Re: The First Swedes

On 3/30/2025 12:53 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 23, 2025 at 9:05:27 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

On 3/22/2025 11:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

  On Mar 22, 2025 at 3:29:51 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

  On 3/22/2025 5:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

    On Mar 22, 2025 at 1:19:42 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>
    They would be dark-skinned when they arrived, and evolve to
    lighter-skinned to maintain Vitamin D levels despite reduced sunlight.

        People didn't come directly from Africa to Scandinavia. They'd already
  evolved
    lighter skin by living in Europe for centuries by the time they got to the
    high northern latitudes.
        The early inhabitants of Sweden, dating back to the Bromme culture
post-Ice
    Age (around 12,000 BC) and through the Neolithic and Iron Ages, were
    overwhelmingly of northern European descent-- hunter-gatherers,
farmers, and
    later Norse populations with light skin, varied eye colors, and genetics
    tracing back to local European ancestry, not Africa. Genetic studies
  spanning
    2,000 years (as detailed in ScienceDirect's research) show influences from
  the
    eastern Baltic, British-Irish Isles, and southern Europe, but zero
  indication
    of direct African migration in Scandinavia during these periods.

>
  Perhaps I should've said they would be *darker* skinned when they
  arrived.  And they would've stayed darker until the evolutionary
  pressure (Vitamin D) worked its magic.
>
  I don't know they'd have been as dark as those actors, and even less do
  I know the motives of everyone behind this portrayal.  Nevertheless,
  afaics, they're supported by at least *some* scientific rationale.

    It's no coincidence that the populace of indigenous white nations across the
  globe are all suddenly being told that their countries and cultures were all
  really black all along.
    This is a coordinated politically-motivated agenda to erase white culture
  everywhere it exists and pretend that white people are just some genetic
  mistake that needs to be corrected.

>
I'm wondering what (desirable) bits of 'white culture' are being erased.

 Imagine you're a tourist on your first trip to England and this is what you
find at all the major tourist attractions in London: Muslims on loudspeakers
blasting out the call to prayer five times/day.
 https://www.instagram.com/islamicstrength/reel/DCxuFg-NEbN/
 And it's not limited to the Caliphate of Europe, either. The guy who wanted us
to vote for him for VP was perfectly happy having the same thing blasted out
across Minneapolis five times a day. (The first one occurs in the pitch dark
before the sun even rises.)
  https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1905743262754996224/vid/avc1/576x1024/vZcZAaA39qx48TCK.mp4?tag=16
 I lived in Riyadh as a kid. Believe me, if you're not a Muslim, this sort of
thing has a major negative effect on your quality of life. It wakes you up in
the morning, it keeps you from sleeping at night and it disrupts your life
several times in between every single day, but you're just supposed to accept
it or you're an Islamophobic bigot.

Yes, there's no shortage of conflicts between religion and biology, not to mention common sense.  But is religion 'culture'?  It's tempting to view them as inseparable, but, e.g., I can easily enjoy Xmas without ever following yonder star.  So, I might concede that your example is a religious practice erasing a cultural affinity for sleeping late.  (And, yes, the mere chutzpah alone is more than enough to piss me off.)