Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.
The northern tier you listed are the main places where the later waves of migration from northern Asia occurred. I think some made it all the way to Iceland, too. For example, Björk looks partly Asian, to me: Björk looking Asian.. StuRat (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For some odd reason we don't have an article on the Americanoid race. You can search google for that term, here's the link to it at google scholar. According to most anthropologists and the better linguists, there were some three major migrations into America. The first was the Amerind, the second the Na-Dene and the third the Eskaleut. None of these is exactly of the Mongoloid race as classically defined. But shovel teeth and other features (again, strangely not mentioned at wikipedia) are seen as features linking mongoloids and americanoids. PS, Björk looks Uralic, for which see Uralo-Siberian. μηδείς (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Without getting into debates about the validity of 'race' as a scientific concept, or the ethics of using Björk as an illustration of something-or-other, I'd just like to point out that if one ignores the misleading cartographic conventions, the distance (both geographic and presumably also in terms of whom you engage in reproductive hanky-panky with) between 'east' and 'west' as you move north gets smaller in both directions. It is entirely possible - and probably quite likely - that the inhabitants of Iceland descended from adventurers from the east shared relatively-recent-relatives (!) with those coming in the other direction. On this basis, trying to decide where Björk got her cheekbones from is rather futile. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Iceland is renowned for having thorough genetic records of their citizens, so if anyone can track down the origins of their ancestors, that would be them. StuRat (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it's next on their list... Anyway, you're speculation is incorrect - at least as far back as historic record goes, Iceland was settled by Scandinavian people and consistently a site of only their migrations for pretty much the entirety of it's history thereafter. There's no evidence to support the notion of earlier habitation from an east-moving migration, but as this did happen in somewhat-neighboring Greenland, it cannot be entirely ruled out. Regardless, there is no significant contiguous genetic connection between the early migratory groups who moved into the Americas via northeast Asia and the modern ethnicity that Bjork belongs to -- if indeed her genetics are typical of those who live there, and who can really speak as to that? Of course, as has been noted above, the question of whether she looks Asian is partially nonsensical; although we all agree there are trends in the phenotypes of certain ethnicities and that we all can intuit these subtleties to some degree, the truth is, we aren't as good at it as we tend to think we are. But then there are good reasons for this; if you study the diversity of human morphology long enough, you begin to see how recurrent certain phenotypical traits are, even when there is no strong genetic link. The independent evolution of a certain look to the eyelid or ears is not uncommon -- remember that these changes are based more on sexual selection than natural selection, so there's a lot more variation here (even within a given ethnic group) than with traits which are selected for purely by survival odds. Which is a bit of a tangent, but the sum is this: people typically will find all manner of traits from a given race on those occasions when they stop to determine the ancestry of a given face -- and usually these are entirely impressionistic, as with Asian Bjork. Edited to add: That being said, if you had shown me that picture and asked, "Could this woman be from Asia?" I'd certainly have said yes. Looking at her other pictures on our pages though, she certainly looks like she'd fit right in amongst the mixed Nordic-Sami type folk you find in the more northern reaches of Scandinavia. Snow (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So the theory is that Iceland was uninhabited when discovered by the Vikings ? That doesn't seem likely, considered how long nearby Greenland had been occupied (since 2500 BC). And Iceland is a lot more habitable than Greenland, what with thermal springs and all. StuRat (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The possibility can't be absolutely disproven, but there's never been any archeological or paleoanthropological evidence to suggest previous occupation before the arrival of European colonists. Bear in mind that the habitability of the region has varied considerably throughout the human epoch and while Greenland was subject to several different waves of migration, many of them did not fair well in the long run (the Scandinavian colonization of the island eventually failed, for example). It's possible the earlier Greenlanders simply never made it that far east. I agree it's not a very satisfying explanation, but the lack of any positive evidence for previous habitation for Iceland is compelling and the ubiquity of human life begins to break down as you approach the poles -- even today Greenland and Iceland have two of the lowest population densities of all nations/regions.Snow (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
StuRat -- when the Scandinavians settled Iceland, the only previous inhabitants they found were a few Irish monks. The lack of other previous inhabitants isn't too surprising, given that Iceland is several hundred miles away from other habitable regions at a somewhat inhospitable latitude. AnonMoos (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hum, where did I get the idea that Iceland had ever been settled from the east west from then? Should have checked. Then again there was a period when parts of Greenland were occupied by Norsemen, in contact with both Iceland to the east and Arctic peoples to the west, so gene flow was still just about possible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it has been settled from the East (where Europe is, relative to Iceland), not from the West (where the East coast of Greenland is ;-). A question about spelling: aren't the compass directions proper nouns and hence capitalized? I'm happy to learn something... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The rule I use is that a direction isn't capitalized, but a region is: "I'm going to head south until I make it to the South." StuRat (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, but for the purposes of handing on genes to modern-day people we can treat vikings as the first (and practically only) settlers; there may well have been visits by others, and it seems likely that there were a handful of Irish monks, but hardly the kind of long-term settlement where children are born & raised &c. If I remember correctly from Collapse, vikings who settled further west didn't intermingle with other people who had got there earlier (ie. the Inuit) so it's unlikely that the small number of descendants travelling back east would have brought back a lot of "inuit" DNA to Iceland that way... although this is tantalising. bobrayner (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "intermingling" might very well have been forbidden, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that it was more likely to have been kept hidden. StuRat (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Undoubtedly some monks could sail, but they learned it from sailors, not their book of vows. God forbid I had to travel from Ireland to Iceland bearing a cockleful of clerics and nary a navigator with me. A monastic colony would require more than just monasts. μηδείς (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With only Canada, the U.S. and a bunch of tiny countries supporting Israel, what can the administration of Mr. Netanyahu do now as retaliation, or better said to avoid the predict future thing. What's doing now? Keeeith (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of news websites (the Guardian and the Washington Post, for example) are reporting that Israel has announced an expansion of settlements and that it is withholding taxes from the Palestinian government, and that these actions are widely seen as reactions to the General Assembly vote. Though, it isn't really accurate to describe the "yes" votes as "supporting Israel". The question being voted on was "should Palestine's status at the UN be changed from non-state observer to non-member observer", not "do you support Israel". 81.98.43.107 (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Not sure that there's much the Israelis could or "should" do as a direct countermove. If the PNA tries to bring Israel before the International court, then that will open a whole new can of worms... AnonMoos (talk)
