Political Correctness, LGBTQ, #meToo and other related topics

Thimmy wrote:I've personally met more attractive, Polish women than Russian or Ukrainian ones.

I will not disagree

Though I would say Swedish or Norwegian women are up there too. I love the blonde hair+blue eyes combo. Everyone in my family has blue eyes

my family lineage is so interesting lol. Just recently i found out i have red/almost blonde-like hairs in my majority black beard. Turns out the red hair comes from my grandmother's side, my aunt and uncle have clear red hair. Uncle's two sons both had blue eyes at birth but they changed green after a while, and they have blonde hair with a really nice texture whilst my uncle probably has the kinkiest hair in the family lol. The aunt with red hair is white as shit in skin colour, and her daughter has blonde/olive hair and blue eyes (might still change as she only turns 2 in December). Some members of the family are tanned white, and the others range from light to somewhat dark brown. I'm light brown mostly, with shades of white in my torso and thigh areas that don't get sun.

Namibia is a very mixed country ? from your name in fantasy which i assume is your real name, it seems you have dutch ancestors ?

Gotta love GL, Political correctness thread leading to the best chicks in the world

Warrior wrote:Namibia is a very mixed country ? from your name in fantasy which i assume is your real name, it seems you have dutch ancestors ?

yes that's my government name. Namibia - majority is still black, just like in South Africa. But the mixed ancestry in this part of the world is probably the most mixed people in the modern history.

The mixture stems back to the 1500s when Europeans first reached the Cape in South Africa. Once there, with time, all sorts of Europeans came, and so too they brought along a lot of other ethnicities as well mainly in Indians and South Asians including Indonesians, and folks from Madagascar and the small islands nearby it as well. And that's how the mixing happened basically - between original Africans on the lands, Europeans, Indians, Asians, island folk lmaoooo it's insane, it's probably why mixed people are so crazy here.

But yea from what i know my most immediate European roots are Dutch and French, and most of my African is most likely Khoisan. But who knows what else runs through my veins.

El Gunner wrote:

Warrior wrote:Namibia is a very mixed country ? from your name in fantasy which i assume is your real name, it seems you have dutch ancestors ?

yes that's my government name. Namibia - majority is still black, just like in South Africa. But the mixed ancestry in this part of the world is probably the most mixed people in the modern history.

The mixture stems back to the 1500s when Europeans first reached the Cape in South Africa. Once there, with time, all sorts of Europeans came, and so too they brought along a lot of other ethnicities as well mainly in Indians and South Asians including Indonesians, and folks from Madagascar and the small islands nearby it as well. And that's how the mixing happened basically - between original Africans on the lands, Europeans, Indians, Asians, island folk lmaoooo it's insane, it's probably why mixed people are so crazy here.

But yea from what i know my most immediate European roots are Dutch and French, and most of my African is most likely Khoisan. But who knows what else runs through my veins.

Didn't Indians come after 1850s to Africa? Indians weren't transported during the 1500s unless I don't know something you know with factual evidence. Please clear this because our GDPs and Science during 1500s (More than researched 25%) was the sole reason Europe was attracted to us and all the travel much much later than that, after they halted the Ottoman Empire during that time.

The British, Dutch and French tried to mix with us, but we told them to fuck off, through that we've retained all our local languages to the absolute root and that has put us in a pickle in the modern development.

i gave 1500s as the rough date for when Europeans first came, it is true that the other ethnicities were brought in for slavery and labour and resettlement later, but im pretty sure it's way before the 1850s.

here:
http://etd.uwc.ac.za/handle/11394/4758

Nishankly wrote:

El Gunner wrote:

Warrior wrote:Namibia is a very mixed country ? from your name in fantasy which i assume is your real name, it seems you have dutch ancestors ?

yes that's my government name. Namibia - majority is still black, just like in South Africa. But the mixed ancestry in this part of the world is probably the most mixed people in the modern history.

The mixture stems back to the 1500s when Europeans first reached the Cape in South Africa. Once there, with time, all sorts of Europeans came, and so too they brought along a lot of other ethnicities as well mainly in Indians and South Asians including Indonesians, and folks from Madagascar and the small islands nearby it as well. And that's how the mixing happened basically - between original Africans on the lands, Europeans, Indians, Asians, island folk lmaoooo it's insane, it's probably why mixed people are so crazy here.

But yea from what i know my most immediate European roots are Dutch and French, and most of my African is most likely Khoisan. But who knows what else runs through my veins.

Didn't Indians come after 1850s to Africa? Indians weren't transported during the 1500s unless I don't know something you know with factual evidence. Please clear this because our GDPs and Science during 1500s (More than researched 25%) was the sole reason Europe was attracted to us and all the travel much much later than that, after they halted the Ottoman Empire during that time.

