Thread 18118058

Was it the Spanish, Portuguese, or the English?

>>18118058 (OP)
Ancient greeks and romans.

>>18118058 (OP)
>a thread died for this
>RIP
fix your image dummy
it's not even legible

>>18118058 (OP)
Terrible meme.
Genetic studies show that widespread mixing only occurred after or shortly before the collapse of the Spanish colonies; in short, Iberians, mainly Spaniards, did not mix on a large scale. Good try, but this "Catholic" Hispanist dichotomy of racist Anglos vs integralist Iberians is false.

>>18118058 (OP)
Your skin is the same color as shit.

>>18118058 (OP)
Aryans.

>>18118093
To be fair, they came in numbers that weren't that large, but enough to change the culture and religion. What happened was that after the LBA they came into contact with the Dasyu more frequently if the men smeared themselves with poop

>>18118103
>if
And*

>>18118083
Hispanism is falagism in disguise.

>>18118129
>falagism
Correct

>>18118129
hispanism when done by spaniards is based
hispanism when done by latinx is cringe

even more cringe when the brazilians are involved since they aren't hispanics

>>18118147
>even more cringe when the brazilians are involved since they aren't hispanics
Lmao The Brazilian right-wing
does this frequently; there's a certain sense of belonging to "Iberian civilization," to the point where they criticize the Anglo-Saxons as a kind of antagonist.

>>18118143
>>18118147
Hispanism exists because of the historic revisionism by falangism. It's fascinating. They tried to export their Ultra-National Catholic ideology to Latin America in the 40s and it was being accepted among the elites and spanish inmigrants. Americans got mad Spain was messing with the heads of their subjects and send Walt Disney, glowniggers and evangelists to Latam. Falangist sympathizers got targeted by govenments and that was it until now.

>>18118182
not to mention the brazilians took in even more black slaves than the americans

>>18118083
>Good try, but this "Catholic" Hispanist dichotomy of racist Anglos vs integralist Iberians is false.
It seems to be mostly coming from reddit pop history buffs who seem to legitimately believe that everyone was race blind before the 1750s and sudacas. The latter are of course personally invested as they'd like to believe their 15% African DNA and 60% Indio DNA was greatly beloved by the Spanish settlers. There's also the typical North European vs. South European divide and conquer shit. A lot of it coming from nafris and now jeets.

>>18118058 (OP)
>the concept of "whiteness
the lovers of the dark will lie to you and say it was made up in modern times, but they only say that because they hate the light

>>18118238
Agreed

>>18118083
Thats false, dont spread missinformation.
The first ones to mix where the spaniards in the caribbean, even one mestizo born there was in the conquest of the aztec empire.
20%-30% of the New Spain population by the 1700s was composed of mestizos while whites were just 10%-20%, this is stated in the census of Revillagigedo and in Alexander Humboldt calculations.
Dont believe basedjak cartels, dont spread missinformation.

>>18118436
*basedjak cartels

>>18118238
The current mayor of Madrid, a right-wing woman, is pushing this narrative in schools. Ironically, the left-wing coalition is accusing her of fascism for doing so because "Hispanidad" is falagist o algo

>>18118436
>Thats false
Thats true
The mixing events occurred between 1836 and 1866. Most of the mixing between Spaniards and Native Americans did not occur until approximately 300 years after the Spanish conquest. I'm not going to read the rest of your post, by the way.

Source: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1720798115

You don't have numbers for your numbers and you took it from the center of your ass. It's simple.

>>18118238
>There's also the typical North European vs. South European divide and conquer shit. A lot of it coming from nafris and now jeets.
Don't forget the Latin Americans who do this, and ironically, they are the ones who claim to fight the left. No Spaniard, even an imperialist one, has this inclusive view of Mexicans, Peruvians, Chileans, etc. Hispanists, ironically, are more active in Latin America.

>>18118539
Obviously most of the mixing happened after independence (again, mestizos were 25% of the population whites/creoles were 15% and natives were 60% of the population), but is stupid to deny there was no mixing when the mestizo population was even bigger than the creole population in the vicerroyalty.
Sources:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://revistas.inah.gob.mx/index.php/historias/article/download/1698/1640&ved=2ahUKEwi6opn58cqQAxUVM0QIHSFzLF4QFnoECCIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2Vvyp_r-Zkj0AOuv5z1Ie5

>>18118539
This is correct, I don't know why people still insist on this. The mixing occurred much later.