Pretend that nothing happened? Nobody knows. A much more interesting question is what Palestine can do not, with its newly granted status. Note: the vote was mainly about if people wanted a bilateral negotiation or an international negotiation, not, as pointed out above, about being pro or contra Israel. 15:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OsmanRF34 (talk • contribs)
I think it's a little hyperbolic to say that nobody supports Israel on account of their willingness to grant the Palestinian Authority a tiny, functionally insignificant upgrade in status. Israel has the same allies and enemies as it did before the UN vote. The situation of Palestine in the UN has changed only symbolically. The position of the United States, for example, was about the process, not the principle of the vote. The US doesn't even really care if Palestine has that status or not; it just disagrees about whether the UN should be involved in the Palestinian-Israeli peace process before direct talks, and saw the UN vote as an attempt of the UN to meddle into stuff it doesn't it meddling in. That other countries — those currently not involved in said peace process — don't think that is a good idea, or don't agree, or deliberately disagree, or what have you, is a somewhat more complicated question than whether they "support Israel" or not. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not the other nation's fault if they do not take the Palestinians? Do you think they deserve a nation within Israel? How would you feel if there was a giant Native American nation given at a time when the native americans did not have much power any longer, given by the UN in the middle of America? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to remember something about some other people being executed for exterminating the untermenschen when clearing out some lebensraum. Dmcq (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This obviously would not have happened if Nazi Germany had not lost WWII. So, it seems like Israel has a choice between winning a regional war, exterminating undesirables, with no repercussions, or otherwise allowing a nation to put itself there just because it has would-be "citizens". This would be similar to allowing a group of people to set up a country in the middle of the Nevada desert, just by being there. Actually a third choice would be for Israel to move there. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your posts are wrong under several aspects 178.48. 1. The US, incidentally, does grant some degree of independence in the middle of its territory through the Indian reservations. 2. Palestine won't be a nation within the Israeli state, but a second state in the same region, in the same way as in many other parts of the world. 3. Israel won't be exterminating the Palestinians. People saying that are trying to equate the Jews with the Nazis. 4. How can you imagine that there would be no repercussions? Note: I am not surprise that your IP geolocates to a certain country in Central Europe. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OsmanRF34, thank you for reading my response carefully. I will not contest your first-second points and therefore will say that the analogy is not a perfect one - perhaps it would be like the US, in the 1800's, not opposing a Native American state on adjacent land? Clearly it would have opposed it. Regarding 4, please understand that this was in response to "I seem to remember something about some other people [NAZI's] being executed for exterminating the untermenschen when clearing out some lebensraum". I think you can agree OsmanRF34, that it is a (counter-factual) historical fact that should the Nazi regime have prevailed in the long term according to its plans, there would have been no Nurenberg executions or other repercussions of the same magnitude. This is all that I meant -- the repercussions/consequences came as a direct factual consequence of the atrocities coupled with losing the war. For your final point, I would like to mention that I am, in fact, Jewish, and living in a thriving Jewish community in Eastern Europe. I am not equating Israel with Nazi Germany, because I would not like Israel to lose. You will note that I did not say Israel should exterminate the Palestinians: I said it should give other nations (such as the arab terrorist sympathizers shown on the map in an above question here on the reference desk) a chance to take in the Palestinian refugees. The extermination should only be a credible threat, and if other nations do not take these refugees, then provided that Israel has made this threat with credibility and resolve, it is the other nations that are truly guilty. Israel will face no negative repercussions so long as it prevails regionally (as Nazi Germany did not do). The alternative would be to have its enemy set up state alongside it. Does this seem like a reasonable course of action to you? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is political, historical, and moral nonsense. So if I go to a bank, and credibly threaten to shoot the teller if they don't give me money, it's not my fault if I then do shoot him if they give me no money? You're reason for not equating Israel and Nazi Germany is because you don't want Israel to lose? Can you explain the logic behind that? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Israel started an extermination campaign against the Palestinians, that would mean the end of Israel. It would lose all it's allies immediately, and all surrounding nations would attack it. Without US support, it would lose the war, quite possibly with it's population being exterminated. The best it could hope for is a US-backed UN and/or NATO occupation force. Even the threat of executing civilians might be enough for Israel to lose it's allies. StuRat (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a politically loaded question, demanding opinions in response to a very opinionated question. We shouldn't be even trying to answer it. HiLo48 (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Such questions got quite common lately. Maybe we should add a rule excluding questions about Israel to the no homework, no legal advise, no medical advise questions' rule. However, keep in mind that trying to understand events is by no means out of the RD's range. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are records of officially-canonized saints, and saints celebrated on the liturgical calendar, but a lot of saints in the early days were automatically considered saints due to martyrdom, or legends that grew around them, without ever having gone through a formal canonization process. Also, the early founders of various local Christian communities were considered "saints" in their local areas without their sainthood being recognized by the larger church (Saint Marinus, after whom San Marino is named, was one). AnonMoos (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
