Which of Tooting Carmen's new controversial anthro statements do you agree with?

[Rouxinol]

I agree with (3) and (4).

[Tooting Carmen]

I agree with (3) and (4).

Don't you agree that the fact that most Mediterranean phenotypes are confined to a select few countries in Europe leads to a lot of butthurt in this forum?

[Rouxinol]

Don't you agree that the fact that most Mediterranean phenotypes are confined to a select few countries in Europe leads to a lot of butthurt in this forum?

Yes, absolutely. Some people from those countries will feel very complexed because they have NW and Northern Europeans as their reference for whiteness, to such an extent that they make up entire fictional countries in their heads, populated with "light types" and only a few, sparse "exotics" that would pass better - according to them - in the neighboring countries. It's a concerning psychological condition. Those kind of people are the ones who at any moment may flip out and get to the streets shooting people.

[Tooting Carmen]

Yes, absolutely. Some people from those countries will feel very complexed because they have NW and Northern Europeans as their reference for whiteness, to such an extent that they make up entire fictional countries in their heads, populated with "light types" and only a few, sparse "exotics" that would pass better - according to them - in the neighboring countries. It's a concerning psychological condition. Those kind of people are the ones who at any moment may flip out and get to the streets shooting people.

Coupled with this is a crappy pan-European ideology where, regardless of plenty of evidence to the contrary, people claim that Europeans look mostly the same from Lulea to Crete, that all European phenotypes can be found in all European countries, and most of all the darker types in Southern Europe are (please tick off as appropriate) Turks/Gypsies/South Americans etc.

(Btw, I am a firm Remainer in the Brexit debate, but I support staying in the EU for technocratic and practical reasons, not romantic or ethnocultural ones).

[Rouxinol]

Coupled with this is a crappy pan-European ideology where, regardless of plenty of evidence to the contrary, people claim that Europeans look mostly the same from Lulea to Crete, that all European phenotypes can be found in all European countries, and most of all the darker types in Southern Europe are (please tick off as appropriate) Turks/Gypsies/South Americans etc.

(Btw, I am a firm Remainer in the Brexit debate, but I support staying in the EU for technocratic and practical reasons, not romantic or ethnocultural ones).

I tend to agree. There are however commonalities and shared culture/traditions - to a certain extent - among countries of a certain area like Romance Europe/Germanic Europe, etc.

Yes I’ve noticed that some tend to label as gypsies anyone who doesn’t fit in their fictional version of their countries. Sometimes they’re so extreme that half of their population would be gypsy if we were to believe them. Sad.

[Septentrion]

(1) Chile is to Argentina what Cuba is to Puerto Rico. Let me explain. In Chile, there are generally more 'extremes' of looks than in Argentina - both people who look wholesale Mestizo or even sometimes Amerindian (especially among the working-classes), and people who look passable even in Scandinavia (especially among the middle and upper-classes). By contrast, most Argentinians look either Southern European or Euro-Mestizo, and although the country as a whole is certainly somewhat whiter than Chile, I would say I have observed more blonde, (pseudo) Northern Euro-looking people in Chile (at least among the wealthier classes) than in Argentina. Similarly, Cuba has more 'extremes' in looks than does Puerto Rico imo - the former has more people who either look totally White or totally Black than does the latter. By contrast, while there is undoubtedly diversity in Puerto Rico too, most of them look 80% White and 20% Black, or something around that order anyway.

(2) Apart from maybe Canada and Uruguay, the whiteness of most countries in the Americas (including even Argentina and the USA) is overrated. Despite what I said above, Argentina still has its fair share of Mestizos and Amerindians, even if not to the same scale as Chile or many other Latin American countries. As for the USA, whatever its international image might suggest, ultimately its Black population (12%) and (mostly non-white) Latin American population (16%) are both well in excess of anything found elsewhere in the Western world, while its Asian and Pacific Islander populations (5%) are also among the highest in the Western world.

(3) While it is true that all Europeans overlap, this is mostly due to substantial Germanic and Slavic admixture in Southern Europe, which is well in excess of any Mediterranean or West Asian admixture in Northern Europe. I'd wager that, even in places like Andalusia and Sicily, you can still find more blonde and blue-eyed natives than stereotypically Med-looking natives anywhere in Northern Europe (including in the British Isles, where the Mediterranean strain is a bit stronger than in some other parts).

(4) The overlap between most East Asian groups is mainly due to substantial Chinese admixture in SE Asia, not because there is that much SE Asian admixture anywhere in NE Asia. After all, even in the Philippines and Indonesia there are quite a few people who are either totally Chinese in ethnicity or have distant and partial ancestry from there, which explains why some of them can be surprisingly light. In contrast, Han Chinese, Koreans or Japanese who look genuinely SE Asian are not really that common at all.

