Do you agree that the most distinct feature of Europeans is the high prevalence of light hair/eyes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avicenna

Did you know the most amount of ethnic English Muslims are from east Anglia? They have a whole community of second generation born English Muslims in Norwich.

---

English converts you mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tooting Carmen

English converts you mean?

---

Yes, however Alot of them converted to Islam during the 1970s etc. So now they have second or even third generation born ethnic English Muslims, and they are not mixed, they are literally full blooded pure english muslims. I had stumbled on one of community members profile some time ago on Facebook and was fascinated lol then couple years later I found out that they have a whole community / masjid that is majority English . For me that's interesting .

This was also confirmed here

https://www.tiktok.com/@harryround11...87566095748379

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avicenna

Yes, however Alot of them converted to Islam during the 1970s etc. So now they have second or even third generation born ethnic English Muslims, and they are not mixed, they are literally full blooded pure english muslims. I had stumbled on one of community members profile some time ago on Facebook and was fascinated lol then couple years later I found out that they have a whole community / masjid that is majority English . For me that's interesting .

This was also confirmed here

https://www.tiktok.com/@harryround11...87566095748379

---

Well Norwich is a kind of hippy and eccentric place, especially the University of East Anglia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tooting Carmen

Well Norwich is a kind of hippy and eccentric place, sespecially the University of East Anglia.

---

They seemed middle class English folks, not the kind that grew up on a estate or a dumpster. Either way, Islam is not really compatible with hippies, they would have converted to Buddhism or some other ism if that was the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Septentrion

I guess Circassians, Georgians have their own looks from the Caucasus. They remind me more of a lighter version of Middle-Easterners like Armenians. They don’t remind me of Portuguese people at all. Despite the fact, they are both predominantly brunet populations. Circassians are lighter-complexioned as a whole than Georgians and nearby populations. They were revered for that.

---

But circassians are much lighter and not bit than georgians

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by interes

But circassians are much lighter and not bit than georgians

---

Okay we get it for the millionth time man

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tooting Carmen

Quite a few might want that indeed, but there are also some who are relatively content with their traditional rural lifestyles, as long as they are not starving or homeless. While we should certainly be very wary and sceptical about romanticising and exoticising people who live in much poorer conditions than us in the West, equally nor is it true that they all want to be the same as us.



The main problem with the green agenda is that it focuses too much on changing consumption patterns, however trite and minor (and are really more about governments and businesses exercising greater control over us) and too little on changing production patterns. One reason why I cannot envisage joining the Green Party, even if I agree with a fair amount of their programme and even general ethos, is their rigid and ideological opposition to nuclear energy. If we want to move away from fossil fuels and the often despotic regimes that sell them to us, and at the same time still live reasonably comfortable and decent lives, then nuclear will have to play its part. Renewables alone will not suffice. It is a case of cost-benefit analysis, and unfortunately too many Greens do indeed have a rather black-and-white way of seeing everything.



Indeed, and that is why I find it tragicomic when people in this and other similar fora get so angry about Mediterranean Europeans and Balkanites being compared to Jews, Turks or Kavkazians, or apparently worse still actually labelling Jews, Kavkazians and Turks as White/European.



Alright I agree. But then why did even the 'whiter' parts of Latin America like Argentina, Uruguay and Southern Brazil never develop to the same degree? (Yes I know Argentina at one point was very wealthy, but even that was mostly due to cattle and beef and not really either industry or finance). Furthermore, as I discussed in a thread called The Rise Of The West, it is not entirely due to Communism why Eastern Europe was and to an extent still is poorer than Western Europe either. It dates much farther back than that.



Economic colonialism is indeed dubious and pernicious. But at least equally dubious and pernicious IMHO is the moral and cultural colonialism of NGOs and to an extent corporations: "Whether you like it or not, you must abolish the death penalty and legalise gay marriage, or we shall sanction and humiliate you". (I am saying that as someone who myself opposes the death penalty and supports gay marriage, but I recognise they are contentious issues and that sovereign nations and peoples - within reason - have the right to live according to their own mores, beliefs and cultures).

---

Well, put those non european light skinned caucasians in subsaharian Africa or even India, most of Asia etc, and the locals would see them as white, that's for sure.

