Ian Somerhalder

Ian Somerhalder
Topic Started: Oct 31 2009, 03:46 AM (601 Views)
Lamprecht	Oct 31 2009, 03:46 AM Post #1
Full Member Posts: 133 Group: Members Member #362 Joined: 5-May 2009 Gender: Male Ancestry: European Religion: None Politics: Right



*Crimson Guard*	Oct 31 2009, 04:22 AM Post #2
Advanced Member Posts: 5,822 Group: Moderators Member #3 Joined: 2-Apr 2008 Gender: Male Ancestry: European Religion: Catholic Politics: Far Right	Looks Mediterranean overall. Something like a Jared Leto. This guy is French, English, Irish and Amerindian.



Mjora	Nov 3 2009, 06:55 PM Post #3
Full Member Posts: 119 Group: Members Member #219 Joined: 15-Jan 2009 Gender: Female Ancestry: Middle Eastern Religion: Muslim Politics: Center	Alpine+Keltic Nordic



samysamy25	Nov 3 2009, 08:05 PM Post #4
Full Member Posts: 698 Group: Members Member #434 Joined: 5-Jul 2009 Gender: Male Religion: None	Mediteranean



SuperStack	Nov 6 2009, 01:01 AM Post #5
Full Member Posts: 459 Group: Members Member #76 Joined: 13-Apr 2008	His eye shape looks somewhat Amerind. In some pics he looks more Faelisch or Bruenn like and others a Mediterranean componant. It's hard to know if that is from his Native ancestry. Edited by SuperStack, Nov 6 2009, 06:37 AM.



*Crimson Guard*	Nov 6 2009, 06:41 AM Post #6
Advanced Member Posts: 5,822 Group: Moderators Member #3 Joined: 2-Apr 2008 Gender: Male Ancestry: European Religion: Catholic Politics: Far Right	I wouldnt make a big deal on the differences. The "Keltic" type was a composite type of Mediterranean and Nordic, but also probably a product of climatic adaptions. http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/1318443/1/ Quote: As a rule his skin is some shade of white, from pink or peaches-and-cream to a light brown. Skin color should always be taken on some unexposed part of the body. Among Middle Easterners this is simple, because they cover as much of the body as is consistent with their work. The exposed skin color may be a dark brown, while the skin of the underarm is ten shades lighter. (The sun shines brightly in the Middle East.) While fair-skinned people are to be seen, they live chiefly in shaded bazaars and government offices, whence they rarely emerge into the dazzling light of day. The Mediterranean’s hair is usually black or dark brown, while his whiskers may reveal a few strands of red or even blond. Blond hair may be seen, but it is the exception. Its presence does not require some invasion of Goths or Scyths or the miscegenation of Crusaders. One of the characteristics of the Mediterranean race is a minority tendency toward blondism. This is seen much more frequently in the eyes, since blond hair, which appears in infants, usually darkens as the hair coarsens with age. Among Mediterraneans every shade of eye color appears. Coal black is exceptional, a dark or medium brown most common. Nearly a fourth of any sample, however, will have blue, gray or green eyes, usually mixed with brown in the iris pattern. Eyes do not darken with age; hence the greater prevalence of light eyes rather than blond hair among the adult. http://dienekes.110mb.com/texts/coonmed/



SuperStack	Nov 8 2009, 07:43 AM Post #7
Full Member Posts: 459 Group: Members Member #76 Joined: 13-Apr 2008	Again, quoting old anthropologists as fact today is not really applicable. Even genetic studies today seem to be changing with each new development in that science. Why is it that those old studies that are often 60+ years old are quoted as fact?



Racial Reality	Nov 8 2009, 03:27 PM Post #8
Administrator Posts: 989 Group: Administrators Member #1 Joined: 25-Mar 2008 Gender: Male Ancestry: European	Why is it that people think just because something is 60+ years old, it's no longer applicable?



matt123	Nov 10 2009, 02:22 AM Post #9
Junior Member Posts: 39 Group: Members Member #494 Joined: 24-Aug 2009 Gender: Male Ancestry: European Religion: Protestant Politics: Center-Right	SuperStack Nov 6 2009, 01:01 AM His eye shape looks somewhat Amerind. In some pics he looks more Faelisch or Bruenn like and others a Mediterranean componant. It's hard to know if that is from his Native ancestry. He is, overall, a Kind of cromagnid (may be phalian). His jaw, his face breath and his nose type scream PHALIAN. With some med/atlantid/keltid admixture... I go for Keltid (because of his nose profile). But, the UP/cromagnid is strong on him... And no way that is because of amerind admixture. I actualy don't see the amerindian in him... may be the eyes, but, I wouldn't go for non-europid.



SuperStack	Nov 15 2009, 09:56 AM Post #10
Full Member Posts: 459 Group: Members Member #76 Joined: 13-Apr 2008	Racial Reality Nov 8 2009, 03:27 PM Why is it that people think just because something is 60+ years old, it's no longer applicable? I guess I was mistaken to say they are not applicable today. The more accurate assessment is that they shouldn't be quoted as fact. The whole racial anthropology study is subject to change as it was even among those early scholars. It is not an exact science. But consistant reliance on quotations from those studies to bolster modern claims should never be met with full compliance. No one should say they were completely wrong. No one should say they were completely right. With any theory, they must stand up to later developments as they arise. We wouldn't just quote medical studies from 60 years ago as absolute fact because the field of medicine is very complex and open to much new development as each year passes. With anthropology much of their studies implies population migrations. Old anthropology can rely on supposed historical accounts or suggested morphological explanations. Only modern genetics can confirm real population migrations, and they can either support or deny the great works of the past. That's why throwing down what Coon said about this or that, seems not fully substantial as what can be confirmed with modern science. Edited by SuperStack, Nov 15 2009, 10:06 AM.



Racial Reality	Nov 15 2009, 02:47 PM Post #11
Administrator Posts: 989 Group: Administrators Member #1 Joined: 25-Mar 2008 Gender: Male Ancestry: European	SuperStack Nov 15 2009, 09:56 AM The whole racial anthropology study is subject to change as it was even among those early scholars. It is not an exact science. [...] With any theory, they must stand up to later developments as they arise. The practice of measuring skulls to determine population affinities has not changed since Coon's time. There really isn't any "theory" involved. Quote: With anthropology much of their studies implies population migrations. Old anthropology can rely on supposed historical accounts or suggested morphological explanations. Only modern genetics can confirm real population migrations, and they can either support or deny the great works of the past. Actually, old anthropologists relied on physical remains, which reveal a lot about migrations. The problem was that they didn't have carbon dating, so their estimates of when migrations occurred were often wrong. But overall, genetics supports more of their work than it denies.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · Classifying People · Next Topic »