1. Pontikos believes that North Africans and Southern Europeans are the same race.

2. Pontikos says that race-mixing does not destroy races.

3. Pontikos says that race-mixing is actually a good thing and has very positive effects!

4.  Pontikos insults Northern Europeans by calling them “unintelligent, but above all bellicose and cruel”  and the original White Egyptians are dismissed as “lovers of money, conniving and untrustworthy.”

5.  Pontikos believes that if all of the races in the world were mixed together, a "Mediterranean" would result!

6.  Pontikos insults Greeks, calling them “not mainstream Europe” and says he is not worried about “swarthy” race-mixing taking place with White Greeks.

7.  Pontikos says a blonde Greek girl’s ancestry is “problematic.”

1. Pontikos believes that North Africans and Southern Europeans are the same race.

Apr-9 12:33 am 

What constitutes a phenotypical race? For me, two things are important:

1. That the race have some unity, or continuity. Namely, suppose that we order geographically populations as A B C D E F G. So, C's neighbors are B and D. If every population in our sequence is close to its neighbors, then we have "continuity". If there is overlap between any two groups, then there is "unity". So, if _some_ of A's people looks like _some_ of G's people, then there is "unity". These conditions are met among people from Spain to Afghanistan and Yemen and Morocco. We define the common features shared by all groups as an "ideal type" which represents the "common features" of these populations.

Condition #1 guarantees that our groups be similar to one another.

2. That our groups A-G be dissimilar to other people groups. This means that they ought to have different average features and little overlap. All our groups A-G clearly meet this with respect to Negroids and Mongoloids. The European branch of the "Mediterranean race" also meets these criteria with respect to its immediate geographical neighbors. For instance, when we move across the Pyrenees, the cephalic index increases from 75 to 85, the pigmentation becomes lighter, etc. The French "Alpine" looks different from the Spanish "Mediterranean". The two groups blend into each other, but the geographical distance is small; the environmental conditions similar. Hence, we postulate that we don't have variation of a single race, but rather the blending of two races. The same is true when we move from the East Balkans with a cephalic index of 79-80 in Bulgaria, to 87 in Albania. Here, the Mediterranean race blends into the Dinaric race. An Albanian, or Epirotic Greek is quite different-looking from a Bulgarian or Greek Thracian.

So, my problem is the following: I SEE the boundaries where division into subraces can be split in Europe. I DON'T see these boundaries when we move outside of Europe. Please tell me which two populations, as we move from Spain to Morocco in clock-wise fashion, following the Mediterranean coast, we can say belong in two different races? I see no two populations that can be thus divided.

Hence, I am not denying that Moroccans are generally darker than European Mediterraneans, simply that they are both part of a Mediterranean Race whose existence has been proposed according to the criteria outlined above. This race is clearly very variable, as it is spread over a large geographical area. But I see no way of subdividing it meaningfully.

2. Pontikos says that race-mixing does not destroy races.

First of all, at present people of different races don't intermarry freely. That is, if there are 10% black males in the population, it would be expected that _any_ woman would have a 10% probability of choosing a black male for a husband. In reality, black women have a high probability of marrying a black man and white women have a low probability.

Let's continue our experiment. Even if they intermarry freely, then "mixed race" individuals appear. If the numerical strength of A and B is different, e.g., A is very numerous, then eventually B will be absorbed into A, altering its racial character slightly, but not significantly. Race B will disappear, since it is highly improbable that its (rare) genes will all appear in a single individual after a few generations. This is what has happened in Egypt, where the Negrid type has been almost fully assimilated in the more numerous Europid type.

If racial elements A and B are of equal strength, then a majority of individuals express an intermediate racial type and small minorities express pure A/B types. Now, if the populations are small ("inbreeding"), a hybrid homogeneous type will finally be produced. This will also occur in a larger population, but it will take much longer. This is what has happened in India where 2-3 prehistoric races have formed the distinctive Indid racial type.

Finally there are additional factors, such as sexual selection (i.e., race A individuals may be more "attractive" than race B ones, hence their genetic contribution will be more than is expected by their numbers). Another factor is environment, e.g., malaria-resistent races survive in malaria-infested regions, while depigmented people suffer in tropical environments. Finally, we have fertility rates. Some ethnic groups (e.g., Arabs) reproduce faster than others (e.g., Europeans), hence their racial type becomes more significant.

