Subject: South African types
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 03:56:05
From: "A. P." in South Africa

I would like to ask ....about... the claim by a
geneticist from Cape Town (I don't remember the name) that genetically the
South African whites are 7% Africans (ie Capoid and Congoid). I think that
it's mostly propaganda and that the african strain in the white, and
especially Afrikaans, SA folk would be negligible, if one considers the
historical and social conditions of that country.
Regards
A.P.

Subject: Re: South African types
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 19:16:39 SAST
From: "G.P." in South Africa

On discussing South African White racial composition, I take interest in the
point mentioned by A.P. about Congoid and Capoid intermixture. Since I am
not a genetic expert, it is difficult for me to argue on genetics. What I
can say, is that a 7% influence is definitely on the extreme side. For
instance, historians claim a 7% French Huguenot ancestry. They had a
profound influence on the cultivation of wine, and other cultural aspects of
the Cape. To claim the same amount of coloured contribution sounds a bit
absurd. I have, for instance, genealogical records of my family
dating back to the 1580's.
Another point to mention is that there have been made many attempts by South
African genealogists like Cor Pama to map the Afrikaans ancestry. To make
any 'new' claims seems to me like apartheid-abolishionist propaganda, of
what there have been no shortage since the 1980's.

Regards
G.P.

Subject: S.A. types
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 10:27:41
From: "A. P." in South Africa

I have a theory about that 7%. I read on an interview to an Afrikaans woman
married to a Zulu man that their light skinned daughter was registered as
white, while their darker skinned son as coloured. Of course, that's
nonsense, because both are mulattoes, disregarding their skin colours. But,
if in the recent past light mulattoes in SA were classified as whites, then
that 7% is not surprising after all.
Regards.
A.P.

Richard McCulloch's reply,

Regarding the claim mentioned by "A.P." that white South Africans are 7% Congoid or Capoid, I include below a rather lengthy edited excerpt from my book Destiny of Angels (1986) that addresses this very subject in the American context. (Funny how the same multiracialist tactics keep popping up in different countries.)

The growing effort to discourage resistance to interracial mixture by asserting that the Nordish race is already thoroughly mixed beyond hope of correction -- thereby also disparaging Nordish racial integrity and identity -- has a tendency to grow bolder, and more reckless and irresponsible in its claims, as its prior false assertions go unchallenged in the dominant multiracialist intellectual environment.

An example of how far this process has gone -- to the point where almost "anything goes" and any exaggeration is accepted, provided it is consistent with the designs and interests of multiracialism -- appeared in an article in People Weekly magazine (Dec. 6, 1982, page 156.) about a Louisiana woman whose ancestry was one-sixteenth (6.25 percent) "black," but who regarded herself as "white" and had been raised in, and accepted by, the white community. Her mother and her mother's sister, both "octoroons" (one-eighth or 12.5 percent black, having the equivalent of one black great-grandparent), had gone by different paths, the mother "passing" as white while the aunt remained part of the black community. The woman was challenging a Louisiana law (since repealed) which required that any person more than one-thirty-second (3.125 percent) of black ancestry be classified as black in the state's legal records.

According to the article, Dr. Munro Edmonson, a professor of anthropology at Tulane University appearing as an expert witness on the woman's behalf, testified that "modern genetic studies show that blacks around the country average 25 percent white genes and whites five percent black genes. By these statistics, said Edmonson, and assuming the one-thirty-second law prevailed, the entire native born population of Louisiana could be considered black!"

