Are some xxxs descendants of Armenians?

[Armenian]

Last few years I have been exposed to a lot of ignorant talk within the Armenian community regarding "xxxish roots" of us Armenians. Needless to say, such interpretation of genetic and/or archeological evidence is absurd to say the least. If anything, it is certain xxxs (specifically Ashkenazi xxxs) along with many other nations within the adjoining regions of the Armenian Highlands that have absorbed Armenian genetics and cultural influences.

The following article more-or-less touches upon this subject. Please, if you don't have anything intelligent to state, keep your fingers away for the key board, I would like to see some intelligent commentary by you Armo's.

Armenian

WHO ARE THE MODERN xxxS?

[...]

Like the shape of the skull, the shape and configuration of the nose is another important racial index that was recognized by anthropologist at the turn of the century. It is also another clear sign against the modern xxx's racial claims to be Biblical Israel. It turns out that the so called "xxxish nose" is not xxxish at all, but rather comes from the ancient Hittites, as do also their round skulls. Dr. Fishberg is also the author of the article on the Nose. On the importance of this area as a racial index, the xxxish medical examiner writes: "The relation of the breadth of the nose to its length, known as the `nasal index,' has been considered one of the best means of distinguishing the various races of mankind" (xxx. Enc. IX (1905), 339). Fishberg proceeds to present a table of the nasal indexes of the modern xxxs. Their marked similarity to one another and peculiarity to others again predominates in this table. Joseph Jacobs, in his article on Anthropology, also mentioned the peculiarity of the xxxish nose, stating: "The nose is generally the characteristic feature of the xxxs, who have, on the average, the longest (77 ram) and narrowest (34 mm)" (xxx. Enc. I (1901), 619).

In attempting to address this peculiarity, Fishberg presents some of the current thinking circulating among the anthropologist of his day. He writes: "Some authors show that this form of nose is not characteristically Semitic, became the modern non-xxxish Semites, particularly such as are supposed to have maintained themselves in a pure state, as the bedouin Arabs, do not possess this characteristic nose at all Their noses are as a rule short, straight, and often 'snub' or concave. Luschan holds that the hook-nose is by no means characteristic of the Semites, and contends that the number of arched noses that are found among the xxxs is due to ancient intermixture with the Hittites in Asia Minor. He shows that other races also, as the Armenian, for instance, who have a good portion of Hittite blood in their veins, have hook-noses" (xxx. Enc. IX (1905), 338). Thus, the notorious "xxxish" hook-nose is another clear sign to the true racial origins of the modern xxxs

[...]

According to all the racial indicators recognized by leading anthropologist at the turn of the century, the modern xxxs have more in common with the ancient Hittites, than with the ancient Israelites. In another early publication written about the same time, this statement is found in the article on the Hittites: "The human type is always brachycephalic [round-headed], with brow receding sharply and long nose making almost one line with the sloping forehead. In the sculptures of the Commagene and the Tyana districts, the nose has a long curving tip, of very xxxish appearance" (Enc. Brit. XIII (1910), 537).

It should be evidently now that the round-headed hook-nosed xxxs of today have a definite racial connection with the ancient Hittites, remembering or course what Joseph Jacobs wrote: "Some anthropologists are inclined to associate the racial origins of the xxxs, not with the Semites, whose language they adopted, but with the Armenians and Hittites of Mesopotamia, whose broad skulls and cuffed noses they appear to have inherited" (xxx. Enc. X (1903), 264). Moreover, a portrait of one of these Hittites taken from a sculptural relief found on the tomb of an Egyptian Pharaoh clearly reveals what looks like a typical modern xxx (xxx. Enc. VI (1904), 427). The resemblance is so startling it is uncanny! In light of this, and all the other scientific evidence, confirmed and verified, it should be enough to convince any rational person that the modern xxxs are standing on very shaky ground in their racial claims to be descendants of Biblical Israel. If you don't believe me just read The xxxish Encyclopedia, remembering of course that there is nothing anti-Semitic about it. After all, the Hittites were not Semites at all. hittites.htm

Source: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/hittites.htm

[Sip]

:laugh: biblebelievers.org :D :D :D :D

Wouldn't biblebelievers believe everyone is a descendent of Noah?

[Yuro]

I don't have a hook nose...that must mean I don't have xxx blood. Go son!!!

Woops, was that a stupid comment? Oh well, mistakes happen. :)

[Hayq]

i never fully truely understood what the hell a hooked nose is...IMAGES PLEASE!

[Armenian]

i never fully truely understood what the hell a hooked nose is...IMAGES PLEASE!

A "hooked nose" is actually a very poor description that many in the west use to describe noses that are high nasal bridged or curved. The aforementioned type of nose is shared by many Armenians, Greeks and Italians who inherited the genetic characteristic primarily from Greco-Romans.

[Tigranes]

So the ugliest of xxxs, the most stereotypical ones are like that because they have Armenian blood eh ?