Even if the present-day races disappear, it is likely that new races will emerge. In pre-historic times, race formation was caused by isolation of populations in different physical environments. In the future, it is likely that people will be isolated along social lines.

3. Pontikos says that race-mixing is actually a good thing and has very positive effects!

Race Mixture is a subject of intense polemic, both by people who abhor it (e.g., supremacists) and people who endorse it (e.g., mixed-maniacs). I hope to clarify the effects of race mixture (minus the rhetoric).

First, a primer on evolution. We evolve by mutation. We pass on to our children slightly modified versions of the genes we inherit from our parents. Mutations are usually recessive and harmful; only rarely is some mutation useful. If we get two copies of a recessive gene from our parents, then we will probably face illness, perhaps even not have a chance to be born.

Evolution is indeed "survival of the fittest". It is a race to reach reproductive age. People with bad genes often fail to achieve this. Our ability to reach this goal is dependent on our environmental adaptation. Are we resistent to disease, to the elements, to the pressures of our social environment? Then, we have the problem of finding a mate. This is sexual selection. These selective processes promote certain genes (that give an evolutionary advantage) and limit others (that are a drawback).

Let us consider a population that has lived for a long time in a given environment (natural, social) without admixture with other populations. Through selection, this population will have become adapted to its environment. But a certain number of recessive mutations would also have amassed. If the population is large enough, then recessive mutations can be weeded out. If it is small, then individuals are forced to intermarry and often recessive genes cause problematic individuals. The population health is poor.

What happens if we mix this population with another one that has evolved in a different environment?

First of all, we will have hybrid vigor. The reason for this is simple: an individual of "mixed" parentage has a far lesser probability of ineriting two copies of a recessive gene. This is because the chance of recessive mutations affecting the same gene in two populations is slight. This effect is attenuated in successive generations because recessive genes can now come from both parents. However a benefit remains as the "bad genes" are now a smaller part of the total gene pool (e.g., half if the two populations have the same number of individuals).

A second effect is that all the adaptations of the aboriginal population become less prominent in the genetic makeup of the mixed population. As an example, if a tall race of hunters mixes with a short race, then the population will lose some of its "height" adaptation that makes it effective hunters. Hence, in this case race mixture has caused some "harm" in the population's adaptability to its environment.

We now see that two effects are the result of race mixture: (i) improved health through hybrid vigor, (ii) reduction of both races' adaptations in the composite population.

There are many possible eventual outcomes of race mixture (if we don't take into account the cultural obstacles). One outcome is fusion. The two races eventually become one which is healthier (due to hybrid vigor) and which retains the helpful adaptations from both parent races. In this case, race mixture is a positive thing.

A second possible outcome occurs if one of the two races is maladaptive to its new environment. In such a case the resulting population is less able to handle the challenges of its environment. As an example, the tall race of hunters becomes less able to follow the game if it mixes with short people.

The biological effects of race mixture are rarely dramatic. In some cases, like the Early Helladic population of Greece, the heterogeneous subracial elements fused to form a successful population (the Greeks) and the effects of effective fusion were visible in an increase in general health and vigor. In other cases fusion failed, e.g., due to the maladaptation of Native Americans to the presence of disease for which Europeans were well-adapted.

The most important aspect of race mixture is the cultural one. Genes mix easily, but it is much more difficult to mix different value systems, cultures, lifestyles into a functional whole. An example of this is the Jew and the Arab who may be biologically similar in many cases but are clearly culturally incompatible.

 Edited 2/6/02 3:35:57 AM ET by DIENEKES1

4.  Pontikos insults Northern Europeans by calling them “unintelligent, but above all bellicose and cruel”  and the original White Egyptians are dismissed as “lovers of money, conniving and untrustworthy.”

5.  Pontikos believes that if all of the races in the world were mixed together, a "Mediterranean" would result!

6.  Pontikos insults Greeks, calling them “not mainstream Europe” and says he is not worried about “swarthy” race-mixing taking place with White Greeks.

7. Pontikos says a blonde Greek girl’s ancestry is “problematic.”