The Continued Silliness of R1b & R1a Chauvinists: Lineages were NOT Conquerors or Kings

 We've discussed this before.  A certain chauvinism (we won't call it ethno-nationalism or racism) of online idiots who believe that the "male-mediated" prevalence of R1b and R1a in certain lands make those people the "descendants of conquerors."  You see such drivel all the time on blogs like Eurogenes, but it infects the thinking event of Razib Khan.  

We've pointed out that many things could have caused such migrations.  We've shown how in modern times, the haplogroup percentages of places like Lebanon have changed dramatically from the large numbers of Syrian males migrating there -- and how such males are far from conquerors, but are refugees.  

We've cited historical examples: the Goths who had to leave Eastern Europe because the Huns conquered them, and then they, in turn, due to mass migrations and chaos, upended parts of the Roman Empire.

But this "R1b males are the descendants of conquering studs" simply won't die.  So today we raise two examples.  The first is more direct.  The second is a bit of a historical parable.

1.  We often read posts on how the ethnic groups who have less prevalence of R1b and R1a are somehow inferior, because they have less of the genes of the "conquerors."  But doesn't this just mean that those people were stronger?  More advanced?  More capable of holding off the hordes?  I mean, people, think about it...

2. Now we'll give yet another example from history.  But this time, we'll do so like Socrates did, in a parable, asking your brains, dear readers, to make the logical leaps.

Three tribes exist, and each is more or less 100% homogenous.  

At Year 500:

In nation state / tribe #1, the dominant haplogroup is S

In nation state / tribe #2, the dominant haplogroup is G

In nation state / tribe #3, the dominant haplogroup is E.

Now it's year 900:

In nation state / tribe #1, the dominant haplogroup is still S.

In nation state / tribe #2, the dominant haplogroup is ALSO now S

In nation state / tribe #3, the dominant haplogroup is still E.

Some people online assert that Nation #2 are the descendants of mighty conquerors. Awesome studly men who were sexually selected.

Some people online assert that Nation #3 are weaker, because they have far less of Haplogroup S.  "No conquerors there."  "Must have been weak."

However, these nations are:

1. Spain

2. Guatemala

and

3. England

In other words, contrary to the exceedingly weak and illogical "models" these people circulate on the internet:

The people in #2 are descendants of the conquered.  Spain was able to inflict horrible things on them.

The people in #3 are descendants of a people who, although Spain tried many times, were strong and organized enough to beat back any invasion.

Perspective?