The British Isles doesn't have stronger Med strains than other places in Northern Europe!

[Septentrion]

Yes, Southern Europe has Northern types but what makes them more passable in the north is their features on first place (pigmentation is of secondary importance).
Penelope Cruz looks unpassable for Northern Europe but Monica Bellucci is a debatable case and I have never understood people calling her Gracile Med. Maybe she would pass as atypical in Scandinavia but even if she doesn't, she still looks considerably more pan-Euro (and more pan-Western) than Cruz. Bellucci could pass as French, German or Belgian, in my opinion (I think as a dark British/Irish type, too). Cruz passes well only in Italy, Iberian peninsula and Southern France.












I actually believe the Bellucci/Cruz comparison is an example how features are more important than pigmentation. Cruz is a typical Gracile Med while Bellucci is Paleo Atlantid (Atlanto-CM).

Belluci is Alpino-Med looking. While Cruz is just a very beautiful Gracile Mediterranid.

[KonanxB]

(2) Apart from maybe Canada and Uruguay, the whiteness of most countries in the Americas (including even Argentina and the USA) is overrated. Despite what I said above, Argentina still has its fair share of Mestizos and Amerindians, even if not to the same scale as Chile or many other Latin American countries. As for the USA, whatever its international image might suggest, ultimately its Black population (12%) and (mostly non-white) Latin American population (16%) are both well in excess of anything found elsewhere in the Western world, while its Asian and Pacific Islander populations (5%) are also among the highest in the Western world.

Is the whiteness of Uruguay not overrated? On YouTube I have read ENOUGH Uruguayans (yes, clear and in capital letters, not isolated cases of trolls, but in serious mode and serious conversations) affirm that 98% or 99% of this country is "white". Plus, the myth that Uruguay is "much whiter than Argentina" is also widespread, when really both countries are similar.

[Tooting Carmen]

Is the whiteness of Uruguay not overrated? On YouTube I have read ENOUGH Uruguayans (yes, clear and in capital letters, not isolated cases of trolls, but in serious mode and serious conversations) affirm that 98% or 99% of this country is "white". Plus, the myth that Uruguay is "much whiter than Argentina" is also widespread, when really both countries are similar.

Uruguay is roughly 85% White and the remainder mainly a mix of Blacks and Mestizos. Argentina is roughly 65% White and the remainder mainly a mix of Mestizos and Amerindians, with a few East Asians here and there too. Argentina is much more mixed than Uruguay because (a) of all the immigration it has received from Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay and Chile and (b) even without that, the northern regions of the country like Tucuman are mostly Mestizo rather than White anyway.

[KonanxB]

Uruguay is roughly 85% White and the remainder mainly a mix of Blacks and Mestizos. Argentina is roughly 65% White and the remainder mainly a mix of Mestizos and Amerindians, with a few East Asians here and there too. Argentina is much more mixed than Uruguay because (a) of all the immigration it has received from Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay and Chile and (b) even without that, the northern regions of the country like Tucuman are mostly Mestizo rather than White anyway.

Sorry, but I see little less than improbable, if not impossible, that an "85%" of the population of Uruguay is phenotypically "+ 85% European". In all the Montevideo videos I've seen, people with very dark skin mean 10-15% of the total. This using only the pigmentation as a parameter (in videos it is difficult to classify by anthropometry, since it is not the same to have a detailed and clear picture of a person, that only to see it pass fleetingly) All Uruguayan with light skin in Montevideo is "full euro / semi-full euro "and do not have castizos or harnizos? Not in no way. Plus, Montevideo, Colonia and Maldonado are the 3 most European departments in Uruguay (without significant differences among the rest, Uruguay is very homogeneous), but so in the other departments the percentage is even higher. Nor do I see very fair the representation of Argentina, because the only provinces where people of pred amerindian aspect are the majority are Salta and Jujuy, which represent only 5% of Argentina, plus, although the black influence in the general population of Uruguay is much smaller than the Amerindian influence in the general Argentine population, there is really more blacks-griffes in Uruguay than Amerindians in Argentina. In my opinion, the percentage is 75% full european + 15% castizos / octoroons, which would give 90% of Uruguayans passing as Europeans. If it were 85% and we added 10% of castizos and octoroon, it would give 95% of Uruguayans <75% Europeans phenotypically, a percentage that would never fit in with the black population registered (8%).

The whiteness of Uruguay is also overvalued and you are doing it. The fact that it is the whitest country in America does not justify or prevent its whiteness from being overvalued.