The first criticism of Edmonson's above claim is obvious. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the "average" white person in the United States had five percent black genes (more on this assumption later) only a few would actually be the exact "average" of five percent or one-twentieth black ancestry. (Hybridization requires many generations after its total completion before achieving a level of stabilized uniformity even remotely approaching homogeneity.) Many would have no black genes at all, while many others would have far more than five percent in order to counterbalance the effect of those who had no black genes and still achieve the five percent average. If half of the white population had no black genes, the other half would have to average ten percent black genes in order to maintain the five percent overall average. Of the half with black genes some, again, would be far less than ten percent black, while others would have to be proportionately more in order to sustain the group's ten percent average. If three-quarters of the white population had no black genes, the remaining quarter would have to average twenty percent black genes to uphold the overall five percent average, and some would have to be considerably more than this. If nine-tenths of the members of the white population had no black genes, the remaining tenth would have to average fifty percent black genes (that is, be half black, or mulattoes) to keep a five percent overall average, and many would actually have to be more than half black to compensate for those who were less.

At this point we confront the definition of what is "white." The phenomenon of partial blacks "passing" as white is a complex one. Passing is a form of deception, and whether it will succeed depends on both the racial knowledge and sensitivity of the person being deceived and the detectability of the black traits, which varies greatly even when the degree of intermixture -- or percentage of black genes -- is the same, as among siblings (see the above example of the Louisiana woman's mother and aunt). The same partial black may successfully deceive some whites while failing to deceive others whose level of racial knowledge and sensitivity is greater. Under present levels of racial knowledge and sensitivity, an octoroon generally cannot successfully pass as an unmixed or full-blooded white, while a person who is one-sixteenth black generally, but not always, can. However, when they do succeed in passing as white, it is usually as a marginal and indistinct type of white under the broad, less sensitive and discriminating definition of the term. They usually do not pass as a distinctively Northern European type of white. A white who was five percent black in ancestry would, in nearly all cases, know it. For him not to know it would require that he not know his parents or grandparents, and even then he would probably still know or suspect it. That so few whites, including Louisiana whites, have knowledge of any black ancestry indicates how rare and uncommon such ancestry actually is.

The second objection to Edmonson's assertion is twofold. If 6.25 percent black intermixture is the maximum level that can generally successfully pass as a marginal white, how is it possible for the claimed average degree of intermixture -- five percent -- to be so close to the maximum permissible degree for passing, when the upper end of the range should far exceed the average in order to counterbalance the lower end and the large number who have no black genes at all? Also, since persons who are one-sixteenth (6.25 percent) of black ancestry tend to bear a physical resemblance to less distinct, borderline or marginal whites, such as the typical inhabitants of Andalusia or Tunisia, why is it that the white population of the United States bears no resemblance to those two peoples? In fact, the Northern European population of America -- which in 1980 constituted about 79 percent of the white population -- shows no identifiable sign or trace of black intermixture, and remains essentially indistinguishable racially, physically and esthetically -- showing no significant difference -- from the other members of the same branches of their race who remain in northern Europe, free from any evident black interracial mixture. If the Northern European population of America were five percent, or even one percent, black it would obviously show. It would not look the way it does. The physical-esthetic difference would be definite and undeniable, especially among the more recessive, fragile and distinct traits -- whose frequency of occurrence would be greatly reduced and quality of expression and realization distorted and diminished, suffering severe losses in both quantity and quality. If the population of northern Europe from which Nordish-Americans came is accepted as a control group, it must be admitted that there is no significant racial-physical-esthetic variation between the two, and the percentage of fractionally-black hybrids in the Nordish-American population must be so small as to escape attention.

Genetic studies of hybridization are based on variations in blood group frequencies. Like paternity tests they cannot actually prove intermixture, but only establish the possible limits of it, unless the frequency variations are so large that they cannot be accounted for by any other explanation. For example, if a black population has a frequency of fifty percent for a blood group trait and a white population has a frequency of ten percent for the trait, while a second white population has a frequency of twelve percent for the same trait, it may be inferred -- depending on certain variables, such as the dominant or recessive nature of the trait -- that the second white population has a possible degree of black intermixture as high as five percent. But the natural variation which occurs within populations in the frequency of such traits (due to genetic drift and other reasons other than intermixture), and the margin for error inherent in such studies, are both large enough that any indication of intermixture below ten percent could in fact be zero -- too small to provide certain proof or evidence of any degree of intermixture -- and we could therefore be discussing something which is virtually nonexistent except in the minds of men. Even in a population as comparatively homogeneous -- and with as little variation -- as that of Japan, the variation which will unavoidably exist between different groups (such as the populations of different islands) will be sufficient to establish a possibility of some small degree of intermixture with any other population on earth. Only a population which exhibited zero variation -- and none such exist or can exist -- could prove the impossibility of any degree of intermixture.