The British, Dutch and French tried to mix with us, but we told them to fuck off, through that we've retained all our local languages to the absolute root and that has put us in a pickle in the modern development.

Not true for all India, northern parts of India were conquered by persians, arabs, mongols etc. there was heavy admixing. While the main language, Hindi, persisted there were huge amounts of loan words from those conquerors, most notably from persians. Of course, any invading force was much smaller than the local population so much of the culture still remains. Same with the Brits, the amount of English stationed in India was in no proportion to the amount of the population so if there was admixing, it's neglilabe and of a very short duration compared to the other occupations of the region for centuries. Still, the education is heavily influenced by English, English is used as an intermediary language when people don't understand Hindi and are from different regions, most of the science or product terms are in English.
Goa is for example an ex Potugese colony. Due to the low number of the local population the cultural impact was much heavier. They speak some Portugese, have got lots of catholics in their ranks and other customs not assossiated with India (a subcontinent).
Your statements are mostly true for South India though.

Babun wrote:

Nishankly wrote:

El Gunner wrote:

yes that's my government name. Namibia - majority is still black, just like in South Africa. But the mixed ancestry in this part of the world is probably the most mixed people in the modern history.

The mixture stems back to the 1500s when Europeans first reached the Cape in South Africa. Once there, with time, all sorts of Europeans came, and so too they brought along a lot of other ethnicities as well mainly in Indians and South Asians including Indonesians, and folks from Madagascar and the small islands nearby it as well. And that's how the mixing happened basically - between original Africans on the lands, Europeans, Indians, Asians, island folk lmaoooo it's insane, it's probably why mixed people are so crazy here.

But yea from what i know my most immediate European roots are Dutch and French, and most of my African is most likely Khoisan. But who knows what else runs through my veins.

Didn't Indians come after 1850s to Africa? Indians weren't transported during the 1500s unless I don't know something you know with factual evidence. Please clear this because our GDPs and Science during 1500s (More than researched 25%) was the sole reason Europe was attracted to us and all the travel much much later than that, after they halted the Ottoman Empire during that time.

The British, Dutch and French tried to mix with us, but we told them to fuck off, through that we've retained all our local languages to the absolute root and that has put us in a pickle in the modern development.

Not true for all India, northern parts of India were conquered by persians, arabs, mongols etc. there was heavy admixing. While the main language, Hindi, persisted there were huge amounts of loan words from those conquerors, most notably from persians. Of course, any invading force was much smaller than the local population so much of the culture still remains. Same with the Brits, the amount of English stationed in India was in no proportion to the amount of the population so if there was admixing, it's neglilabe and of a very short duration compared to the other occupations of the region for centuries. Still, the education is heavily influenced by English, English is used as an intermediary language when people don't understand Hindi and are from different regions, most of the science or product terms are in English.
Goa is for example an ex Potugese colony. Due to the low number of the local population the cultural impact was much heavier. They speak some Portugese, have got lots of catholics in their ranks and other customs not assossiated with India (a subcontinent).
Your statements are mostly true for South India though.

Retaining culture is very different from mixing races through reproduction. We do have mixing with the middle east but none with modern age Europeans at least in the sub continent, will be different in South Africa and as EG said Namibia etc.

El Gunner wrote:

Warrior wrote:Namibia is a very mixed country ? from your name in fantasy which i assume is your real name, it seems you have dutch ancestors ?

yes that's my government name. Namibia - majority is still black, just like in South Africa. But the mixed ancestry in this part of the world is probably the most mixed people in the modern history.

The mixture stems back to the 1500s when Europeans first reached the Cape in South Africa. Once there, with time, all sorts of Europeans came, and so too they brought along a lot of other ethnicities as well mainly in Indians and South Asians including Indonesians, and folks from Madagascar and the small islands nearby it as well. And that's how the mixing happened basically - between original Africans on the lands, Europeans, Indians, Asians, island folk lmaoooo it's insane, it's probably why mixed people are so crazy here.

But yea from what i know my most immediate European roots are Dutch and French, and most of my African is most likely Khoisan. But who knows what else runs through my veins.

This sounds so crazy to me lol. I'm certainly 100% european, >95% Polish, maybe some German or French. Must be cool to have such a mixed family.

I would be tempted to do this 23andme test now.

You should Myeyes, I'd wage you will find atleast 1% of African, Mongol, middle eastern descent.

Africa is bound to turn up on most DNA tests, homo sapiens originated from there according to evolution but usually today you can only catch the Middle Eastern and Steppes influence on most genes.

I've also seen some results of siblings having a 1% different ancestry, it would be fun to know who passed what on to you XD

Nishankly wrote:You should Myeyes, I'd wage you will find atleast 1% of African, Mongol, middle eastern descent.

Africa is bound to turn up on most DNA tests, homo sapiens originated from there according to evolution but usually today you can only catch the Middle Eastern and Steppes influence on most genes.