Here's an unpure xxx with Armenian genes according to that article:

http://www.luc.edu/depts/history/dennis/Visual_Arts/17-Totalitarian-Anti-Semitic-3-Der-Ewige-Jude-1937.jpg


http://krisyatnik.narod.ru/r5.jpg

"Ashkenazim xxxs are a hybrid race by long interbreeding, their ethnicities being Armenid/Arab, also referred to by some as Armenid/Hittite/Assyrian/Arab, aka Armenid/Orientalid. According to Oxford University's Dr. John R. Baker, "the evidence from blood-groups bears on the theory that the Ashkenazim have both Armenids and Orientalids ["Orientalids" is Dr. Baker's word for Arabs] for ancestors." -- from Baker's book Race, [see below], page 242, hardcover"

"The other type of xxx is the Sephardim, also known as "Mediterranean," or "Spanish," or "Portuguese," or "North African" xxxs. These xxxs lived mostly near the Mediterranean Sea. Sephardim xxxs also lived in Iraq (Babylon), Syria, Greece, Turkey, and in the Americas, especially South America. Furthermore, Sephardic xxxs lived in Palestine long before the European Zionist movement. Sephardim are more closely related to Arabs, while Ashkenazim are more related to Orientalid/Armenid"

"Luschan holds that the hook-nose is by no means characteristic of the Semites, and contends that the number of arched noses that are found among the xxxs is due to ancient mixture with the Hittites in Asia Minor."

"The most important problem suggested by a study of craniometrical results concerning xxxs is the relation of the type head of the modern xxxs to that of the ancient Hebrews and to the modern Semitic skulls. The pure Semitic skull is dolichocephalic [long-headed], as may be seen from a study of the heads of modern Arabs, Abyssinians, Syrians .... The only way the type of the head may change is by intermixture with other races. If the ancient Hebrews were of the same stock as the modern non-xxxish Semites, and if the modern xxxs are their descendants, then a pure dolichocephalic type of head would be expected among the xxxs"

[Armenian]

Herr Tigran (the name is Tigran don’t corrupt it):

It was as if you were reading my mind. I was just about to ask you to make a comment.

Nevertheless, using your logic, would you also apply your comment to Etruscans, Hittites, Minoans, Persians, Greeks, Italians, Spaniards, French and English. All of the aforementioned nations have high rates of curved noses as well (if you dont believe me visit a museum at check out some ancient sculptures and paintings).

Thus, according to you, it is the xxx that has given us all big noses. Therefore, accoriding to you, any Armenian who has a curved nose ( and I am not one of them) is a mongrel. Right??? How pathetic!

The stupid picture you posted is that of an inbred xxx, NOT an Armenian. The Armenian/Hittite "eagle nose" is aristocratic, there is nothing ugly or xxxISH about a prominant nose.

[Armenian]

Oh, I almost forgot.

The stupid article you posted is nothing but racist psychobabble that isn't even worth the paper it is written on.

Let us see how far you will get in life believing in ugly fairytales.

[Anonymouse]

"Armenid".

What is this hogwash? There is no such thing as Armenid or Armenoid.

I think most of you are ignoring the fact that majority of the worlds xxxs, called Ashkenazi xxxs, are descendants of the Khazarian tribes who settled in Eastern Europe/Caucuses, and intermixed with the people, and thus are the xxxs whom we call "white". The Sephardic xxxs are the Arabic xxxs.

For further information read Arthor Koestler's "The Thirteenth Tribe" or "History of Edom and Khazaria" by Melchizedek Y. Lewis, or an even better "The xxxs of Khazaria" by Kevin Alan Brook.

[Tigranes]

Herr Tigran (the name is Tigran don’t corrupt it):

It was as if you were reading my mind. I was just about to ask you to make a comment.

Nevertheless, using your logic, would you also apply your comment to Etruscans, Hittites, Minoans, Persians, Greeks, Italians, Spaniards, French and English. All of the aforementioned nations have high rates of curved noses as well (if you dont believe me visit a museum at check out some ancient sculptures and paintings).

Thus, according to you, it is the xxx that has given us all big noses. Therefore, accoriding to you, any Armenian who has a curved nose ( and I am not one of them) is a mongrel. Right??? How pathetic!

The stupid picture you posted is that of an inbred xxx, NOT an Armenian. The Armenian/Hittite "eagle nose" is aristocratic, there is nothing ugly or xxxISH about a prominant nose.


Tigranes is most likely the proper name while Tigran is just a Persianized version :D

You are asking me questions when you already know my responses.

I have no problems with the racial types common among the non-IE Etruscans, Minoans, Hurro-Urartians etc. Nor do I have a problem with the phenotypes of South Brits, French, Spaniards or any other European people with a prominent or a convex nose. Hell most classic Roman Emperors had a convex nose so did most rulers of the Hittites.
I have a pretty prominent nose myself.

Nevertheless, I do not consider anyone with a hook nose (quite different from a convex "Roman" nose), fat lips, unibrows and so on to be Armenian or any other IE or Europoid person. Examples: Aram Khachatryan or Frunzik Mkrtchyan.

They don't have to be xxxish mongrels, they can be iranian, arab, hindu etc. mongrels.

[Tigranes]

Oh, I almost forgot.

The stupid article you posted is nothing but racist psychobabble that isn't even worth the paper it is written on.

Let us see how far you will get in life believing in ugly fairytales.

Freudian slip?
You mean the excerpts above? They pretty much state the same garbage you spouted in this thread. You are right though, they are fairytales.

What exactly is your problem with racialists(non-supremacist)?

[Tigranes]

"Armenid".

What is this hogwash? There is no such thing as Armenid or Armenoid.


