I noticed that you guys were discussing about who is white so I decided to shill for mine definition.

Maltese people aren't Italians

They are a mixture of Europeans and Arabs and speak a language derived from Arabic to this day and converted to christianity

Also Uralics are hardly a homogeneous population

"through much mixing and hybridisation"

c

Yeah they cluster with other mixed populations like jews

Or Cypriots

Sardinians and South Italians are in the spot where they are mostly because they're almost entirely early European farmers

Since early European farmers are closest to middle easterners of the three European ancestry sources

Yes but are basically the same genetically.

If you pay attention Ashkenazis are around about where Maltese are too

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WpKC5keI2hs

I'm fairly open to them being meds but I remember seeing something showing their admixture sources

Here’s a response to vargs thoughts on writing since the original video isn’t up

somethign like this

> I am not deconstructing the reality of race but your conception of it.
You haven't deconstructed any conception at all you have done is say that there are groups are close to being white or that you can break down whites into more groups within the category.

> This begs the question of how exactly your categorization works. It's not as simple as with color.
Like you said "categorizing by phenotype, genotype, and also geography, linguistics, history". It is not simple but it does not mean the categories are not there

> What may be insurmountable is the fact that there are peoples who, for whatever reason, don't know entire color families but have twenty names for shades of green
And?

> You already saw it here, some people admitted to Christian Arabs being "honorary whites".
Do you know what that means? They are admitting to the fact that these **people are not white** but since these Arabs maintained Christianity in there heavily Islamic homeland's they are gotten the "honorary" status.

> If some tribe has no concept of redness, can we say red has a mind-independent existence? Hardly. In that, colors are different from ethnic groups.
And? It is still a category and there is no shit lib tier arguments that will change that. @AH-64

@Mac I'll get back at you tomorrow. Don't have the time for a proper response rn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tXqCEIQhTM

Will watch

Its fine @AH-64

Bro I love Masaman. Good Stuff on Genetics

Same

I'll concede Malta is mediterranean. I must've misremembered or been confused because of Fst maps

I'll make sure to look up stuff for Cyprus again just to be sure I'm not talking nonsense

People are confusing Genetic cluster maps, admixture and haplogroups for all being the same thing and its very annoying. If we were to use haplogroups to determine what someone is then we would have to say that the pastoralists of Central west Africa are white since most of their haplogroup is R1B

I'm aware haplogroups aren't good for determining race, just migration patterns

And I know there are downsides to Fst but I must've gotten it mixed up nonetheless

By the way Uralics are more than 99%<European Caucasoid and less than 1%>Mongoloid, most of their Asiatic populations is dying out, so in my opinion is better to include all of them.

@Mr. Nessel Masaman posted a graph showing Cypriots something around 50-60% Euro admixture. I dont know where he got that from, Ill have to ask him his source for this.

Uralics are pretty heterogeneous so I'd have to look into them.

As in Uralics are a set of peoples

I'd expect admixtures etc. to vary

I remember some youtuber who is Cypriot Greek who had a lot of jewish ancestry. Was interesting

I believe that most of the non Euro admixture in cyprus actually isnt due to phoenician but instead from Neolithic Anatolians/Caucasus peoples.

They have like 4 Asiatic groups with 20.000 population in total and a lot of them have russian admixture.

Neolithic Anatolians would be basically white