>>18118539
>>18118238
correct

>>18118583
>>In his famous Political Essay on the Kingdom of New Spain, Alexander of Humboldt It was estimated that in 1808 the number of Indians was greater than 2,500,0002 that of the whites “or spañoles” probably amounted to 1,200,0003 of which only 70 or 80,000 were born in Europe: four blacks, approximately 16.0005 and the castes, of races”,6 included 2,400,000.7 That is, At the end of the colonial period, the Indians constituted the majority portion of the population, 41%, They were followed by the “castes” with 39%, the whites with 20%, and blacks with just 0.26%.
You just dont have arguments IMAO, i already send you the sources, your source just says the majority of mixing happened after independence, statement which i agree on, but your saying mixing didnt happen out of your ass and basedjak cartels lol.

>>18118058 (OP)
The Spanish. The modern conception of "White" directly stems from Spanish "Purity of Blood" laws established after the Reconquista that denied legal rights to those who had converted to Christianity themselves or had Muslim or Jewish ancestry up to the 3rd generation, as opposed to those with "pure" Christian ancestry. When the New World was colonized these "Purity of Blood" laws were still in effect for the new territories including all the formerly pagan native subjects and imported pagan/muslim African slaves. This discouraged Spaniards from intermarrying with natives and africans because if you did so it would reduce your family line to second-class citizens or worse. After enough time this reluctance to intermarry and the resultant hierarchy solidified to the degree that it no longer mattered if you had been Christian for 3, 4, or 5 generations, you still weren't going to be let in the club, because it was just too useful for the elite to keep around a permanently entrenched underclass to oppress. And from there it spreads to other European colonial powers who cargo cult it's useful features despite never having the history of the Reconquista that led to it, because it's just so easy to have a "cursed bloodline" of slaves that the now "White" poor cannot make common cause with lest they damn their own bloodlines forever.

>>18118058 (OP)
WHITE POWERRRRRRRRRR

>>18118632
>>When the New World was colonized these "Purity of Blood" laws were still in effect for the new territories including all the formerly pagan native subjects
No.
The catholic church and the spanish crown treated the natives differently than the jews and muslims of the iberian peninusla.
This because of the humanistic works done by Bartolome de las casas, and therefore, the purity of blood laws didnt applied to them.

>>18118646
>and therefore, the purity of blood laws didnt applied to them.
And those were famously ignored. There is a whole genre of historical letters by the native nobility to the royal court in Spain to the effect of "Hey you said our Blood was legally Pure because we accepted Christianity and the overlordship of the Spanish Crown, but when we tell our fellow Spanish nobles from Spain that they laugh and subjugate us anyway, please send help.". The Laws of Burgos in 1512 already legally made the natives an underclass who were literally divided up and given to Settlers, and when the crown thought that might have been a bit harsh and tried to walk it back with the "New Laws" in 1542, the settlers famously killed the royal governor and forced the king to rescind them.

>>18118539
When will Hispanics stop lying?

>>18118863
wow, spaniard nobles were always cunts. But the indians weren't the only ones affected by their bullshit. If an average Spaniard requested to move to the Americas, they were sent to the most dangerous frontier zones in the Empire. They weren’t even allowed to have guns, leaving them like sitting ducks if unprotected.

>>18118069
This.

>>18118942
Spanish colonization is downright bizarre when you compare it to the other European colonial powers. Whereas other colonial powers generally wanted as many people to settle as possible, Spain actively hindered any attempt by its population to leave Spain for the colonies. Whereas the other powers let anyone who could fit on the boat go, and indeed actually used settlement as a way to "get rid" of the "riff-raff", Spain basically wanted no one but the highest pedigree nobles who could trace their blood and titles all the way back to the Carolingian Empire. Like you'd think famously intolerant Spain would WANT to get rid of all those jewish and muslim conversos it was always worrying about, but no, they were legally barred from going.

