Are 'native' Irish and British the same race?

That is all pseudo-historical Afrocentrism. See your last source? A main contributor of that Afronut site recently got added here:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Egmond_Codfried

Take a look. No one takes these complete quacks serious.

You are a very poor troll.

The image you have posted has nothing to do with English or Irish.

The source is Camper's Über den natürlichen Unterschied der Gesichtszüge. 1792 and the facial angle of 1 - 8 is as follows:

1. tailed monkey, 42º; 2. orangutan, 58º; 3. Angolan Negroid, 70º; 4. Kalmuck Mongoloid, 70º 5. European Caucasoid, 80º; 6. Grecian bust, 90º; 7. Roman bust, 95º, 8. Apollo Belvedere bust, 100º.

No Irish or English.

Duno if it is the same Pól MacAdaim but Pól is a brilliant singer and id reccomend Cíarán Murphy.

Don't worry about the h8ers in this thread mate. Be proud of what you are an stand tall. In my opinion its not where your from or anything that defines you. But your actions define you. And from seeing your posts I reckon you've the makings of a good socialist you will stand by the vulnerable and weak through think and thin!

No there isn't, you are a liar with an Afrocentric agenda.

John Beddoe's ''Africanoids'' are Caucasoids, not Negroids.

''to call it Africanoid [...] the widely diffused Ibero-Berber race type, of which it is probably a subdivision'' (Beddoe, 1885, p. 11)

''Africanoid type [...] maybe a variety of the long barrow race'' (Ibid, p. 13)

''Africanoids'' is just a synonym for the Ibero-Insular or Mediterranid Proper type, absolutely nothing to do with Negroids. It is a Caucasoid racial type.

This is a political piece of propaganda, not anthropological. Its from a 19th century newspaper. It has no basis of truth to it.

There is nothing positive to say to Afrocentric trolls. You guys are distorters and liars. You are self-hating Negroids who hate your real West African roots so will try and claim other races are ''Black''.

You've claimed that the Irish are somehow ''Black'', despite the fact they have no Negroid (''Black'') admixture whatsoever. For example there are no West African haplogroups in the Irish, nor do any morphological or phenotypic Negroid traits show, so your ''Irish = Black'' theory has no element of truth to it. The Irish are Caucasoid, and have no Negroid admixture. If they had the latter it would show up in the genetics and physical anthropology, but they don't.

This is outdated 18th and 19th century political propaganda. Completely irrelevant to science. It was also very common in America to claim certain people had ''black admixture'' to discredit them. For example, Warren G. Harding was said to have Negroid ancestry by his political opponent William Eastabrook Chancellor. Prior to the 1920 election, Chancellor published a small book claiming Harding was mixed race.

Epic fail. Not all Africans are ''Black people''. North Africans for example are Caucasoids (''Whites''), which is who Beddoe's Africanoids are (as he explains pp. 11-13). Africa has been inhabited by many different races since the Palaeolithic. ''Black people'' (Negroids) are merely confined to a small segment of Sub-Sahara Africa. They are not North or East Africans.

Given the fact you spend your time in the ''Black girl appreciation thread'', I presume you are a wigger who likes ''Black'' girls and out of deep insecurity are trying to justify your interracial fetish by claiming Irish are ''Black''...

Note that Mick. w claims the Irish are ''Black'' but then claims he is a white irishman:



Trolls these days...

nothing i said conflicts with this. you should read properly. or perhaps make a point rather than just quoting wikipedia

There are also organisations in Nigeria and India dedicated to helping people who have had the invidious appellation of 'witch' ascribed to them. Something being a social reality does not mean steps should not be taken to eviscerate it, and it shouldn't be necessarily accepted, either. When it was a social reality that all African people were biologically inferior and were only useful as slaves, should society have accepted that state of affairs? Should the pernicious caste system in India be unchallenged?

There is biological variation, yes. Every organism can logically be classed as a 'different breed'.

In the same way different minerals are categorised, other things can be categorised.

They have defining features that make them what they are and form their identity and properties.

Wikipedia which in turn quotes a physical anthropologist. You said "many Irish have brown eyes", which implies a significant proportion have brown eyes; which is false, or else the term "many" is redundant.

Mick, either you a very poor troll or you suffer from amnesia:



Yet only a page back:



Note: ''Africanresouce'' is a Black supremacist website. For the last two pages you have claimed the Irish are ''Black'' or related to ''Black people'' (those can easily go back and check), now suddenly though you claim they are ''White''.

Various properties can be categorised independently, but when viewed together these properties are non-concordant, meaning a universally unambiguous system cannot be formed and it is both a social construct and logical fallacy due to somebody arbitrarily declaring "eye colour is more important than ear length", for example. It is also arbitrary to separate biological continua like skin tones.

Refer to the quotes I presented by Barbujani and Belle (2006), Livingstone (2008)/Maglo (2011) and your very own claim that certain things are 'trivial'. You still haven't justified what makes something trivial.

It depends what we are talking about, to decide if a ''trivial'' characteristic of something makes it a unique, separate thing.

Geographical races (subspecies) are not only found in Homo Sapiens, they are found in all species, even including plants.

If you deny races exist, then you also have to deny species exist, followed by all other taxonomic ranks: genera, phyla, kingdoms - and life itself.

Also you have to deny objects exist. According to you, a hand axe cannot be differentiated from an empty glass. Objects according to you cannot be labeled, or identified as they are all ''arbritary'' as well...

So you are left with solipsism basically.

Quote me when you have something to say that hasn't already been refuted.

Geographical races (subspecies) are not only found in Homo Sapiens, they are found in all species, even including plants.

If you deny races exist, then you also have to deny species exist, followed by all other taxonomic ranks: genera, phyla, kingdoms - and life itself.

Also you have to deny objects exist. According to you, a hand axe cannot be differentiated from an empty glass. Objects according to you cannot be labeled, or identified as they are all ''arbritary'' as well...

So you are left with solipsism basically.

My point is, like minerals can be identified and labelled to be different, so can races. It goes deeper than skin colour though.

You're quite a poor debater and this discussion isn't going anywhere because you keep on repeating yourself without accounting for the logical arguments I am presenting.

Most Norwegians don't feel an affinity with Anders Breivik; I've already told you I choose my friends on the basis of their psychological compatibility alone. People in parts of Nigeria kill their own children because they believe they are witches. Genocides have been committed amongst people who you would classify as being in the same 'group'. You cannot possibly claim it is somehow scientifically meaningful when it is so volatile, indefinite, subjective and principally shaped by surrounding social forces.

How you identify me and how I identify myself are not necessarily concordant.

You haven't refuted anything, just exposed yourself as rejecting science.