 | | Speculative History Speculative History Forum - Alternate History, What If Questions, Pseudo History, and anything outside the boundaries of mainstream historical research |
June 13th, 2011, 08:16 PM
|
#11 | | Suspended indefinitely
Joined: Apr 2010 From: Above The Waters Posts: 278 | Quote:
Originally Posted by HackneyedScribe The Golden Horde might have had many Caucasians as its subjects, but they only made up a small part of the Mongol empire. How "caucasian" the Golden Horde were has nothing to do with the original Mongol invasion.
I say you are studying history for the wrong reason. If you're here to blame Caucasians for the world's ills, then you are better off preaching somewhere else. People should be suspicious of historians who pay an unreasonable amount of attention to "ethnic", "racial" aspects of history. Normal historians probably wouldn't care about things like this. | There are simple facts that indicate mongols were majority caucasian:
1--Western asia where mongols ruled has no genetic traces of mongolian people
2--Dominance of caucasian male and female dna(you can check out DNA map) in central Asia, even thought it is where the most mongolian admixture happens. The mongolian male admixture of central asian is 40% at most, the rest is western asian. The most asian mixed population is the uighurs, still the mongoloid influence is below 50% in general.
The lack of genetic traces in western asia, and minor influence in central asia do not support majority mongolian theory. All the admixtures in western and central asia point to a historical caucasian dominance.
| | |
| |
June 13th, 2011, 08:25 PM
|
#12 | | Young, Wild, and Free
Joined: Feb 2011 From: Da Bay Posts: 4,279 | Quote:
Originally Posted by Wadjet Horus | I don't see how this has anything to do with the genetic makeup of the Xiongnu.
| | |
| |
June 13th, 2011, 08:26 PM
|
#13 | | Suspended indefinitely
Joined: Apr 2010 From: Above The Waters Posts: 278 |
It is obvious there was NO yellow peril, but simply yellow meat.
| | |
| |
June 13th, 2011, 08:27 PM
|
#14 | | Suspended indefinitely
Joined: Apr 2010 From: Above The Waters Posts: 278 | Quote:
Originally Posted by mingming I don't see how this has anything to do with the genetic makeup of the Xiongnu. | Sorry, I posted the wrong link, I edited, check out again.
| | |
| |
June 13th, 2011, 08:27 PM
|
#15 | | Suspended indefinitely
Joined: Mar 2011 From: . Posts: 4,433 | Quote:
Originally Posted by Wadjet Horus Xiongnu was older nomadic confederation, its soldieres genetics indicates close relation to siberian tribes. In nomadic cultures, soldiers are the highest rank in society. The white invaders you are talking about are xianbei from 4-5 centruty AD and nicknamed Bailu, the white looters.
You can try to google the words togather: xianbei bailu
However, xianbei was considered less destructive than mongols. | In the nomadic cultures it was the cavalry who were the hierarchy. I've checked up, xianbei bailu. However all this tells me is there could be the structure at that times as with the Xiongnu(Huns). If you check for other similarities elsewhere, you will find the same with the Yuezhi who would become the Kushan empire. None of this says that the Mongols were Caucasians at the time of Genghis Khan.
| | |
| |
June 13th, 2011, 08:28 PM
|
#16 | | Historian
Joined: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,480 | Quote:
There are simple facts that indicate mongols were majority caucasian:
1--Western asia where mongols ruled has no genetic traces of mongolian people
2--Dominance of caucasian male and female dna(you can check out DNA map) in central Asia, even thought it is where the most mongolian admixture happens. The mongolian admixture of central asian is 50% t most, the rest is western asian. The most asian mixed population is the uighurs, still the mongoloid influence is below 50% in general.
The lack of genetic traces in western asia, and minor influence in central asia do not support majority mongolian theory. All the admixtures in western and central asia point to a historical caucasian dominance.
| As I said, people who spend so much time studying genetic aspects on history is probably studying history for the wrong reason. People like these are bound to cherry pick findings. In fact that's precisely what you are doing now. There is no such thing as "Caucasian" DNA in the first place, so what you say is moot. You make it sound like there's some "Caucasian" gene in all Caucasians, or some "Mongoloid" gene in all Mongoloids. Race is just a social construct determined from certain physical characteristics. There is no single gene for it, nor can you determine which "race" has a dominant "admixture" in some region because the concept of race itself is unscientific.
| | |
| |
June 13th, 2011, 08:37 PM
|
#17 | | Suspended indefinitely
Joined: Apr 2010 From: Above The Waters Posts: 278 | Quote:
Originally Posted by The Alani Dragon Rising In the nomadic cultures it was the cavalry who were the hierarchy. I've checked up, xianbei bailu. However all this tells me is there could be the structure at that times as with the Xiongnu(Huns). If you check for other similarities elsewhere, you will find the same with the Yuezhi who would become the Kushan empire. None of this says that the Mongols were Caucasians at the time of Genghis Khan. | Chinese sources did say the mongol were people with colorful eyes, also historical records also say during the mongol rule, average chinese must obey the people with colorful eyes. You may wonder why.
In ancient time, people did not attribute much to the racial features, but military ruler can be exception, it is why persian historian recorded his meeting with Ghengis Khan and his sons in particular and described their appearance. Persian historian may tried to describe Ghengis Khan as mongols representative in culture, race, power.
If anything as there were no sources saying mongols were caucasian, and there were also no sources claiming they were mongoloid.
| |
Last edited by Wadjet Horus; June 13th, 2011 at 08:47 PM.
|
| |
June 13th, 2011, 08:38 PM
|
#18 | | Priapus
Joined: Jan 2009 From: the solo basement party rocking tonight Posts: 6,466 |
This is almost as bad as Chinese being Egyption
| | |
| |
June 13th, 2011, 08:46 PM
|
#19 | | Suspended indefinitely
Joined: Apr 2010 From: Above The Waters Posts: 278 | Quote:
Originally Posted by Isoroku295 This is almost as bad as Chinese being Egyption | It is simply truth, why it is bad?
The reth/chief egyptians were painted as the smallest built of all 4 people of Egypt, of course I may enjoy such possibility. | | |
| |
June 13th, 2011, 08:49 PM
|
#20 | | Suspended indefinitely
Joined: Mar 2011 From: . Posts: 4,433 | Quote:
Originally Posted by Wadjet Horus Chinese sources did say the mongol were people with colorful eyes, also historical records also say during the mongol rule, average chinese must obey the people with colorful eyes. You may wonder why.
In ancient time, people did not attribute much to the racial features, but military ruler can be exception, it is why persian historian recorded his meeting with Ghengis Khan and his sons in particular and described their appearance. Persian historian may tried to describ Ghengis Khan as mongols representative in culture, race, power.
If anything as there were no sources saying mongols were caucasian, and there were also no sources claiming they were mongoloid. | Ah, yes some Mongols had traits which were passed on, and Genghis Khan himself was reported to have red hair and green eyes. This doesn't make for the majority of Mongols being Caucasian.
| | |
| | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.
|  |