We Actually Were

Greeks and Romans were Nordic. Face it, Northern European whites are the superior whites.
unz.com/article/what-race-were-the-greeks-and-romans/

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baltic_Origins_of_Homer's_Epic_Tales
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquiline_nose
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baltic_Origins_of_Homer's_Epic_Tales

>The Baltic Origins of Homer's Epic Tales is an essay written by Felice Vinci, a nuclear engineer and amateur historian
>a nuclear engineer and amateur historian
>amateur historian

Notice how nobody cares when you post a threads that actually intellectually supports their "red-pill" theories?

you keep posting this as if it is an accepted fact and not a possibly interesting bust still fringe interpretation of Homer's works with basically no archeological support

Fallacious. The evidence in clear. Many upper class Greeks and Romans had light skin, light eyes, and light hair. Political correctness has produced a bunch of shit scholarship that picks and chooses evidence to support an already made hypothesis. Harvard is a joke. "Well, there are statues with white skin and others with tan skin, so I will only talk about the ones with tan skin so I won't promote racism". It is a joke.

WE

Who cares at this point we have to stick together.

>Many upper class Greeks and Romans had light skin, light eyes, and light hair
what a coincidence, many Italians and Greeks still do nowadays, it's almost as if those features aren't a strictly n. Euro feature, really makes you think huh?

>unz.com
>unz
unz unz unz

Italy got flooded with Germanics at various points since then, and light features are virtually absent in Greece.

...

True.
Rape babies.

>Italy got flooded with Germanics at various points since then
top kek, so there were blondes in Roman Italy, then they disappeared and reappeared with Germanics, but those aren't truly Italians?

...

All I did was state two facts to help add historical context to the discussion, don't start blasting me with memes and strawmen.

I like this one even better than the original.

it doesn't help at all, there were blondes in ancient Italy(true), there are blondes in Italy now(true), no need to add layers of complexity assuming that invasions actually changed the peninsula significantly, which is false going by DNA evidence

19th century historians were much more intelligent than anything we have had since the end of WWII.

I trust them before I trust (((Harvard))) or (((Yale))).

"Superior whites" was tongue in cheek. It is disturbing that doing actual historical research is frowned on by academia today.
"No Greeks looked like Brad Pitt you nazi!"
"Actually..."

There were brown haired people in America in 1300, and there are brown haired people in America in 2016, but these are not the same groups at all.

you missed the point

>19th century
?
the book it's from 1995

I also prefer historians from at least a while ago when I just want to get the gist of things without going into precise details, but in the last 100 years we've added lots of archeological evidence and now genetic evidence to the picture, which is particularly important when dealing with pre-historical issues.

and? there is no actual evidence of population shifts since then, so it's safe to assume nothing changed, while in the case of the Americas, we have actual evidence of population shifts
modern Italy is pretty much how you expect it to be as a country who formed it's ethnic identity in the late bronze age/iron age

>the DNA of Italians is the exact same in 2016 as in 200 BC

Can you demonstrate this?

Meanwhile me

Pic related is not your average nordic nose

For Western racial anthropologists such as Madison Grant (in The Passing of the Great Race (1911) and other works) and William Z. Ripley, the aquiline nose is characteristic of the peoples they variously identify Nordic, Teutonic, or Anglo-Saxon.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquiline_nose

I also have an aquiline nose and my entire recorded ancestry has been pure Flemish

there are various indirect evidence pointing to it, unfortunately due to the burial practices of the times and climate it's hard to come by with sequentiable DNA from back then to provide direct evidence of continuity

first of all, there is the history of colonization of the peninsula by folks we are aware of that explain the pattern we see in DNA i.e why is the north more "white" and more full on IE lineages? because of Italics first and then because of Celtic introgression, for instance
why is the south full on J2? Greeks and general east Med populations, possibly from the bronze age collapse

second, indirect evidence comes from biological clocks
if for instance the Italian peninsula was affected by Germanic migrations, we would see from DNA that Italians should share a considerable amount of common ancestors with central Europe in the last 2000-1500 years or so, yet we do not see this

overall, Italy is a med population that is placed pretty much where you expect it to be, on a cline from southwest Europe to the east med

HOL UP

WE WUZ ROMANZ AN' SHIEEEET

th century
>?
>the book it's from 1995

The argument used against it was that the author is an amateur historian. I said, agreeing with the article from OP, that I tend to trust 19th century historians more than our own. I think this is consistent. The amateur historian today is not filtered through the PhD process,m and he is not beholden to a worldview.

Academia today is just groupthink. Careers are based on whose theory holds. It's like having Wall Street stocks priced by the company's reputation, and not performance.

the spirit of the times influenced authors even back then m8, are you implying nordicism wasn't following an agenda too?

WE WUZ MEDITERRANEAN N'SHIET
NORDS WAS EVERYONE

Where did you learn that? From post-WWII historians?

I'm not so fucking stupid I can't see bias or favouritism in old history books. But if you are capable enough of doing that, which most adults are, then they are still better than modern historians. They don't even hold a candle to some the works I have seen. Modern academics are as children to eighteenth and nineteenth century scholars. Children.

Hmmmm

even if they were actually better than modern historians, it still doesn't mean they were saints purely interested in history and who just happened to come across theories that were particularly politically favourable for the times
when humans study humans they are almost inevitably influenced by their own prejudices or by the prejudices of their environment