I agree Arman. The types commonly referred to by the above designations are simply mongrelized bastards and not a distinct subrace.

[Anonymouse]

I know an Italian who has a uni/monobrow, he used to get teased because of it and then one day he came to school and he had no more mono-brow. (Turns out he shaved it. LMAO.)
Anyway, according to your logic he is not european? :confused:

Italy, like Spain, contains a composite of racial types. The southern part of Italy has a darker complexion because at one time the Moors ruled Sicily and souther parts of Italy, and that would explain while some Italians look more Mediterranean, resemling some Arabs or Armenians. The northern part of Italy was conquered by a Germanic tribe called the Lombards who had light hair and light eyes and when you go to northern Italy you will see a stark contrast from southern Italy. In other words, the effects of racial mixing destroyed the original Romans who created the Roman empire and where replaced by different peoples. Northern Italy is also where the Renaissance began, and to anyone who believes that races and the degree of purity do not matter, then they do not need to be bothered with. Spain likewise was occupied by the Moors, but then reconquered by the Gothic descendents found in Ferdinand and Isabella.

[Tigranes]

I know an Italian who has a uni/monobrow, he used to get teased because of it and then one day he came to school and he had no more mono-brow. (Turns out he shaved it. LMAO.)
Anyway, according to your logic he is not european? :confused:

Yeap. Most likely a saracen/moor leftover...
Although if that's the only non-White feature he may be assimilable.

[Tigranes]

Italy, like Spain, contains a composite of racial types. The southern part of Italy has a darker complexion because at one time the Moors ruled Sicily and souther parts of Italy, and that would explain while some Italians look more Mediterranean, resemling some Arabs or Armenians. The northern part of Italy was conquered by a Germanic tribe called the Lombards who had light hair and light eyes and when you go to northern Italy you will see a stark contrast from southern Italy. In other words, the effects of racial mixing destroyed the original Romans who created the Roman empire and where replaced by different peoples. Northern Italy is also where the Renaissance began, and to anyone who believes that races and the degree of purity do not matter, then they do not need to be bothered with. Spain likewise was occupied by the Moors, but then reconquered by the Gothic descendents found in Ferdinand and Isabella.


BRAVISSIMO!!!
There are many Roman types though in Central Italy, although not as many as there should be :(
Still the overwhelming majority of Italians are White, including Sicillians.

[Armenian]

Tigranes is most likely the proper name while Tigran is just a Persianized version :D

You are asking me questions when you already know my responses.

I have no problems with the racial types common among the non-IE Etruscans, Minoans, Hurro-Urartians etc. Nor do I have a problem with the phenotypes of South Brits, French, Spaniards or any other European people with a prominent or a convex nose. Hell most classic Roman Emperors had a convex nose so did most rulers of the Hittites.
I have a pretty prominent nose myself.

Nevertheless, I do not consider anyone with a hook nose (quite different from a convex "Roman" nose), fat lips, unibrows and so on to be Armenian or any other IE or Europoid person. Examples: Aram Khachatryan or Frunzik Mkrtchyan. They don't have to be xxxish mongrels, they can be iranian, arab, hindu etc. mongrels.

Maybe this is new to you but Tigran IS A PERSIAN NAME!!! :evil:

Thank God you don’t have any "problems with the racial types types common among the non-IE Etruscans, Minoans, Hurro-Urartians etc." And thank God that you do not "have a problem with the phenotypes of South Brits, French, Spaniards or any other European people with a prominent or a convex nose." And thank God that you have realized that "most classic Roman Emperors had a convex nose so did most rulers of the Hittites."

And a million thanks to God that you "have a pretty prominent nose" as well. :D

You see, I have a very small and straight nose - a very sexy one if I may add. Thus, henceforth, I reserve the right to bring up your biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig nose every time you piss me off. :evil:

Nevertheless, I agree that the term "hooked nose" is a bad description and does not apply to "prominent" or "curved" Armenian, Greco-Roman and/or Hittite noses. The "fat lips" part I fully agree with you. And I do agree with you that Aram Khachatryan and Frunzik Mkrtchyan (and don’t forget Paruir Sevak) do not represent the typical Armenian phenotype. Nevertheless, that is irrelevant to me because these were great men and need to be respected by all Armenians.

Nevertheless, don’t you F*** with the uni-browed Armenians!!! :mad:

Hell, we are a vast majority (specially when you include in the count those who pluck as well). Heck, even most southern Europeans have unibrows. Having unibrows, along with having abundant body hair and prominent noses is unique to the ancient Anatolian landscape and has nothing to do with being mongrels. :mad:

You see Herr Tigran, you were sounding smart until you made that stupid "unibrow" comment. Again, you have just gone way over board with your racist obsession. :mad:

[Anonymouse]

Wow, looky looky, all these "racialists" trying to find expression on a forum.

Perhaps I can refer the readers to the former thread we had about race, which was sadly closed due to some anti-intellectual currents.

http://forum.armenianclub.com/showthread.php?t=2328

[Tigranes]

Maybe this is new to you but Tigran IS A PERSIAN NAME!!! :evil:


Hahaha.
True :)
I can't believe you admitted that though.