>>18118956
>we wuz Carolingians n shiet

>>18118564
Lol Hellish beast, first of all, stop thinking that anyone who agrees is me.
If citing sources of 1920 "censuses" is useful and valid here, I have the right to post old genetic studies to refute you again, and your source (outdated) doesn't necessarily address when miscegenation occurred. Or anything else. You used a single paragraph at the end of the article, or did you think nobody here knows how to read Spanish, you cynical insect how people identified themselves or the number of mixed-race, indigenous, and "white" people in certain regions is irrelevant. But to humiliate you again, the main argument is: widespread miscegenation did not occur during the Spanish colonial period, but later. Now, if in your problematic mind this implies that no mixing occurred with any individual, please bang your head against the wall until you see the blood come out, and then repeat the process six times. This is my argument, and it is backed by genetic studies, not useless 1920s census articles you masturbated to.
>Analyzing the length of contiguous tracts of the same ancestry in an admixed population can help to determine the timing of admixture events and subsequent migrations. We used the program Tracts [37] to fit multiple models of admixture to the observed data.
>According to the best-fitting Tracts models, we can infer a rough estimate of the number of generations that have passed since the initial admixture and the subsequent migrations in each South American population.
>The maximum-likelihood time of initial admixture between Native Americans and Europeans ranges from 9 to 14 generations ago among the studied populations, representing the youngest estimate in mainland Latin America. Previous studies of mestizo populations throughout South America have shown estimates of mean time to admixture between 6 and 14.
1/2

>>18119206
1/2
Since I know you're too stupid to understand what was written there, let me explain calmly to end this discussion once and for all.
The mixing between Native Americans and Europeans likely occurred between the 16th and 18th centuries, during the colonial period. and another study concluded even later dates.
1) Between 1650 and 1800, if we consider 9 to 14 generations ago, with 30 years per generation (270 to 420 years ago, considering the current year as a reference).
2) Or between 1700 and 1850, if we consider 9 to 14 generations ago, with 25 years per generation (225 to 350 years ago).

Did you understand? The garbage of your census based on self-identification from 1920 without renown proved absolutely nothing here, two (2) articles were presented.
>The discrepancy between the recorded initial time of colonization and the onset of admixture described in our and previous work is likely due to many factors, including the fact that the admixture process occurred over time in the colonies and that further immigration occurred throughout the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries
https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1005602#pgen.1005602.ref016
1810 and 1824. Is too late... end of the debate. You lost, again

>>18119221
2/2*
And I would also like to point out that the Spanish conquest was not really unilateral and abrupt. But you're too retarded to understand that. Each colony developed differently and independently of the others, so it's not possible to create a specific date for widespread mixing. Estimates of mixing time for individuals in the colony depend heavily on the subpopulation, in fact solely on that. And you seem to have no coincidence that the mixing process occurred ***over time*** in the colonies and that new immigrations occurred throughout the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, no serious historian, apart from the barking of what they call Hispanists. And this article points out something very interesting, because there was a second European migration that contributed and should be used as a proxy in mixing analyses, but anyway, I'm done here. Kill yourself, insect. I will not read any more of your delusions.

>>18119221
2/2*
And I would also like to point out that the Spanish conquest was not really unilateral and abrupt. But you are too retarded to understand that. Each colony developed differently and independently of the others, so it is not possible to create a specific date for widespread miscegenation. Estimates of the time of miscegenation for individuals in the colony depend heavily on the subpopulation, in fact, exclusively on it. And you seem not to realize, through complicity, that the process of miscegenation occurred ***over time*** in the colonies and that new immigrations also occurred throughout the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. No serious historian, apart from the delusions of those who call themselves Hispanists, reduces this to a kind of "unilateral" and instantaneous mixture.

And again, this article points out something very interesting, because there was a second European migration that contributed and should be used as an indicator in analyses of miscegenation, but anyway, that's enough. Kill yourself, insect. I will not read any more of your delusions.

>>18118619
You're disregarding actual genetic studies in favor of the observations of a kraut tourist on an extended holiday.

>>18118436
>basedjak cartels
>>18118442
>*basedjak cartels
Fucking hell go back you pathetic shill.

>>18118058 (OP)
learn how to make images
that op is pic is unreadably small

>>18119206
>>claims I ever talked about a 1920 census, when the only census i talked about was the 1795 census and the Humboldt estimations of 1804.
You lied again, but dont worry, that's a deffensive mechanism for someone like you IMAO.

