britain, in spite of the Magna Charta and all, even though it is the home of many of our contemporary democratic principles, was also a strongly class and caste culture, where much of the *upper classes* and *aristocracy/nobility* were the descendents of the post-Roman Germanic conquerers of the Isles.
In other words, it seems to be the case that those (then and now) who make much of this 'racial patriotism' of the British tend to be those from the non-elites who wish to deemphasize their non-Germanic heritage.
This is the reason why so many British have consistently emphasized the "Anglo-Saxon" identity so strongly, despite the fact that most of their gene pool is Celtic rather than Germanic.
Not a big deal to me either way; it just becomes an issue when they consistently question and/or disparage other people's heritages.
Someone here who remained anonymous said that Argentina's big cities, just like Uruguay, Chile and Brazil, had more people of European descent than the rural areas and I can't speak for the other countries, but I know for sure that in Brazil it's quite the opposite.
I was raised in a small town far from São Paulo's capital and I only met three browns and one black in 11 years living there! Now I live very close to São Paulo, the capital itself, and there are browns everywhere! There are even more Japanese.
I must also say that I was born in Porto Alegre and if you think there are lots of blonde heads there, try going to Novo Hamburgo, because that'll be all you'll see!
Now, why does this even matter anyway? Traditions fade with time, it's only natural! Even the languages change, so I'm sitting here wondering why you guys are talking about uniting all whites!
I myself am one of those who you guys say that looks and acts white and I sent a picture of myself to a British person because he was curious about what I looked like and he said I didn't look Brazilian, he said I looked French, as if he knew what a Brazilian is supposed to look like, but anyway, I wouldn't mind dating a black or Japanese person, so why would any of you?? Most Japanese people here have the same culture and act the same and so do the brown people, so why would it matter?? Why do you all care so much about it? That's what I don't get!!
"The claim isn't that Argentines have lots of Negro admixture, or that the degree of non-European admixture is to the degree of Brazil."
This is the very key to the issue as far as Latin America is concerned. Argentina passes as the "whitest" country in Latin America because it has the least blacks. But it is Brazil that has the largest purely european-descendent population. This is hidden due to the fact that Brazil is seen internationally as a very mixed "black country". The very southern part of Brazil has the best standards of living out of anywhere in Latin American, and the greatest economic productivity in relation to the size of its population. Argentina's purely european descended population is AT THE MOST 10% of the entire population.
"This isn't that surprising or controversial. Hypodescent wasn't practiced as strictly, if at all, in Latin America."
This coming from a country where someone like Elvis Presley is considered white and faces no racial prejudice whatsoever... There are probably MILLIONS of "white" americans who have indian ancestry. This is only recently coming to light (the USA is the only country in the Americas where there hasn't been any on indian-white admixture study, probably because they assumed themselves to be "pure")"Hypodescent" wasn't STRICTLY adhered to not even in relation to blacks:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,891925,00.html
Your countryman's (patrick) comment contains quite a lot of truth. Read it above.
"Definately, as I said in another comment, a good trait of the Argentines is they are often unabashedly pro-White and socially/economically Populist, unlike the 'dysfunctionally elitist' jerks of Brazil and other "Latin" American countries."
Argentinians definitely do act as if they were white, although they aren't. Why do you think this is "good"? As I said, the only actual white portion of Latin American is southern Brazil, which is composed of relatively recent immigrants. But even there it isn't 100% "pure", of course. But that area (and ONLY there) is comparable to the USA and Canada. Everything else is mixed, with few whites scattered over Argentina.
"Looks and color are much more reliable and robust as predictors of genomic ancestry in places where hypodescent is strictly adhered to, as in North America."
"Jimmy Smith", you moron, this makes no sense at all, it's actually the opposite that holds true. "Mediterranean" whites will look even more "swarthy" if they have "non-white" admixture. Some barely look "white" in their "pure" form (even though their "pure" form may be entirely native to europe). Now if you have a tall, nordic type it will take a lot more admixture to "dilute" their "nordicness" (their white appearence). Again, there are plenty of "white" americans who have non-european admixture and look, by all accounts, "nordic".
Anon, December 14, 2009 12:53 AM said:
"Argentinians definitely do act as if they were white, although they aren't. Why do you think this is "good"? As I said, the only actual white portion of Latin American is southern Brazil, which is composed of relatively recent immigrants. But even there it isn't 100% "pure", of course. But that area (and ONLY there) is comparable to the USA and Canada. Everything else is mixed, with few whites scattered over Argentina."