Here again there is the problem of definition to consider. A wide spectrum of racial types in the population of the United States -- Northern Europeans, Armenids, Mediterranids, Orientalids, Irano-Afgans, and even some groups (such as the Puerto Ricans) who exhibit an obvious degree of black intermixture -- are commonly defined and classified as "white." The degree of variation existing between the diverse racial types in this broadly defined population is so extreme that it defies as absurd any attempt to classify it as a coherent whole in relationship to any other race.

The final answer to Edmonson's testimony is historical in approach. Scholars and anthropologists in the earlier part of this century, or in the previous century, never suspected or indicated a significant absorption of black genes into the white population. There is no record of racially mixed offspring being raised by, or accepted into, the white community to any measurable extent. Before the middle of this century, interracial marriage between white and black was socially unacceptable (and often illegal) and so rare as to be almost nonexistent in statistical terms. Thus the overwhelming majority of racially mixed children (mulattoes, quadroons and octoroons) were illegitimate and were virtually always raised by -- and absorbed into -- the black population. Nearly all the black-white intermixture which occurred before this century involved white males and black females (unlike the present situation, where three-fourths of the wives in black-white marriages are white). Then, as now, the children overwhelmingly tended to stay with the natural mother and her family rather than with the father. The practice of racism acted to protect the white race from intermixture and prevent the acceptance of racially mixed children into its ranks.

That nearly all the mixed offspring were absorbed into the black population is indicated by the high proportion (25 percent) of white genes in its genetic composition. Assuming that for most of American history the white population outnumbered the black by a ratio of about ten to one, the above percentage indicates that the black community, over the course of about eight generations, absorbed the equivalent of one-fortieth or 2.5 percent of the white population into itself. For whites to average five percent black genes while blacks average 25 percent white genes -- a mixture ratio of five to one, when the population ratio as given above was ten to one -- would require that twice as many of the racially mixed offspring were absorbed into the white population as were absorbed into the black population (or that two-thirds, or 67 percent, of the mixed children were absorbed into the white race and one-third into the black). A five percent average of black genes, assuming the ten to one population ratio, would indicate that the white population absorbed the equivalent of one-half or 50 percent of the black population into itself (50 percent divided by ten equals five percent), and that the white race absorbed twice as many black genes as the black race absorbed white genes. But this contradicts the fact, which ordinary observation should qualify as common knowledge, that as a result of the "color bar" created by white racism the racially mixed children were almost invariably raised by and absorbed into the black community, and that the proportion who were absorbed into the white population, rather than the 67 percent required to create a five percent degree of intermixture, was probably much less than one percent.

For the Nordish race, existence in a multiracial society, in close and unnatural proximity to other races, has always resulted in interracial mixture by wayward and irresponsible members who endangered the future integrity and well-being of their kind. In this racially unhealthy environment, fraught with danger to racial survival by the ever-present threat of absorbing dominant alien genes, only the practice of racism protects the integrity, identity and continued existence of the race -- and its vulnerable recessive traits -- by isolating it from the effects of intermixture. Until recently the practice of racism has preserved the Nordish race, so that it still exists in unaltered form with its identity still intact. The recent trend toward multiracialism is stripping the Nordish race of its defense and protection from intermixture, and its consequent destructive effects of extinction and racial death. (With the resultant intermixture of Northern Europeans with virtually every other race on earth, through both marriage and adoption.) The apologists and proponents of intermixture -- who presently enjoy such dominance that the once great academic disciplines created by the white race have been enlisted in the cause of its destruction -- employ every opportunity to disparage and cast doubts on the racial integrity, uniqueness and value of the Nordish race, thereby weakening its will to resist by depriving it of belief in itself. The goal of their misleading distortions is to prevent Northern Europeans from learning the truth until it is too late to do anything about it. Their hope is that if the Nordish race falsely believes it has already fallen, then it will fall, when it really falls, without a struggle.

