Which European ethnicity is the superior one? (Honest question)

[cain1]

Which European ethnicity is unironically the superior one Genetically and naturally by physically, attractiveness, height, dick size etc

 

[OneTwoThree]

Poles

 

[pashtunnigga1]

meds

 

[PSL Center]

Which European ethnicity is unironically the superior one Genetically and naturally by physically, attractiveness, height, dick size etc

It would have been greeks before any turkish genetic influence. But now i'd say remote Scandinavian Swiss

 

[AustrianMogger]

Which European ethnicity is unironically the superior one Genetically and naturally by physically, attractiveness, height, dick size etc

Nordics followed by germanic people, then french and slavic with meds at the bottom

 

[cain1]

Nordics followed by germanic people, then french and slavic with meds at the bottom

Nordics followed by germanic people, then french and slavic with meds at the bottom

Which specific Nordic ethnicity would be ranked as the #1 and which one you think would take the #1 Germanic ethnicity

 

[PSL Center]

Nordics followed by germanic people, then french and slavic with meds at the bottom

I agree expects meds > slavics

 

[AustrianMogger]

Which specific Nordic ethnicity would be ranked as the #1 and which one you think would take the #1 Germanic ethnicity

Dänish

 

[CelestialEmpire]

WASPs, followed by Germanics (Dutch/German/Swiss/Austrian/Danish/North Italian) and Northern French (Southern France is Med/Ethnic) with Nordic/Celtic as the distant last for true whites

 

[CelestialEmpire]

WASPs, followed by Germanics (Dutch/German/Swiss/Austrian/Danish/North Italian) and Northern French (Southern France is Med/Ethnic) with Nordic/Celtic as the distant last for true whites

Obviously Meds and Slavs are ethnic

 

[Noesis]

Nordics

 

[CelestialEmpire]

Nordics

illiterate barbarian fishermen and coastal raiders while we WASPs conquered 2/3rd of the known world

 

[Noesis]

illiterate barbarian fishermen and coastal raiders while we WASPs conquered 2/3rd of the known world

Oh shit I thought only attractiveness. Are you med? I'm also one but we're not ethnics

 

[CelestialEmpire]

Oh shit I thought only attractiveness. Are you med? I'm also one but we're not ethnics

"saar we are white"

 

[MindOfBeni]

nords or russian

 

[TheStonerOne]

It would have been greeks before any turkish genetic influence. But now i'd say remote Scandinavian Swiss

Turks had little to no genetic influence on Greeks and vice versa. Greeks (especially Greek Islanders) and Turks largely come from Anatolians so they'll ALWAYS be connected no matter what idiots say. The points of
differentiation between Greeks and Turks is higher levels of Anatolian in the latter as well as Central Asian and Eastern Asian ancestries not present in the former. Despite all of this, genetic distances between Greeks and Turks is SMALLER than genetic distances between Swedes and Finns. Also Turks are Europeans themselves.

 

[ThomasDeutsch]

Gypsies

 

[Brian Weber]

Turks had little to no genetic influence on Greeks and vice versa. Greeks (especially Greek Islanders) and Turks largely come from Anatolians so they'll ALWAYS be connected no matter what idiots say. The points of
differentiation between Greeks and Turks is higher levels of Anatolian in the latter as well as Central Asian and Eastern Asian ancestries not present in the former. Despite all of this, genetic distances between Greeks and Turks is SMALLER than genetic distances between Swedes and Finns. Also Turks are Europeans themselves.

great cope but unfortunately, the muzzies raped the Greeks for centuries, turning them into niggers

 

[TheStonerOne]

great cope but unfortunately, the muzzies raped the Greeks for centuries, turning them into niggers

No evidence of this. We should be seeing Central and East Asian traces in modern Greeks. We don't. Rather, the majority of modern Turkish/modern Greek ancestry is SHARED ANATOLIAN ANCESTRY.