>>18119206
You didnt even read your fucking document IMAO.
>>This, however, does not necessarily equate to an estimate for the earliest possible time that admixture may have taken place. The discrepancy between the recorded initial time of colonization and the onset of admixture described in our and previous work is likely due to many factors, including the fact that the admixture process occurred over time in the colonies and that further immigration occurred throughout the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries
>>Our models argue for a more recent European migration into South America compared to that in the Caribbean and Mexico [6,40], consistent with the colonial history in the region. Strong pulses of European migration occurred between 3 and 9 generations ago in Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Chile, and Argentina (Fig 4A).

>>18118058 (OP)
all these replies, yet not a single post answers the question
who started the concept of “whiteness?”

>>18121764
me

>>18121764
Nobody knows exactly because its been around for as long as whites have existed, since the dawn of civilization.

>>18118093
>trans. Griffith
GTFO. Max Müller and Ralph T. Griffith were colonial officers, and evangelists neither trained in the Vedangas, using classical (not vedic) Sanskrit to aid in their translations.
For those unaware, to learn the Vedas a Brahmin has to learn the six Vedangas first, 3 of which are a study on grammar/linguistics, phonetics (vedic Sanskrit is phonetic), etc.
Müller and Griffith did not learn the Vedas from a Brahmin but rather studied and attempted to translate the medieval scholar Sayana’s texts.
But the incorrect means to study the Vedas isn’t the issue, it’s the blatant intellectual dishonesty by colonial scholars and evangelists. Now historical revisionism isn’t anything new to colonial administrations, you see this with how Great Zimbabwe was seen as a non-black civilization or how Tutsis were proposed to be more European in origin and therefore fit to aid in governance, leading to the Rwandan genocide.
>Dasam varnam adharam | Rigveda, Book 2, Indra 12.4 (2.XXII.4)
This is translated to “black skin is impious”. None of these words mean black nor skin. Their entire theory rests assertion that Dasas are Dravidians. Hence why Dasa is translated as “black”. Dasa according to him supposedly is used in the context like the word “negro.”
Dasas are serpents. Varnam means color or cloak (camo), adharam can mean impious, immoral, or evil. But “Black skin is impious” is worlds apart from “(the) Serpents cloak is evil.”
It is true in some verses the Dasas are referenced as being dark or associated with darkness, it’s also true they’re described as noseless. Griffith and Müller think this means flat-nosed black person. But they ignore references to Dasas as legless and armless. Cause you know, they’re actually serpents.
Indra slaying serpents is not a made up idea, it’s his whole entire trope as a deity. He slays Vritra, the great serpent.

>>18123561
Here’s some more intellectual dishonesty by the imperialist crew:
>indraviṣṭāmapa dhamanti māyayā tvacamasiknīṃ bhūmano divas pari | RgV.IX.73.5
Translated as “Blowing away with supernatural might from earth and from the heavens the black skin which Indra hates” by Griffith.
There is no reference to black skin here at all. Rather the word pari means servant (or follower). To Griffith pari means slave and therefore must be synonymous with Dasa and is some insult like the word “negro.”
Here’s a better translation: “Immeasurable scale of Indra subdues (or blows away) (with) enchanting (supernatural) speed/strength/instruction (the) treacherous followers/servants (from the) heavens.”
Pari is in reference to the servants of God, and those who fail to live morally and pious (bhūmano), this is consistent with the previous verse right before it in which impious men are burned.
Lastly why would the Samhita literally contradict the Upanishads? Maybe the Samhita was the 1950s racist era of Vedic India and the Upanishads were the 60s civil rights and hippie movement? Yeah that makes sense…
Or better yet, and more likely, the Samhita are mantras and poems of God destroying evil and illusion and bringing the light of salvation and spiritual liberation to the moral and good. In that case it’s wildly consistent with the Upanishads and the idea of some universal soul which all of reality shares, right?
Ancient Hindu philosophers of the 6 darshanas also fail to make any such mention of the Vedas being about a race war and Hinduism being about apartheid. Even Mimamsans (who focus more on the Samhita) talk only about tantra or orthopraxy and yoga. You cannot tell me they were too stupid to realize the scripture they spent their entire lives reciting was about a race war and that Max Müller, a colonial Christian evangelist knew more about Hinduism.

>>18118093
kek