You see, I have a very small and straight nose - a very sexy one if I may add. Thus, henceforth, I reserve the right to bring up your biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig nose every time you piss me off. :evil:

It's not big, it's just prominent and extremely sexy and very straight ;)

Nevertheless, I agree that the term "hooked nose" is a bad description and does not apply to "prominent" or "curved" Armenian, Greco-Roman and/or Hittite noses. The "fat lips" part I fully agree with you. And I do agree with you that Aram Khachatryan and Frunzik Mkrtchyan (and don’t forget Paruir Sevak) do not represent the typical Armenian phenotype. Nevertheless, that is irrelevant to me because these were great men and need to be respected by all Armenians.

Well aren't you full of surprises?

Nevertheless, don’t you F*** with the uni-browed Armenians!!! :mad:

Hell, we are a vast majority (specially when you include in the count those who pluck as well). Heck, even most southern Europeans have unibrows. Having unibrows, along with having abundant body hair and prominent noses is unique to the ancient Anatolian landscape and has nothing to do with being mongrels. :mad:

To each their own I guess.

You see Herr Tigran, you were sounding smart until you made that stupid "unibrow" comment. Again, you have just gone way over board with your racist obsession. :mad:

Boo hooo.
I'm a RACIST!!!! Capiche? Attempting to insult me by calling me a racist is laughable.

[Anonymouse]

I agree Arman. The types commonly referred to by the above designations are simply mongrelized bastards and not a distinct subrace.

By the way, who are you and how do you know my name?

[Tigranes]

By the way, who are you and how do you know my name?


We don't know eachother. I just saw others calling you Arman here...

[Tigranes]

Anyway, I need sleep being on the East Coast...

Armenian, you have to admit though that your stance on these recurring matters have changed drastically over the past year or so and that's why you seem to "understand" mine better these days.

[Armenian]

"Armenid".

What is this hogwash? There is no such thing as Armenid or Armenoid.

I think most of you are ignoring the fact that majority of the worlds xxxs, called Ashkenazi xxxs, are descendants of the Khazarian tribes who settled in Eastern Europe/Caucuses, and intermixed with the people, and thus are the xxxs whom we call "white". The Sephardic xxxs are the Arabic xxxs.

Agree with you regarding your Armenoid/Armenid comment. And, I am well aware of the "Khazar" origins of certain xxxs. However, this thread addresses an entirely different topic. Nevertheless, the article below, which appeared within the xxx York Times not too long ago, deals with the issue you brought up. In final thought, xxxs today (the xxxish establishment and not the average street Shlomo) are just a bunch of freeloading, anti-Armenian, anti-Christian, anti-gentile, paranoid, neurotic, mongrels.

There is nothing similar between us Armenians and xxxs.

Armenian

Geneticists Report Finding Central Asian Link to Levites

By NICHOLAS WADE

New York Times: Published: September 27, 2003
A team of geneticists studying the ancestry of xxxish communities has found an unusual genetic signature that occurs in more than half the Levites of Ashkenazi descent. The signature is thought to have originated in Central Asia, not the Near East, which is the ancestral home of xxxs. The finding raises the question of how the signature became so widespread among the Levites, an ancient caste of hereditary xxxish priests.

The genetic signature occurs on the male or Y chromosome and comes from a few men, or perhaps a single ancestor, who lived about 1,000 years ago, just as the Ashkenazim were beginning to be established in Europe. Ashkenazim, from whom most American xxxs descend, are one of the two main branches of xxxs, the other being the Sephardim, whose ancestors were expelled from Spain. The new report, published in the current issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics, was prepared by population geneticists in Israel, the United States and England, who have been studying the genetics of xxxish communities for the last six years.

They say that 52 percent of Levites of Ashkenazi origin have a particular genetic signature that originated in Central Asia, although it is also found less frequently in the Middle East. The ancestor who introduced it into the Ashkenazi Levites could perhaps have been from the Khazars, a Turkic tribe whose king converted to Judaism in the eighth or ninth century, the researchers suggest. Their reasoning is that the signature, a set of DNA variations known as R1a1, is common in the region north of Georgia that was once occupied by the Khazar kingdom. The signature did reach the Near East, probably before the founding of the xxxish community, but it is still rare there. The scholars say they cannot exclude the possibility that a xxxish founder brought the signature on his Y chromosome to the Ashkenazi population, but they consider that a less likely explanation.

The present descendants of the Khazars have not been identified. Dr. Michael Hammer of the University of Arizona, one of the authors of the report, said he was looking among the Chuvash, a Turkic-speaking people of the Volga Valley, to see if they might have contributed the R1a1 signature. Dr. Shaye Cohen, professor of Hebrew literature and philosophy at Harvard University, said he could see no problem with outsiders being converted to the xxxish community. He said he considered it less probable, however, that outsiders would become Levites, let alone founding members of the Levite community in Europe. The connection with the Khazars is "all hypothesis," he said.

Even if the Khazar hypothesis is correct, it would have no practical effect on who is a Levite today. "Genetics is not a reality under rabbinic law," Dr. Cohen said. "Second, the function of Levites is so minimal it doesn't mean anything." Six years ago Dr. Hammer and Dr. Karl Skorecki, of the Technion and Rambam Medical Center in Haifa, looked at the Y chromosomes of both Levites and Cohanim. Both are hereditary priesthoods passed from father to son. They were important in ancient Israel, but sometime between 200 B.C. and A.D. 500 their functions were taken over by rabbis, and xxxish status came to be defined by the biologically more reliable standard of maternal descent.