Greeks were ALWAYS darker skinned than Northern/Western/Eastern/Central Europeans. Why wouldn't they be? Their location would suggest this using common sense along with their admixture (which they've always had to an extent).

The only major genetic shifts in the Balkans over the last millennium and a bit were the SLAVIC invasions which introduced substantial Northern/Eastern European ancestry into the Balkans including most of Greece. Neither Turkish invasions or the 1923 population exchange had any notable effect on the genetics of either Greece or Turkey.

 

[Brian Weber]

No evidence of this. We should be seeing Central and East Asian traces in modern Greeks. We don't. Rather, the majority of modern Turkish/modern Greek ancestry is SHARED ANATOLIAN ANCESTRY.

Greeks were ALWAYS darker skinned than Northern/Western/Eastern/Central Europeans. Why wouldn't they be? Their location would suggest this using common sense along with their admixture (which they've always had to an extent).

The only major genetic shifts in the Balkans over the last millennium and a bit were the SLAVIC invasions which introduced substantial Northern/Eastern European ancestry into the Balkans including most of Greece. Neither Turkish invasions or the 1923 population exchange had any notable effect on the genetics of either Greece or Turkey.

great cope. "We wuz philosphers n shi man." The true greeks were never poisoned by disgusting inbred sand niggers

 

[TheStonerOne]

great cope. "We wuz philosphers n shi man." The true greeks were never poisoned by disgusting inbred sand niggers

Don't care about your opinion.

From Lazaridis et al 2021: A genetic probe into the ancient and medieval history of Southern Europe and West Asia

Phenotypes of the Southern Arc in their West Eurasian context:

"Our survey of populations of the Southern Arc focuses on ancestry, but it also illuminates other aspects of biology. Superficial phenotypes such as pigmentation were remarked upon by ancient
writers. We carried out a survey of predicted pigmentation and other phenotypes of West
Eurasian populations across time to discover the extent to which ancient authors’ perceptions (based on direct observation or through reports of faraway peoples) might correspond to the genetic inference of their appearance . We find that the modal phenotype of eye, skin, and hair pigmentation in ancient West Eurasians was brown-eyed, of intermediate complexion, and brown hair—even among Yamnaya steppe pastoralists—contradicting stereotypical characterizations of Steppe peoples as being blue-eyed, pale-skinned, and light-haired. Note that when we use categorizations—such as “intermediate”—of the continuous skin tone phenotype, we use the scheme adopted by HIrisPlex-S; in that scheme “intermediate” skin tones are commonly found in present-day Mediterranean populations
and “pale” ones in present-day Northern European ones. A general depigmentation trend can be seen across time with a reduction of black hair and darker skin tones accompanying the increase of brown hair and intermediate skin tones. However, inhabitants of the Southern Arc
had significantly darker pigmentation on average than those of the north (defined as Europe
outside the Southern Arc and the Eurasian steppe) over all periods, providing support for
the identification by ancient writers of light pigmentation phenotypes as being more common in some groups of the north such as Celts and Scythians. Another contrast made by ancient writers was with people of Africa, such as Egyptians and Ethiopians, who were said to be of darker pigmentation (e.g., Hdt. 2.104); a comparison of people of the Southern Arc with their southern neighbors will become possible when genomic data from people living south of the Mediterranean become available. When examining composite pigmentation phenotypes , we observe that while average pigmentation did indeed differentiate between populations of
the Southern Arc and the north, light phenotypes were found in both areas at similar early dates,
growing in parallel in the more recent millennia of history. Light pigmentation in West Eurasia
was the result of selection across time which continued into the Historical period, and not
the survival of supposed ancient Indo-Europeans phenotypes as some 19th /20th century writers
supposed or the product of the direct influence of climate that some Greco-Roman
writers hypothesized in order to explain patterns they observed during their own time. The
malleability of human phenotypes across time, and the presence of diverse ones—whether dark, light, or interemediate—across space undermine prejudiced views of history that overemphasize
superficial traits at the expense of the more meaningful aspects of human culture and biology."