Richard McCulloch

Subject: Disillusionment
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2000
From: Aryan Myth <aryan_myth@yahoo.com>
To: archon@racialcompact.com

The Myth of Northern European Racial Purity

White supremacists, white separatists, and white pride groups in general are
quick to acknowledge racial impurity in Southern Europe, Eastern Europe,
and, in some cases, even Central Europe, but they continue to operate, not
accidentally, on the assumption that Northern Europe--namely the British
Isles, from where most white Americans are descended--is 100% Nordic, or, if
not that, then 100% "Aryan" (recent Third World immigrants notwithstanding).

However, centuries ago, the British Isles were settled by Phoenicians, a
Hamito-Semitic people of the Middle East and North Africa, who left their
genetic and phenotypic imprints on the current populations of those lands.

Furthermore, it's estimated that, as a result of white settlers in America
raping their slaves and prisoners, and of the offspring of such unions often
passing for white, some 10-15% of Americans who think of themselves as
entirely descended from Northern Europe in fact have some black or Indian
blood, which can manifest itself as a dark complexion, kinky hair, a broad
face, wide nose or almond shaped eyes, or, sometimes, it doesn't manifest
itself at all. For instance, such apparently Nordic people as Heather
Locklear, Chuck Norris, Gary Busey, and Anna Nicole Smith are purported to
have Indian ancestry.

Thus, the native populations of the United Kingdom, and their descendants in
America, like all other European populations, are the products of centuries
of racial and ethnic admixture, and are thus composed of individuals
belonging to the Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean physical types, as well as
every conceivable intermediate.

To illustrate this, here are some celebrities who are descended from either England, Ireland, Scotland or Wales, and who clearly exhibit non-Nordic or non-"Aryan" physical traits which attest to obvious non-European ancestry : VICTORIA ADAMS, JOHNNY CASH, TOM BOSLEY, SEAN CONNERY, ROBERT FORSTER, TERI HATCHER, BOB HOSKINS, PHYLIS LEE ISLEY (Jennifer Jones), TOM JONES, JOE NAMATH, JOHN OATES, STEPHEN PEARCY, STEPHEN REA, MEG TILLY, CATHERINE ZETA-JONES

Got a problem with that?

Subject: Why disillusionment?
Date: Thurs, 23 Feb 2000
From: archon@racialcompact.com
To: Aryan Myth <aryan_myth@yahoo.com>

I don't know of any historical or anthropological source that states that Phoenicians settled in Britain, as you state. There is a possibility that they traded for the tin of Cornwall, but this would not constitute a settlement of the racial significance that you imply. It is likely that a Middle Eastern element arrived during Roman times, but they didn't have a lasting impact on the population.

While the individuals listed above all show signs of non-Nordic ancestry, none of them show obvious signs of "non-European" ancestry, contrary to your claim, with the possible exception of Bob Hoskins, who is of Jewish rather than British ancestry. Sean Connery and Catherine Zeta-Jones both show strong influence of the Atlanto-Mediterranean type that settled in Britain during Mesolithic times and has been an important element in the population ever since. Neither Joe Namath nor Tom Bosley are of British ancestry -- Namath being Hungarian in ancestry and Bosley Jewish. As for those who "are purported to have Indian ancestry," this information is of little value without the proportion of Indian ancestry. Many Nordish-Americans have some small proportion of Indian ancestry. If it is 1/8 or less it usually has little racial effect, although the psychological effect on racial consciousness and loyalties may be significant. (President Clinton claims to be some small fraction Cherokee Indian, and although this isn't obvious in his phenotype, which is Nordish, it may have contributed psychologically to his lack of loyalty to the vital interests of the Nordish race.)