If the patrilineal descent of the two priestly castes had indeed been followed as tradition describes, then all Cohanim should be descended from Aaron, the brother of Moses, and all Levites from Levi, the third son of the patriarch Jacob. Dr. Hammer and Dr. Skorecki found that more than half the Cohanim, in both the Ashkenazi and Sephardi communities, did indeed carry the same genetic signature on their Y chromosome. Their ancestor lived some 3,000 years ago, based on genetic calculations, and may indeed have been Aaron, Dr. Skorecki said. But the picture among the Levites was less clear, suggesting that they had a mixed ancestry. Dr. Hammer and Dr. Skorecki returned to the puzzle for their new report, based on data gathered from nearly 1,000 men of Ashkenazi and Sephardi origin and neighboring non-xxxish populations.

They found that the dominant signature among the Levites was the R1a1 signature, which is different from the Cohanim signature. The paternal ancestry of the Ashkenazi and Sephardic Levites is different, unlike the Cohanim from the two branches, who resemble each other and presumably originated before the two branches split. And the ancestor of the R1a1 signature apparently lived 2,000 years more recently than the founder of the Cohanim signature. The Levites' pedigree does not seem to accord with tradition as well as the Cohanim one does but is venerable nonetheless. "How many people can trace their ancestry back to the 17th century, let alone a thousand years?" Dr. Hammer said.

Source: http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001070.html

[Armenian]

Armenian, you have to admit though that your stance on these recurring matters have changed drastically over the past year or so and that's why you seem to "understand" mine better these days.


Hmmm... lemmi see now! What - have - I - learned - from - you - during - the - past - year - or - so...???

Hmmm... lemmi think...

Oh, I remember now!

I learned that:

All Armenians were once blonde and blue eyed.

All dark eyed and dark haired Armenians are mongrels worthy of death.

Any Armenian who has a "unibrowed" and/or anything less than the beautiful European "Pink" complexion deserves to die.

Any Armenian with a hooked nose is a lowlife mongrel that deserves to die.

Armenians originated within Europe and anyone who claims that Armenians originated in Asia Minor deserves to die.

Europeans are Armenia's best friends and any one who does not agree with you deserves to die.

Any Armenian who eats hummus and listen to Arabic music is not an Armenian and, thus, deserves to die.

I DON’T THINK SO

I have a feeling that you became <<hopeful>> when I admitted that Armenians like Frunzik, Sevak and Khachatrian do not genetically represent our race. However, I am sorry to burst your White Nationalist bubble, I have realized this since my early childhood. Nevertheless, I think that it is you that has in actuality toned down the obsessive racist rhetoric during the past year-or-so. By-the-way, there is nothing wrong with being a racist. All proud nations are ethno-centric or racists to a certian degree. I have a problem with <<obsessive>> and <<destructive>> racism.

As I have stated to you in the past within a couple of other forums, I, generally speaking, agree with your ideology regarding politics, race and culture. Nevertheless, some technical aspects, such as your obsessive formulations concerning where we Armenians originated or how we Armenians have acquired "hooked noses" an/or "unibrows" are utterly nonsensical and self-destructive.

For example: Instead of facing genetic and archeological facts regarding physical characteristics of us Armenians, you resort to turning any Armenian that does not fit your Euro-centric narrow ideal into a ugly mongrel. The simple fact remains that the origination of the prominent/curved nose and abundant body hair, along with the "unibrow" lies, within Anatolia and not within Africa, Arabia, Asia or Europe.

Is abundant body hair and a big nose (one like yours :D ) a pretty thing to have? The answer is no. However, it doesn't mean that Armenians who do have those genetic traits are mongrels. You have your priorities and perspective all mixed up.

Moreover, having observed you for about a year now, I can tell you that it is fundamentally your 'hateful and vulgar deliverance' that turns me off to you. Everything else, I agree with.

[Tigranes]

I learned that:

All Armenians were once blonde and blue eyed.

As usual I never claimed any of this.
I have said that there were more Armenians with such morphology in the not so distant past than there are now.

All dark eyed and dark haired Armenians are mongrels worthy of death.

:rolleyes:
Wtf?

Any Armenian who has a "unibrowed" and/or anything less than the beautiful European "Pink" complexion deserves to die.

More :rolleyes:

Any Armenian with a hooked nose is a lowlife mongrel that deserves to die.

I don't know about the deserves to die part but yeah...
I don't want them executed. I want acknowledgment that they are not Armenian and reduce their numbers gradually by ending race mixing.

Armenians originated within Europe and anyone who claims that Armenians originated in Asia Minor deserves to die.

Stupid...
Never ever have I said that Armenians originated in Europe but Armenians DID NOT originate Asia Minor. It's a combination of both...

Europeans are Armenia's best friends and any one who does not agree with you deserves to die.

Ok.

Any Armenian who eats hummus and listen to Arabic music is not an Armenian and, thus, deserves to die.

Signed :)


I have a feeling that you became <<hopeful>> when I admitted that Armenians like Frunzik, Sevak and Khachatrian do not genetically represent our race. However, I am sorry to burst your White Nationalist bubble, I have realized this since my early childhood.

Good for you. I was actually talking about your semantics and behaviour on SF...