I've also seen some results of siblings having a 1% different ancestry, it would be fun to know who passed what on to you XD

Maybe Kazakhstan, many Poles were deported there around the time of WWII and came back later.

The test is not that expensive, I will look into it some time.

I plan do it as well but South Asia has barely any history of mixing other than with the middle east which was more of forced conversions and kidnapping rather than "mixing". I'd probably have 99% South Asia if my ancestors had any movement towards the west side of India then I might have some Middle Eastern/Persian descent.

Nishankly wrote:

Babun wrote:

Nishankly wrote:


Didn't Indians come after 1850s to Africa? Indians weren't transported during the 1500s unless I don't know something you know with factual evidence. Please clear this because our GDPs and Science during 1500s (More than researched 25%) was the sole reason Europe was attracted to us and all the travel much much later than that, after they halted the Ottoman Empire during that time.

The British, Dutch and French tried to mix with us, but we told them to fuck off, through that we've retained all our local languages to the absolute root and that has put us in a pickle in the modern development.

Not true for all India, northern parts of India were conquered by persians, arabs, mongols etc. there was heavy admixing. While the main language, Hindi, persisted there were huge amounts of loan words from those conquerors, most notably from persians. Of course, any invading force was much smaller than the local population so much of the culture still remains. Same with the Brits, the amount of English stationed in India was in no proportion to the amount of the population so if there was admixing, it's neglilabe and of a very short duration compared to the other occupations of the region for centuries. Still, the education is heavily influenced by English, English is used as an intermediary language when people don't understand Hindi and are from different regions, most of the science or product terms are in English.
Goa is for example an ex Potugese colony. Due to the low number of the local population the cultural impact was much heavier. They speak some Portugese, have got lots of catholics in their ranks and other customs not assossiated with India (a subcontinent).
Your statements are mostly true for South India though.

Retaining culture is very different from mixing races through reproduction. We do have mixing with the middle east but none with modern age Europeans at least in the sub continent, will be different in South Africa and as EG said Namibia etc.

Yes, you retained your culture but heavy influence or better said absorbtion of the elements from the other cultures is undeniable. Current India culture is mostly uncomparable to the dravidian one from thousands of years before. The one right now is heavily influenced by English. Admixing usually goes hand in hand with cultural exchange but not necessarly in modern time. Back then, communication wasn't as developed today.

Nishankly wrote:You should Myeyes, I'd wage you will find atleast 1% of African, Mongol, middle eastern descent.

Africa is bound to turn up on most DNA tests, homo sapiens originated from there according to evolution but usually today you can only catch the Middle Eastern and Steppes influence on most genes.

I've also seen some results of siblings having a 1% different ancestry, it would be fun to know who passed what on to you XD

Nope, we all originated in Africa but people in Africa back then were very different from the ones today (they also looked differently, were smaller with bigger heads to torso proportions). Also, half of Europe's autsomal DNA is from the middle eastern settlers from the neolithic time but the current middle eastern genetical composition is very different from the middle east from 10000-7000 b.c.

Nishankly wrote:I plan do it as well but South Asia has barely any history of mixing other than with the middle east which was more of forced conversions and kidnapping rather than "mixing". I'd probably have 99% South Asia if my ancestors had any movement towards the west side of India then I might have some Middle Eastern/Persian descent.

On the mother side, India is more or less like 2000-3000 years ago so every Indian is a true Indian in a sense. I doubt the influence of other populations as whole makes up more than 5%.

Bruuuuh

Para1: Retaining was quoted not with original culture but the mixed one post colonialism. I thought that was obvious lol. I don't know why are you going about culture when since EGs post, it's been about intermixing through reproduction during the early movements and colonialism. I'm not going to be 10% British in my ancestry because I learnt to speak English, culture is irrelevant.

Para 2: That's what I said in the second part, ME influence is more likely nowdays but DNA123, ancestry.com have shown Africa in a number of pure European tests.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/they-considered-themselves-white-but-dna-tests-told-a-more-complex-story/2018/02/06/16215d1a-e181-11e7-8679-a9728984779c_story.html%3foutputType

Nishankly wrote:Bruuuuh

Para1: Retaining was quoted not with original culture but the mixed one post colonialism. I thought that was obvious lol. I don't know why are you going about culture when since EGs post, it's been about intermixing through reproduction during the early movements and colonialism. I'm not going to be 10% British in my ancestry because I learnt to speak English, culture is irrelevant.

I denied that as well. If there was any admixing it was neglible.