Anon 12:53,
You are on to something here, however I don't know if I can totally agree with you.
I have been to both countries, and had a great time in both of them (so I don't have a particular dog in this dispute), and while you are right about southern Brazil (especially the provinces of Paraná, Santa Catarina, and Rio Grande do Sul) being heavily (though not exclusively) White (especially Blumenau and Florianopolis in Brazil - felt like I was back in Mittleuropa), Argentina definately has significantly more unmixed people of European descent than you give it credit for.
Certainly the predominant European element of Argentina is Italian, followed by Gallegos (northern Spanish Galicians), followed by various other Euro nationalities, including English, German, Polish, Russian, etc.
Perhaps part of your perception is that you are south Brazilian yourself? I know that that there exists a longstanding pissing contest down there on which country and people is the 'Whitest' nation of 'em all.
"You are on to something here,"
Yes, I know damn well I'm on to something here. I know these areas
VERY well.
"however I don't know if I can totally agree with you."
Probably because you have you own axe to grind. Or else you are
simply mistaken. Because I'm telling it like it is.
"I have been to both countries, and had a great time in both of
them (so I don't have a particular dog in this dispute)"
Yeah right. Where are you originally from? If you are from any southern american country other than Brazil, or from Spain, Greece, Portugal, Southern Italy or any other mixed area then your opinion is biased toward your own kind.
"and while you are right about southern Brazil (especially the
provinces of Paraná, Santa Catarina, and Rio Grande do Sul) being heavily (though not exclusively) White"
HAH! Just what place on earth is EXCLUSIVELY white these days?
Quit talking nonsense.
"Argentina definately has significantly more unmixed people of European descent than you give it credit for."
No it hasn't. "unmixed people of European descent" are a small
minority there.
"Certainly the predominant European element of Argentina is
Italian, followed by Gallegos (northern Spanish Galicians),
followed by various other Euro nationalities, including English,
German, Polish, Russian, etc."
This is nonsense. You won't find people who actually look English
or German in Argentina. But you do find those in Southern Brazil.
The southern brazilian "Italians" (they are actually Lombardians
and especially Venetians) are also different than the argentinian
ones. I have met white argentinian
"italians", but they are very rare.
"Perhaps part of your perception is that you are south Brazilian
yourself? I know that that there exists a longstanding pissing
contest down there on which country and people is the 'Whitest'
nation of 'em all."
Good lord I don't give a flying fig about what people think is "the
'Whitest' nation of 'em all" as long as these goddamned argentinians are out of southern brazil. If anything, I want to
keep a low profile for that region. Yes, I am southern brazilian myself but I have spent DECADES in Argentina as well as in Uruguay, my perception is DEFINITELY not skewed. And I have to deal with these argentinians MORONS there almost every summer. Argentinians (about 60%) are armenoid-influenced mestizos who think they are white. There is another group (cabecitas negras) who look more like mexicans. And then you have the SMALLEST group, the europeans, they are about 10% of Argentina.
"Good lord I don't give a flying fig about what people think is "the
'Whitest' nation of 'em all" as long as these goddamned argentinians are out of southern brazil."
Anon, 4:12 PM,
Hey there. First, please calm down, you are acting unecessarily extreme here.
Secondly, it is obvious that you are, preponderantly, motivated by bigotry and animus towards the Argentinians (particularly with the 'morons' comment).
Which is all well and good, it is just that it comes across way more personal than objective, in what you have to say.
You also definately exhibit the hyper-nationalism that I found very common amongst most Latin Americans that I have met, which is not always a bad thing, it is just wrong to make things up and exaggerate in order to make your country or people/tribe look better by comparison.
Particularly among Brazil, which has a complex of being a 'black' country. (*I completely agree with you, however, that the southern part of Brazil has the best standards of living out and the greatest economic productivity as a region in L.A..)
Anyway, like I said before, I had a blast in both countries, and I like both peoples as well. And it is simply not true that unmixed Europeans are a mere 10% of the Argentine population, nor is there a single study or testament to this allegation. I have been to Argentina several times and to several cities, not just B.A., but Córdoba, Mendoza, and Rosario as well, and most people I saw looked southern European, not mestizo (and believe me, I know the difference).