Nevertheless, I think that it is you that has in actuality toned down the obsessive racist rhetoric during the past year-or-so. By-the-way, there is nothing wrong with being a racist. All proud nations are ethno-centric or racists to a certian degree. I have a problem with <<obsessive>> and <<destructive>> racism.

You can be the moderate racist :laugh:
Yeah i'm aggressive, everyone needs their radicals...

As I have stated to you in the past within a couple of other forums, I, generally speaking, agree with your ideology regarding politics, race and culture. Nevertheless, some technical aspects, such as your obsessive formulations concerning where we Armenians originated or how we Armenians have acquired "hooked noses" an/or "unibrows" are utterly nonsensical and self-destructive.

I can say the exact same thing about you! I'm not going to let you or anyone else present fairy tales as facts. I'm not the one spamming forums with the same things over and over either, talk about obsessive.
You never ever bothered to actually argue...ready when you are.

For example: Instead of facing genetic and archeological facts regarding physical characteristics of us Armenians, you resort to turning any Armenian that does not fit your Euro-centric narrow ideal into a ugly mongrel.

Nothing of the sort. I have enough evidence to back up my assertions...
I am Euroentric.

The simple fact remains that the origination of the prominent/curved nose and abundant body hair, along with the "unibrow" lies, within Anatolia and not within Africa, Arabia, Asia or Europe.

That's fine and dandy...Still I will never accept any unibrowed hook nosed freak as my kin regardless of their contributions.

Is abundant body hair and a big nose (one like yours :D ) a pretty thing to have? The answer is no. However, it doesn't mean that Armenians who do have those genetic traits are mongrels. You have your priorities and perspective all mixed up.

You clearly stated that the examples I povided are not biologically Armenian so wtf are you talking about?

Moreover, having observed you for about a year now, I can tell you that it is fundamentally your 'hateful and vulgar deliverance' that turns me off to you. Everything else, I agree with.

Well, you're not my bride you know...

[nunechka]

one of my close friends is half xxx and half armenian... his mommy is armenian... anywho, he looks like a typical armenian, but when i found out he was half xxx, i thought, you look like a xxx too... but now i notice that armenians and xxxs look alike...

anywho i dont know if one is a decendent of the other, but we can agree that the way someone looks is mainly based on the region of the globe their ancestors came from. so it may be that we all just lived in similar environments and so we look more alike then different.

i have a little nose that points UP but my eyes are the typical armenian eyes (big, round)... so what does this mean??? nothing, my father's side of the family has big round eyes and my mother's they have the slim nose, both of my parents look like typical armenians...

when i think of physical characteristics, i think of climate, environment, etc... the less those people mix with others from completely different parts of the globe the less they will look different from their ancestors...

i dont know how we can say that they are decendents of armenians, i think they are as original as armenians...

here is something to think about:
Hay
Hrya
Huyn
Hittie

for some reason in our lanugage, these people's cultural identities are only a few sounds different... i am not making a bold statement here, i just want to know why? i think it has something to do with how connected we are to each other.

[MadHandle]

Tigranes is most likely the proper name while Tigran is just a Persianized version :D

You are asking me questions when you already know my responses.

I have no problems with the racial types common among the non-IE Etruscans, Minoans, Hurro-Urartians etc. Nor do I have a problem with the phenotypes of South Brits, French, Spaniards or any other European people with a prominent or a convex nose. Hell most classic Roman Emperors had a convex nose so did most rulers of the Hittites.
I have a pretty prominent nose myself.

Nevertheless, I do not consider anyone with a hook nose (quite different from a convex "Roman" nose), fat lips, unibrows and so on to be Armenian or any other IE or Europoid person. Examples: Aram Khachatryan or Frunzik Mkrtchyan.

They don't have to be xxxish mongrels, they can be iranian, arab, hindu etc. mongrels.

:laugh: you got issues...I don't even know how you call yourself Armenian with statements like that...

[zeen!]

http://forums.torontoteams.com/viewtopic.php?t=684&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=180

read the message I wrote on this site...
We love bashing armenians on this site

and the best part I'm turkish..and the rest are Armenian they bash Armenians even more than I do..
ahhaahahahaahahahaha :D

[CatWoman]

I really didn't see that much bashing, then again there are 18 pages to it and I don't feel like reading them all.

But I suggest you get a life instead!
Oh and :wave: go back to your forum...

[CatWoman]

I don't know about this whole xxx thing, I mean if the anthropologist say they are, who am I to argue? But is it really important, I mean they're xxxs NOW and we're Armenian.

Also if Adam and Eve were the first humans, then were all distant cousins, LOL. :D

[nunechka]

oh no not you again.
with your "armenians and xxxs are "connected" cuz both words Hay and Hrya start with an H."
lol
your obtuseness amazes me.


gaucho if you read what i wrote you would see that i said that we are not connected!!!

[Armenian]

Italy, like Spain, contains a composite of racial types. The southern part of Italy has a darker complexion because at one time the Moors ruled Sicily and souther parts of Italy, and that would explain while some Italians look more Mediterranean, resemling some Arabs or Armenians. The northern part of Italy was conquered by a Germanic tribe called the Lombards who had light hair and light eyes and when you go to northern Italy you will see a stark contrast from southern Italy. In other words, the effects of racial mixing destroyed the original Romans who created the Roman empire and where replaced by different peoples. Northern Italy is also where the Renaissance began, and to anyone who believes that races and the degree of purity do not matter, then they do not need to be bothered with. Spain likewise was occupied by the Moors, but then reconquered by the Gothic descendents found in Ferdinand and Isabella.

