Comments by "Bobr Kurwa" (@mr.purple1779) on "Why Do Inuits Not Have Blue Eyes? The Reason for Blue Eyes (Part 2)" video.

  1. Blue eyes are not IE related. The Black Sea IEs originated from the same proto-Europoids - Uraloids from the mammoth steppe. Which then mixed with Caucasoids from Georgia. And they were not Nordic, rather proto-Europeoid "Eastern Mediterranean".
    1
  2.  @Non_auro_sed_ferro_recuperanda  Both of them (Gimbutas and Russian archaeologists) never said anything like that. XD
    1
  3.  @Non_auro_sed_ferro_recuperanda  Blue eyes are not related to Indo-Europeans, from the word in general.
    1
  4.  @Non_auro_sed_ferro_recuperanda  Your favorite Reich, also did not say anything like that. In fact, no western european population, in direct comparison, will show close results. Not even in the top ten, perhaps.
    1
  5.  @Non_auro_sed_ferro_recuperanda  You give a book that you probably haven't read. Even Wikipedia says that European populations arose as a result of mixing. Reich has never said that you are Indo-European, or that you are especially close to them.
    1
  6.  @Non_auro_sed_ferro_recuperanda  Author and intellectual Jared Diamond, in the New York Times, notes that geneticists can now go far beyond studying the personal ancestries of participants in National Geographic's Genographic Project, which looked at small sections of their parents' DNA, namely their mother's mitochondrial DNA and their father's Y chromosome. By looking at DNA from ancient bones, Reich can recover whole genomes. Diamond warns readers not to expect an oversimplified story:[7] Population genetics is a complicated, fast-moving field with many uncertainties of interpretation. To tell that story to the broad public, and not just to scientists reading specialty journals, is a big challenge. Reich explains these complications as well as any geneticist could; others rarely even try.[7] Peter Forbes, in The Guardian, calls the book "thrilling in its clarity and its scope."[4] In Forbes's view, Reich handles racist abuses of human origin stories, such as Nazi ideology, "commendably". Forbes writes that Reich explains how ancient DNA teaches a single general lesson, that the human population of any particular place has repeatedly changed since the last ice age. Any supposed "mystical, longstanding" link between some people and a place based on some kind of racial purity (as reflected in the Nazi slogan of "blood and soil"), is in Reich's words "flying in the face of hard science".[4]
    1
  7.  @Non_auro_sed_ferro_recuperanda  Much of the work has focused on Western Eurasia, where in 1786 Sir William Jones discovered that Sanskrit and ancient Greek were related languages. Linguists came to recognise the Indo-European family of languages, spanning Germanic, Celtic, Italic, Iranian and northern Indian languages, but without explaining how these came to be. Reich showed that modern populations in Europe and north India derive from mixing of native populations with Yamnaya people from the steppes north of the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea some 5,000 years ago, in separate migrations to the west and the east.[4][9] Corded ware culture described by archaeology corresponds to a stage in the WESTWARD migration. map 0:10
    1
  8.  @Non_auro_sed_ferro_recuperanda  If we make a direct comparison, Western Europeans are unlikely to be even in the top ten in proximity to the Yamnaya culture, as I said.
    1
  9.  @Non_auro_sed_ferro_recuperanda  I don't need to believe, I tell you 100%. Even trite due to the fact that in Eastern Europe there are populations that never came from Corded ceramics.
    1
  10.  @Non_auro_sed_ferro_recuperanda  It's even funny when you turn to Reich and then give up what he was talking about.
    1