From Lazaridis et al 2017: Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans

"We estimated FST of Bronze Age populations with present-day West Eurasians, finding that Mycenaeans are least differentiated from populations from Greece, Cyprus, Albania, and Italy, part of a general pattern in which Bronze Age populations broadly resemble present-day inhabitants from the same region. Modern Greeks occupy the intermediate space of the PCA along PC1 between ancient European and Near Eastern populations, like the ones of the Bronze Age. They are not, however, identical to Bronze Age populations, as they are above them along PC2. This is due to the fact that Neolithic farmers share fewer alleles with Modern Greeks than with Mycenaeans, consistent with additional later admixture."

Emphasis on the important points by me. Where and when were those later admixtures from? Before we go on, that same study (2021) EXPLICITLY talks about added Central Asian ancestry in Anatolia found during the Turkish invasion and not in other periods. Wouldn't it be pertinent to state information about Central Asian in the Balkans? The study talks about various points of admixture yet they didn't talk about Central Asian admixture in Greece or the Balkans. Because. There. Wasn't. Any. Also, the study explicitly says that modern Turkish people carry the legacy of ancient people who lived in Anatolia for thousands of years and from people coming from Central Asia. Anatolian ancestry in Turks is SHARED between Turks (Anatolians) and Greeks and always has been. That. Is. A. Fact.

Medieval migrations into Anatolia and the Balkans:

"East Eurasian ancestry also helps identify an intriguing set of outliers at Çapalıbağ in the Aegean coast of Turkey dating from the 14th
-17th centuries. These have ~18% such ancestry unlike Byzantine-era individuals from Turkey, suggesting a Central Asian influence. An admixture date estimate of 12.2±1.4 generations prior to their time using Roman/Byzantine and Central Asian sources suggests that the admixture occurred in the period surrounding the 11th century arrival and expansion of Seljuq Turks to Anatolia. Present-day Turkish individuals have an admixture date estimate of 30.6±1.9 generations, and thus
from the same early centuries of the 1000s CE which coincided with the transfer of control of
10 Anatolia from the Romans to the Seljuqs and eventually Ottomans. The genetic contribution of Central Asian Turkic speakers to present-day people can be provisionally estimated by
comparison of Central Asian ancestry in present-day Turkish people (~9%) and sampled ancient Central Asians (range of ~41-100%) to be between 9/100 and 9/41, or ~9-22%. People from Turkey were sampled from eight localities (n=58) , representing broadly the present-day population. The genetic data thus point to Turkish people carrying the legacy of both ancient people who lived in Anatolia for thousands of years covered by our study and people coming from Central Asia bearing Turkic languages."


As for the other information:

"A 2023 archaeogenetic study published in Cell, based on 146 samples, confirmed that the spread of Slavic language and identity was because of large movements of people, both males and females, with specific Eastern European ancestry and that "more than half of the ancestry of most peoples in the Balkans today comes from the Slavic migrations, with around a third Slavic ancestry even in countries like Greece where no Slavic languages are spoken today". The early medieval Slavic admixture was calculated to be 66.5±2.7% in Croats, 58.4±2.1% in Serbs, 55.4±2.4% in Romanians, 51.2±2.2% in Bulgarians, 31±5.3% in Albanians, 29.9-40.2% in Peloponnese and Macedonia Greeks, 17.9-19.7% in Cretan and Cyclades Greeks, and 3.5±2.2% in Dodecanese Greeks."

In contrast to Turkish invasions, the only invasions that had a significant genetic impact on Greece were SLAVIC invasions.

 

[Swarthy Knight]

Meds/Dravidians mog all Euro cucks to oblivion

 

[Utrep]

Which European ethnicity is unironically the superior one Genetically and naturally by physically, attractiveness, height, dick size etc

Latin