One thing is being european (or of european descent), another thing is to be considered white, whatever the subjective definition one might choose. Some people even go to the point of excluding non-christians from their definition of white, which is nonsensincal, aren't Bosnians white and european despite most of them being muslims? Likewise some ethnicities tecognized as autochtonous europeans are not white/not fully white, such as the Sammi and many more that live especially in Russia. Those people are no less european than everybody else, no one has the right to claim that. Indeed there is a lot of stupidity and childdish emotionalism regardingt those concepts.

Southern Brazil is quite industrialized and if it was a country separated from the rest it would rank among the developed nations. Argentina had horrible governments for many decades but it has a decent infrastructure and one can see it was indeed a developed country.

The moral and cultural colonialism supported by angry leftist activists with their ideological allucinations that they know better than everyone else, who are nothing but useful idiots for the economic neocolonialists. xD There you have it, the full circle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sebastianus Rex

Well, put those non european light skinned caucasians in subsaharian Africa or even India, most of Asia etc, and the locals would see them as white, that's for sure.

---

I suppose so.

Quote:

---

One thing is being european (or of european descent), another thing is to be considered white, whatever the subjective definition one might choose. Some people even go to the point of excluding non-christians from their definition of white, which is nonsensincal, aren't Bosnians white and european despite most of them being muslims? Likewise some ethnicities tecognized as autochtonous europeans are not white/not fully white, such as the Sammi and many more that live especially in Russia. Those people are no less european than everybody else, no one has the right to claim that. Indeed there is a lot of stupidity and childdish emotionalism regardingt those concepts.

---

I agree, though I remember even you said you consider Georgians to be 'whiter' than Albanians due to religion.

Quote:

---

Southern Brazil is quite industrialized and if it was a country separated from the rest it would rank among the developed nations. Argentina had horrible governments for many decades but it has a decent infrastructure and one can see it was indeed a developed country.

---

According to the UNHDI, even Southern Brazil is only really comparable to the likes of Panama, Barbados and North Macedonia. Developed, but at the 'lower' end of the spectrum. https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...are-comparable

Quote:

---

The moral and cultural colonialism supported by angry leftist activists with their ideological allucinations that they know better than everyone else, who are nothing but useful idiots for the economic neocolonialists. xD There you have it, the full circle.

---

The strange irony about many people on both the Left and the more liberal-minded Right is that they support diversity (in a very limited epistemological sense) within nations while opposing genuine diversity between them. They want everyone to live and speak according to the holy gospel of Amnesty International and California, whatever their wishes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rædwald

No, a Nordid with Brown eyes and Hair will still be a Nordid. Cranial-facial metrics are miles better an indicator of ethnicity than pigmentation.

---

True. There is a small dark-pigmented minority not to be disregarded within the almost exclusively blond Hallstatt Nordid (Nordid Proper) type.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Milkaner

Tooting Carmen and I apparently both agree that true blond is Fischer #9-26 and that near blonds like #8 are only blond in an expanded sense. By blond we both mean noticeably lighter roots than Rui Caetano.

Even in the blondest European countries Fischer #9-26 is not much more than about 50% of young adults. For Bryn's largest survey of Norwegian recruits (https://books.google.com/books?newbk...volume&q=braun) it was almost exactly 50% Fischer #9-26 (calculated by subtracting 1.34% Fischer #1-3 , 48.5% #4-8, and 0.1% #27) This approximately means only half of Norwegian young adult males are noticeably blonder than Rui Caetano without photobleaching. XenophobicPrussian may have not have included certain dark blond shades (dark ash blond Fischer #25-26 in particular which is quite common in Norway) or was just more rigorous than Bryn's observers. It could even just be that his sample of 255 Norwegians is not as representative as Bryn's sample of almost 12,000 recruits. In any case it is not more than about 50% for Norwegian young adult males.

Non-photobleached hair at least as light as this is not much more than 50% for young adults even in Northern European countries:
https://i.ibb.co/zZXRhrT/260209.jpg

---

Anthropologia Suecica says that 52% of Swedes were ashen blonds and 23% golden blonds. There you have the two classes of blondness represented within the Swedish folk! I think it depends on the scale used. Regardless, here it shows that at least 75% were fair-haired.
In my other source, the South Norwegian Agder region had recorded more than 80% blond for adult males (the blondest place in the world), this place ties Central Estonia.