Nishankly wrote:
Para 2: That's what I said in the second part, ME influence is more likely nowdays but DNA123, ancestry.com have shown Africa in a number of pure European tests.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/they-considered-themselves-white-but-dna-tests-told-a-more-complex-story/2018/02/06/16215d1a-e181-11e7-8679-a9728984779c_story.html%3foutputType

Those aren't Europeans but US Americans with European descent. It makes sense. 33% of paternal African American male population has also got European Y-chromosom. Still, those African gene sequences are mostly due to slavery/colonialism and are very recent. Of course, there's a possibility of African genes in the modern European populations but the percentage is neglible compared to the USA. Also, those aren't the genes from ancient African populations. It was in response to this:

Nishankly wrote:You should Myeyes, I'd wage you will find atleast 1% of African, Mongol, middle eastern descent.

Africa is bound to turn up on most DNA tests, homo sapiens originated from there according to evolution but usually today you can only catch the Middle Eastern and Steppes influence on most genes.

I've also seen some results of siblings having a 1% different ancestry, it would be fun to know who passed what on to you XD

We're just as much ancient homo sapiens as any African out there. An African person isn't more ancestral than you and me. The only people who have got the most genetic variation are Khoi and San, they reside in Africa, still they're nothing like ancient homo sapiens from whom we all derived from.

i think what Nish is perhaps referring to is that Africa is the motherland and the first men walked on these plains

i don't know how far those DNA tests can trace back though

These DNA tests arent going to flag part of your ancestry as African because humans evolved there, if that was the case then we are 100% match to those first humans basically.

The ancestry tests are done by reference populations. Basically by identifying the DNA makeup of discrete ethnic groups in all parts of the earth. So you are not compared to the african/european/american of 10000 years ago, but to the current version of those ethnic groups. It's also why the precision increases as more people take the DNA tests.

For example, when I did it I had 10% native Venezuelan (a variety of indigenous groups). How is this defined? Basically by going as far back our data can go as to what ethnic groups are "from" venezuela. This is aligned with the current understanding of this region/country/etc. Obviously go back enough and those groups would have migrated from somewhere else.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/sep/08/oscars-academy-awards-diversity-race-gender

Do you agree with the forced diversity requirement for an oscar nomination?

Those "requirements" are pointless since most movies already check these boxes by default. And filmmakers only have to meet 2/4 of the conditions so just throw some gay men in the makeup department and you're done, that's all there is to it.

The sad thing about this is that if the Academy wants to help diversity in that way, it'd be better if they did nothing at all.

Also sexual orientation is a very private matter for most folks so I don't know how are they going to go about this. Another angle is that anyone can say they're Bi or gay, in what way is that disputable?

Question #3: if someone is 2% or at least 10% African as per ancestry.com, does that make them eligible as a represantitve of the black minority?

Wanted to put my two cents on the whole African thing. Lots of North Africans invades Europe WAYYY back then. And plenty have a decent amount of SSA (I have 8-10%). Also, North African/Amazigh populations have existed for hundreds of thousands of years, particularly in East Algeria, and evolved concurrently with the other African populations. The amazigh are an ancient population, as old as the beginning of humans themselves. The “out of Africa” theory is not as clear cut as people make it out to me.

Unpopular opinion but I think there is way too many LGBTQ characters depicted in TVs and Movies. In consequences when the population is surveyed about what percentage of the population they believe are members of the LGBTQ they report around 25-30%, when reality the population is under 5%. The entertainment industry plays the obvious reason for such overestimation, surely it is not due to real life experiences and encounters.

Blue wrote:Unpopular opinion but I think there is way too many LGBTQ characters depicted in TVs and Movies. In consequences when the population is surveyed about what percentage of the population they believe are members of the LGBTQ they report around 25-30%, when reality the population is under 5%. The entertainment industry plays the obvious reason for such overestimation, surely it is not due to real life experiences and encounters.

its more about representation in the industry, than it is the population because by virtue or demographics population will never be a perfect spread of the demographics of an entire nation.

I'd imagine most people working in entertainment have a ton of contact with members of the LGBTQ community.

Didn't say they were gay in real life, most of the actors playing a LGBTQ characters I assume are straight.

Blue wrote:Unpopular opinion but I think there is way too many LGBTQ characters depicted in TVs and Movies. In consequences when the population is surveyed about what percentage of the population they believe are members of the LGBTQ they report around 25-30%, when reality the population is under 5%. The entertainment industry plays the obvious reason for such overestimation, surely it is not due to real life experiences and encounters.

The media surely plays into this, but I also think that's a bit of an oversimplification for an explanation here.

In any case, I agree that I think there has probably been an overcorrection for LGBTQ+ representation, but I can't help but feel like this doesn't bother anyone? So the US population believes there are more gay people than there are...is this something we should seek to correct?

If you were to make the observation that there is a lot/too much LGBTQ+ representation in Hollywood, that's one thing. The argument that there is too much is a headscratcher to me.

they're annoying caricature characters more than anything else, i don't know if Blue feels the same way. They feel forced and inauthentic like the black gay dude from Sex Education, i literally stopped watching it 3 episodes in just because of him