PDA

View Full Version : Is anthropology and genealogy Eurocentric?



MyAnthropologies
08-07-2016, 04:38 AM
Hey, I have a question. I have been noticing some trends in anthropology and genealogy studies. They seem very focused on Europeans and create large projection biases on non-European ethnicities, specifically non-European caucasoid ones.

And whenever there are studies on ancient remains found from non-European places, the study almost always compares it to "Europeans."

Also components such as CHG and ANF are highly whitewashed in many articles, even though CHG is a highly west asian component and it is not significantly high in Europeans in average. The studies go into intensive lengths to make any ancestry that contributed to Europeans that isn't from Europe look like modern Europeans only and not like the population where the source comes from, often discrediting those populations and making it seem like their entire ancient population was replaced.

There is also an obsession to tie Europeans to non European people such as Indo-Iranians. Yamnaya was genetically close to no modern populations, yet still closest to Eastern Iranics, North Caucasians, and Eastern Europeans. Other PIEs were close to Euros, but Indo-Iranians were close to Eastern Iranics and Eastern Euros.


# Population Percent
1 Caucasus_HG 45.26
2 European_HG 40.72
3 South_Asian 6.11
4 Anatolian_NF 3.74
5 Amerindian 2.85
6 Beringian 1.15
7 Sub-Saharan 0.17

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Tajik_Pomiri 19.87
2 Lezgin 27.24
3 Chechen 27.88
4 Mordovian 27.99
5 Russian 29.79
6 Afghan_Pashtun 30.81
7 Nogai 31.52
8 Belarusian 31.99
9 Adygei 32.02
10 Kumyk 32.88
11 North_Ossetian 33.11
12 Finnish 33.27
13 Estonian 33.42
14 Chuvash 33.64
15 Lithuanian 33.77
16 Balkar 33.98
17 Hungarian 34.89
18 Croatian 34.93
19 Pakistan_Pashtun 34.96
20 Czech 35.25

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 54.8% Lithuanian + 45.2% Makrani @ 15.17
2 70.4% Tajik_Pomiri + 29.6% Lithuanian @ 15.33
3 55.2% Estonian + 44.8% Makrani @ 15.41
4 56.2% Lithuanian + 43.8% Brahui @ 15.51
5 70.6% Tajik_Pomiri + 29.4% Estonian @ 15.58
6 56.6% Estonian + 43.4% Brahui @ 15.81
7 54.6% Lithuanian + 45.4% Balochi @ 15.92
8 59.1% Russian + 40.9% Makrani @ 16.02
9 68.4% Tajik_Pomiri + 31.6% Russian @ 16.15
10 55% Estonian + 45% Balochi @ 16.23
11 70.8% Tajik_Pomiri + 29.2% Belarusian @ 16.29
12 60.5% Russian + 39.5% Brahui @ 16.35
13 72% Tajik_Pomiri + 28% Finnish @ 16.35
14 55.5% Finnish + 44.5% Makrani @ 16.36
15 58.9% Russian + 41.1% Balochi @ 16.67
16 56.9% Finnish + 43.1% Brahui @ 16.76
17 67.8% Tajik_Pomiri + 32.2% Mordovian @ 16.78
18 56.9% Belarusian + 43.1% Makrani @ 16.89
19 55.3% Finnish + 44.7% Balochi @ 17.12
20 61.8% Mordovian + 38.2% Makrani @ 17.2

Europeans are made to look ethnically purer while other ethnicites are made to look mixed. This in turn is used by many neo-nazis as references.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-07-2016, 05:03 AM
Hey, I have a question. I have been noticing some trends in anthropology and genealogy studies. They seem very focused on Europeans and create large projection biases on non-European ethnicities, specifically non-European caucasoid ones.

And whenever there are studies on ancient remains found from non-European places, the study almost always compares it to "Europeans."

Also components such as CHG and ANF are highly whitewashed in many articles, even though CHG is a highly west asian component and it is not significantly high in Europeans in average. The studies go into intensive lengths to make any ancestry that contributed to Europeans that isn't from Europe look like modern Europeans only and not like the population where the source comes from, often discrediting those populations and making it seem like their entire ancient population was replaced.

There is also an obsession to tie Europeans to non European people such as Indo-Iranians. Yamnaya was genetically close to no modern populations, yet still closest to Eastern Iranics, North Caucasians, and Eastern Europeans. Other PIEs were close to Euros, but Indo-Iranians were close to Eastern Iranics and Eastern Euros.


# Population Percent
1 Caucasus_HG 45.26
2 European_HG 40.72
3 South_Asian 6.11
4 Anatolian_NF 3.74
5 Amerindian 2.85
6 Beringian 1.15
7 Sub-Saharan 0.17

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Tajik_Pomiri 19.87
2 Lezgin 27.24
3 Chechen 27.88
4 Mordovian 27.99
5 Russian 29.79
6 Afghan_Pashtun 30.81
7 Nogai 31.52
8 Belarusian 31.99
9 Adygei 32.02
10 Kumyk 32.88
11 North_Ossetian 33.11
12 Finnish 33.27
13 Estonian 33.42
14 Chuvash 33.64
15 Lithuanian 33.77
16 Balkar 33.98
17 Hungarian 34.89
18 Croatian 34.93
19 Pakistan_Pashtun 34.96
20 Czech 35.25

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 54.8% Lithuanian + 45.2% Makrani @ 15.17
2 70.4% Tajik_Pomiri + 29.6% Lithuanian @ 15.33
3 55.2% Estonian + 44.8% Makrani @ 15.41
4 56.2% Lithuanian + 43.8% Brahui @ 15.51
5 70.6% Tajik_Pomiri + 29.4% Estonian @ 15.58
6 56.6% Estonian + 43.4% Brahui @ 15.81
7 54.6% Lithuanian + 45.4% Balochi @ 15.92
8 59.1% Russian + 40.9% Makrani @ 16.02
9 68.4% Tajik_Pomiri + 31.6% Russian @ 16.15
10 55% Estonian + 45% Balochi @ 16.23
11 70.8% Tajik_Pomiri + 29.2% Belarusian @ 16.29
12 60.5% Russian + 39.5% Brahui @ 16.35
13 72% Tajik_Pomiri + 28% Finnish @ 16.35
14 55.5% Finnish + 44.5% Makrani @ 16.36
15 58.9% Russian + 41.1% Balochi @ 16.67
16 56.9% Finnish + 43.1% Brahui @ 16.76
17 67.8% Tajik_Pomiri + 32.2% Mordovian @ 16.78
18 56.9% Belarusian + 43.1% Makrani @ 16.89
19 55.3% Finnish + 44.7% Balochi @ 17.12
20 61.8% Mordovian + 38.2% Makrani @ 17.2

Europeans are made to look ethnically purer while other ethnicites are made to look mixed. This in turn is used by many neo-nazis as references.

You mean you have an issue with European, and European -descended countries (like the US), being interested in investigating their own origins, and how they fit in the world ? The blaggards !

Not to mention they're actually bankrolling sampling th Near East, central Asia, Siberia, North Africa ... (a simple study of 20 samples would cost $100, 000). So, have been living under a rock ?

Moderator
08-07-2016, 05:17 AM
Nothing good can come from this thread and it will therefore be closed immediately.

To the OP, please take note that if you do not cease creating threads such as this, you will be banned from this site.