Regarding the allegation of extensive intermixture with blacks, Carleton Coon -- in The Living Races of Man (1965), page 307 -- cites Glass and Li to the effect that the proportion of black genes in the American "white" population is negligible. Nearly all the gene flow between races from the intermixture of the last several centuries has been from the European races into the non-European races, and very little of the reverse has so far occurred (at least as of 1965). But there has been some assimilation of Alpine and Mediterranid genes by the Nordish-American population.

But what is your point? Is it to oppose Nordish (Northern European) racial preservation and continued existence on the grounds that the Northern Europeans are not 100% pure, and anything not 100% pure is not worth saving? If so, this is an old argument that I've always considered to be very illogical, in that the people who most strongly oppose and hate racial "purity," and want to destroy it, are the ones who make such a fetish about it by holding it to such an arbitrary and extreme standard as to define it out of existence. In my essay "Racial Average is Racial Destiny" I propose an objective means of measuring the extent to which Northern Europeans can assimilate other racial elements and still remain Nordish in racial type. Obviously, this means that 100% Nordish ancestry is not required for a people, or an individual, to be Nordish in racial type.

Personally, I love the Northern Europeans just as they are, and want to preserve them that way, just as I want to preserve all the races that now exist essentially as they are. That's "purity" enough for me.

Richard McCulloch

Richard McCulloch comments,

Perhaps the most relevant genetic study to date on the issue of Nordish or Northern European racial "purity" versus mixture was reported in the May 10, 2001 issue of the periodical Nature. "Linkage disequilibrium in the human genome" (p.199) had findings suggesting "that the long-range LD pattern is general in northern Europeans," and asked, "What was the nature of the population event that created the long-range LD? The event could be specific to northern Europe, which was substantially depopulated during the Last Glacial Maximum (30,000-15,000 years ago), and subsequently recolonized by a small number of founders." This report received considerable publicity in the popular press. The National Post Online release dated May 10, 2001 was perhaps the most accurate and included the following relevant passages:

"All humans of northern European ancestry are descended from a tiny group of cave men -- perhaps only 10 people, and no more than 50 -- researchers have discovered. The result is that hundreds of millions of their descendants now carry vast amounts of identical DNA.The small group formed a bottleneck, squeezing all the genes of northern Europe through a few individuals 30,000 to 50,000 years ago, long after humans left their first home in Africa."

This study leaves little room for significant mixture from other sources over the last 15,000 years, or even the last 30,000 years. It points instead to a separate "Adam and Eve," or more precisely a very small group of Adams and Eves, at least 15,000 years ago who were essentially the sole and exclusive ancestors of all modern northern Europeans.

One comes across many reports that some celebrity is part Indian (James Garner, Val Kilmer, Cathy Lee Crosby) but without knowing what part (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32?) it is not really very meaningful or helpful. Kim Basinger and Farrah Fawcett are both purported to be 1/8 Indian, which again indicates that a proportion of 1/8 or less is not always phenotypically significant.

In fact, I knew a very attractive sandy-haired, blue-eyed girl who was 1/4 Cherokee, but bragged about how people mistook her for Swedish when she traveled in Europe, something I found very believable, although her high cheekbones, of which she was very proud, were too angular to be typical of the Swedish type, and were really the only trait that indicated her Indian ancestry. Her complexion was similar to Kim Basinger (who really is Swedish, at least her non-Indian part). I met her family. Her half-Cherokee mother looked very Indian, while her father was a very big and very blond Borreby type. Her sister apparently got the obvious Indian genes, with blackish brown hair and coppery skin, yet attractive Europeanized facial features.