I apologize for the late reply, I just noticed that I have a little problem with this statement of yours.

The reason why Italians for instance have darker complexion than Scandinavians has nothing to do with mixing with non-Europeans. The genetic core of all Italians are Greco-Roman and Etruscan. Physically, Greco-Romans and Etruscans tended to be predominantly dark haired and dark eyed brunettes, take a close look at their self-depictions upon ancient murals and paintings (especially Greek pottery).

Genetically, Greco-Romans, Etruscans and various Anatolian nations such as the Hittites, Sumerians and the Urartians were generally speaking Mediterranean/Alpine types (two of the four or five major sub-groups of the white race). The Mediterranean/Alpine type tends to be darker pigmented when compared to his/her Nordic brethren (another sub-group of the white race). According to biologists and geneticists, the differences in pigmentation and even certain physical composition of various European nations are due to climate factors and environmental stresses.

Blonde haired and blue eyed Nordics are only a sub-group within the greater Caucasian/white race. Thus, blondes do not set any standards for being Caucasian/white. However, it is unfortunate that since the early twentieth century the Nordic type has managed to high-jack the representation of Caucasian/white race. Incidentally, peoples of northern Europe have an admixture. This northern European admixture is Asiatic (Turanid, Bulgar, Hun, Mongol, Sami, ect.) and that is precisely why many northern Europeans have the high cheek bones, narrow eyes and lack of body hair.

Nevertheless, you are right that a north African admixture did enter the Italian peninsula. However, this occurred more-or-less during the classical period and in relatively small numbers. Modern genetic surveys reveal around five to ten percent north African admixture within Southern Europe and the Britannic Isles. However, there is five to twenty-five percent Asiatic admixture within northern and eastern Europe. I may be wrong, but I think we Armenians do not have any significant African and/or Asiatic admixture within our nation. However, we do have a bit of Mesopotamian admixture - by way of Assyrians I presume.

In final thought, northern European Caucasians look lighter than southern European Caucasians not only because of climatic and environmental stresses, as I previously mentioned, but also because their "Asiatic" admixture which also tended to be light skinned Asian. Please, realize that there are no "pure" nations, especially within Eurasia. There are nations, however, that have a relatively less admixture than others. The least mixed peoples on earth only exist within the remotest areas of Africa, south America and south eastern Asia.

[IAmMadAtAC]

I may be wrong, but I think we Armenians do not have any significant African and/or Asiatic admixture within our nation. However, we do have a bit of Mesopotamian admixture - by way of Assyrians I presume.

According to biology, and I should know because I just took my final in it, the best theory on humans is that we came "out of Africa" and then moved all around. So I think we all have a littel African in us, so to speak, way back then billions of years ago, and how far away we got from it into various other climates determined how "less African" we got. Armenia (make that Anatolian Plateau) isn't that far from Africa so it's not surprising for us to be darker than say British and such. That can be an explanation on why we are somewhat dark people overall, though there are lots of theories on who Armenians came from. Mostly likely that's because of the many groups that intermarried with us over the years, everything from Mongols and Turks, all sorts of Caucausus and Anatolian peoples, the occasional Arabs and such (and there were ancient xxxish settlements found in Armenia so don't rule out xxxish ancestors). When you really think about ancestry, we have so many of them that it gets mind-boggling and we could have all kinds of nationalities hiding back there. We have 32 great-great-grandparents alone, 64 great-great-great-grandparents, 128 great-great-great-great-grandparents, and it keeps doubling! So if you go back a couple hundred years, it's very unlikely that every single one is pure Armenian every time.

[Thai-Samurai]

That expanded my mind. Especially the way you laid out looking back.

[Armenian]

According to biology, and I should know because I just took my final in it, the best theory on humans is that we came "out of Africa" and then moved all around.

I do not believe in this theory which has been forced upon us all for several years now. There is no fossil evidence suggesting what you said to be true. The only so-called "hominid" fossils that have been unearthed in Africa are that of extinct apes - not humans.

I sincerely believe that humans developed or were created within Asia Minor - more specifically Caucasus. Therefore, further out you go from the Caucasus - the less Armenian you look. :laugh:

Nevertheless, your African theory has so baring on the topic at hand.

[IAmMadAtAC]

1. Take a biology course and learn about the subject before discounting it. "Theories" as they are known in science are not random guesses but rational explanations backed up by known facts. You saying things like "I don't believe the fossils" gives no actual background or proof as to why this was wrong. Secondly...


I sincerely believe that humans... were created within Asia Minor.

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that he will attack evolution based on "lack of evidence", and yet believes humans were created in their current forms?! You absolutely cannot say evolution has no proof, which it does, and yet advocate creationism instead which has absolutely no proof beyond the Bible. I am not saying it didn't happen, but if we are going on this based on "proof", evolution has a lot more going for it.

Nevertheless, your African theory has so baring on the topic at hand.
Yes it did, I was explaining reasons for the differences in races.

[pezeveng]

http://www.haruth.com/xxxsArmenia.html

dont know if anyone has already posted this too lazy to check.

