>>21960231You're too concerned with the 1950s American 'race' "White" instead of using proper scientific racism to make your point. In the same way 'black' or 'asian' are each 5+ races, "White" actually encompasses at least 5 major races. R1a, R1b, I1, I2, and the finno-ugric N.
Saying a Lithianian R1a is the same race as a Portuguese R1b is like saying koreans (O2b) are vietnamese (O2a). You dont even need to get into genetics to see this, phenotypes are usually very clear to see.
>Sardinians have been here much longer then you clownboy and have a different hablogroupThis doesnt affect my points at all.
>R1a is found HEAVILY in CENTRAL NIGGER AFRICAIts not, no. You're thinking of the R1b-V88/V12 clade in Chad, the point of origin of the European R1b.
If you were aware at all of the african races you'd also know they're distinctly european-looking.
They're not white, however. Different clade, different phenotype.
The reason I lead with culture/attitude instead of race is that belonging to one or other haplogroup when you're this close is as always a clustering artifact instead of the easier more straightforward genetic separation. This part shouldnt affect you at all since you're probably I2, but either way.
Going back to the rest of the arguments, the reason you're not """"white"""" is that you're not, and you dont consider yourself to be, European, and your whole policies and general attitude seems to be geared to be as antagonistic and hostile as possible vs the EU and western Europe in general. You're not culturally or historically European, either.
The fact that you're not R1b is minor and personally I dont think it should matter, but understand that from a purely racial perspective its like dealing with Lebanon or Morocco but even more hostile.
I personally dont have much against eastern euros, not as much as eastern euros have against me anyways. You're getting more annoying by the year however.