I came across a PBS Frontline website that purports to reveal the mixed racial ancestry of historical figures and celebrities, with the obvious ulterior motive of normalizing and thus promoting racial intermixture. It asserts that England's Queen Charlotte, the wife of George III, who was of Portuguese ancestry, was part Congoid. It also implies that Heather Locklear is of part Indian and Congoid ancestry because the name Locklear is associated with certain "tri-racial isolates" -- communities of mixed Congoid, Indian and European elements that existed in North Carolina two or more centuries ago. It doesn't specifically state that she is part Indian or Congoid, and gives no indication what part Indian or Congoid she might be (1/32, 1/64, 1/128?), but she is pictured, and the implication in the text, which almost gloats as it describes her as a paragon of blonde Anglo-Saxon beauty, is unmistakable.

One is reminded of the absurd claims that Beethoven, Hannibal or Cleopatra were Congoid, the latter two apparently for no reason other than that they were born on the continent of Africa (by which reasoning Syrians and Lebanese should be the same race as Chinese, as they were also born on the continent of Asia). Cleopatra, of course, wasn't even Egyptian, but Macedonian, the last of the Ptolemaic dynasty founded by one of the successors of Alexander the Great, spoke Greek as her native language (although she did know many other languages, including Egyptian, being reportedly the first of her dynasty to learn it), wore Greek clothing, was surrounded by the Greek culture and Greek architecture of her mostly Greek capital, and was no more Congoid than a modern Afrikaner. Yet political correctness prevents timid academics from correcting the racial fallacies about her that repeatedly appear in the popular culture. Even Michael Grant, a don of ancient history who should know better, asserts that she was probably dark because she was of part Syrian ancestry. But her "Syrian ancestry" was an ancestress from the Seleucid dynasty, another Macedonian successor kingdom of Alexander that had its capital in Syria, and who was thus no more Syrian than Cleo was Egyptian. (The Seleucid dynasty was however part Iranian or Persian, as its founder, another of Alexander's generals, had taken his wife from the old Persian nobility, as did Alexander himself, who took several.)

The ultimate purpose, or ulterior motive, for the above and similar claims of racial intermixture, whatever their validity or relevance, is to normalize and legitimize it, and thus promote such intermixture by making it seem harmless, right and socially acceptable, and the avoidance of intermixture seem less vital, necessary and important, and even as wrong or illegitimate. Such seemingly disparate figures as President Clinton and evangelist Billy Graham have endorsed interracial marriage as a means to lessen racial divisions. James Toback, director of the motion picture Black and White, shares their vision, minus the focus on marriage. As reported in Entertainment Weekly (April 14, 2000; pp.41-44)

...Toback suggests "mass interracial sex" can eliminate racism....[T]alk to Toback, who also wrote [the film], and you realize he's celebrating the power of hip-hop [black music] and interracial sex to conquer bigotry...."I think it is completely changing the whole social order in a way that makes even passive bigotry totally unacceptable to anyone who isn't kind of a professed Neanderthal. It's changed the sexual culture completely, which is the key to race, because as soon as you have interracial sex to a degree where it isn't even an issue and you start with mass interracial sex, then the races become indistinguishable."

This is, of course, the very thing that opponents of racial integration in the 1960s predicted would happen as a consequence of integration, and which the proponents of racial integration denied would happen. As its opponents feared, and are now being proven right, racial integration is just a euphemism for racial intermixture. Unfortunately, in the 1960s the proponents of racial intermixture were not as open and honest as its proponents such as James Toback are today. If they were Nordish-Americans would have been better informed about the real consequences of their policies at a time when they would have been much more resistant to them. Several decades of racial nihilist indoctrination were necessary before such openness and honesty could be expressed without fear of provoking strong Nordish-American opposition.

Richard McCulloch

Return to Racial Preservation: Issues and Answers page

Go to Racial Compact main page