[Armenian]

1. Take a biology course and learn about the subject before discounting it. "Theories" as they are known in science are not random guesses but rational explanations backed up by known facts. You saying things like "I don't believe the fossils" gives no actual background or proof as to why this was wrong. Secondly...

Since I am much older than you I can confidently state that I have taken enough biology, chemistry and physics courses in my life to know that evolution is just a hoax forced upon unsuspecting "sheeple" and that Darwin was a hallucinatory lunatic and so are his followers.

There is absolutely no fossil evidence that even remotely suggests that evolution is a reality. On the contrary, the fossil evidence suggests that species have suddenly appeared and disappeared throughout primordial history. The theory of "evolution" as taught, in other words organism jumping for one species to the next, is against all laws of nature and logic. Evolution simply cannot occur within this universe without am intelligent source guiding it.

You may want to believe that your forefather were monkeys, but they were not. Man did not evolve from little monkeys; little monkeys did not evolve form little fury creatures; little fury creatures did not evolve for little slimy amphibians; little slimy amphibians did not evolve from little fish; little fish did not evolve from little plankton; little plankton did not evolve from little ameba; little ameba did not evolve from inorganic elements in a primordial ocean soup. Evolution simply can not take place within this universe - it is as simple as that.

Until science gives mankind a better explanation as to how life developed on earth, I am going to continue believing in a universal creator God. The tooth fairy has more evidence behind it than the theory of evolution. Nevertheless, this thread has nothing to do with evolution, or monkeys in Africa, if you want to promote lies as reality, start your own thread.

[IAmMadAtAC]

On the contrary, the fossil evidence suggests that species have suddenly appeared and disappeared throughout primordial history. The theory of "evolution" as taught, in other words organism jumping for one species to the next, is against all laws of nature and logic. Evolution simply cannot occur within this universe without am intelligent source guiding it.


Oh come on! First of all there is much in the fossil record that shows the development of various things that slowly caused animals to change. Look what you just suggested though, throughout history species appeared and disappeared. Are you to suggest that there was not one but many creation events?! Does this mean every time a new species arose it neede to be created and just appeared? So one day a fish just appeared in the ocean, another day a rhinocerous just appeared, then another day a elephant appeared, another day a monkey came out of nowhere?! If that's the case, why have, throughout recorded history, there been absolutely no recorded incidents of animals spontaneously appearing? How do you also explain the fact that humans and monkies share 99.9% of the same DNA, and that there is DNA showing common descent of all the different species and similarities amongst them all. There are many signs of evolution, not least of which is that all mammals have tails (yes humans have a tailbone, the bit that's left of it). Why would humans be created with a useless tailbone that seems to be clear evidence as it to be the remnant of a tail that evolved away.

[Armenian]

Oh come on! Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Darwin, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, tailbone, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, monkey, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

I said: Start your own thread and I will meet you there!

[Anonymouse]

Oh come on! First of all there is much in the fossil record that shows the development of various things that slowly caused animals to change. Look what you just suggested though, throughout history species appeared and disappeared. Are you to suggest that there was not one but many creation events?! Does this mean every time a new species arose it neede to be created and just appeared? So one day a fish just appeared in the ocean, another day a rhinocerous just appeared, then another day a elephant appeared, another day a monkey came out of nowhere?! If that's the case, why have, throughout recorded history, there been absolutely no recorded incidents of animals spontaneously appearing? How do you also explain the fact that humans and monkies share 99.9% of the same DNA, and that there is DNA showing common descent of all the different species and similarities amongst them all. There are many signs of evolution, not least of which is that all mammals have tails (yes humans have a tailbone, the bit that's left of it). Why would humans be created with a useless tailbone that seems to be clear evidence as it to be the remnant of a tail that evolved away.

The fossil record doesn't show anything other than what evolutionists want to believe it shows. There is no evidence that species evolved as there were no intermediate forms. Darwin spoke of a gradual evolution in which species evolved gradually. The fossil record could not be made to accomodate this, but in order to hold fast to an immutable theory they had to re-write it by adding "punctuated equilibria" and making excuses that Darwin somehow mentioned "punctuated equilibria" when he clearly did not. The bending of words, and concepts is exactly how dogmas stay alive, and evolution is as good a dogma as a Christianity. Also, the fact that humans and monkeys share 99.9 % of the DNA doesn't mean anything. The questions are you asking are inquisitive and thought provoking however, coming up with "evolution" as the answer to all those questions is as much a leap of faith as saying we were created.

[pezeveng]

They say Asians are the most advanced people mentally, socially they have a xxxx load of catching up to do. As for those of you who are discussing what certain cultures look like, remember Italy has a north and south those living in mountainous regions over time will have darker skin tones. Armenians for this reason are darker skinned because over time (generations) humans adapt to there habitat like any other animal. Evolution folks plain and simple.

[Armenian]

Armenians for this reason are darker skinned because over time (generations) humans adapt to there habitat like any other animal. Evolution folks plain and simple.

Good point "pezeveng."

However, when you say "evolution" you mean micro-evolution (the ability of organisms to adapt and change according to the environment in which they live in) and not macro-evolution (the fairytale that suggests species evolving into other species).

Neverthelless, Armenians look the way they look because of environmental and climactic stresses and not because of interbreeding with other nations.

Incidentally, for those who worship the "tailbone:" Try sitting down on your butt without a tailbone and see what will happen. Every single cell in our bodies have a functionary purpose.