Additionally, I saw a somewhat appreciable amount of mulattos in southern Brazil (don't worry, I know most (not all) of 'em are primarily migrants and not 'indigenistas' - hope for you guys they don't stick around too long, LOL.
*BTW, you asked of my background before, and I am German-American, hence my handle. How about yourself?
"Yes, I am southern brazilian myself but I have spent DECADES in Argentina as well as in Uruguay, my perception is DEFINITELY not skewed. And I have to deal with these argentinians MORONS there almost every summer."
What an unbelievable hypocrite.
Stay out of those countries and you would not have to 'deal' with the Argentino's (who you obviously have a personal problem with).
This dude is probably some Brazilian with some degree of mulatto ancestry with some weird complex who needs to project his hangups and to put down others.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/12/new-comprehensive-study-on-continental.html
^ New comprehensive study on continental ancestry of Argentineans (Corach et al. 2010)
Greetings from Brazil, I Just want to make some things clear here.
Argentina, Uruguay and some part of the Brazilian population is indeed Pretty Much White. (Chile and Other Countries can't be considered white)
As far as the genetics studies in Brazil are concerned, its important to understand their results, The Brazilian population is in fact have around 35% f Mixed Race People, but the Brazilian Whites tend to have less then 10% of Non European Blood, so the White Brazilians are equal to a Portuguese, Italian or Other Southern European. Brazil as a Whole is like 70% to 90% European, depending on the region, i MEAN AS A WHOLE, thats becouse the Blacks and Mixed-Race in Brazil have a lot of European Blood, and the White Brazilians have almost identical DNA as a Portuguese of example!!!
Guys, the genetic data speaks for itself. It has also been repeatedly confirmed by other studies. The latter includes Corach et al. (2006), which specifically set out to test the supposed "Europeaness" of the Argentinian general population. The study drew its samples from many different areas in the country, including Buenos Aires; so one cannot argue that the consistent Amerindian primary affiliation for the maternal ancestry of the average Argentinian is due to unrepresentative or skewed sampling:
"The extant population of Argentina claims to be the most European country of Latin America. The statement has been held for over one century, and started when the Campaign Against the Dessert took place in 1870. This military mission was directed against the aboriginal communities in order to obtain their possessions. No scientific approach was available, till recent, for checking the supposed to be pure European ancestries. Uniparentally inherited genetic markers, such as mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNP) located in the non-recombinant regions of the Y-chromosome may clarify the strict European ancestry of the nowadays population of Argentina. A set of 325 unrelated males were chosen to evaluate if Amerindian markers such as the mitochondrial haplogroups A, B, C and D, as well as the C to T transition in locus DYS199 of the Y-chromosome were present. Its detection in the tested individuals might suggest an ancestral contribution of Amerindian lineages. Hypervariable Regions (HVR) I and II were sequenced by Big Dye termination approach and detected in automated platforms (ABI, 310 and 3100Avant). DYS199 C to T transition detection was carried out by primer specific PCR. Over 50% of the individuals tested carried either mtDNA or Y Amerindian markers, 10% both, 20% were of Amerindian patrilineage and less than 40% denoted non-Amerindian contribution in the uniparentally inherited markers. By this simple approach a different contribution can be suggested within the most European country of Latin America."
http://www.isfg.org/files/7d8412335de7431c4ce4b29cf9d2e31bdc73c9ad.05014081_97982254054.pdf
Catelli et al. (2011) likewise tested the entire Argentinian population, both urban and rural. It found that even in the most supposedly "European" part of Argentina (i.e. the central region), almost 50% of maternal lineages were of non-European origin. In other regions, Amerindian matrilineages ran as high as 66-70%.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YJhV3WLqhBk/Tl36Z1734II/AAAAAAAAEEk/kQ8qQtcQJNc/s320/argentina_mtdna.png
http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2011/08/migration-and-argentinean-mtdna.html
Mind you, this is a country that unashamedly bills itself as 90%+ "European". This is precisely what all the fuss is about. If Argentinians had been more honest about their actual mestizo background rather than (often forcefully and nastily) insisting that they are "pure" Europeans, no one would have batted an eye over these genetic results.
More on the European self-image of the average Argentinian and how that does not exactly jibe with biological reality, which consistently affirms their Amerindian ancestral maternal origins:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/12/how-argentina-became-white/#.UXenrteYNok
Post a Comment