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

[Tooting Carmen]

(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.

[Sikeliot]

I don't agree with #3 because it relies on the assumption that blonde haired, blue eyed Southern Europeans are passable in Northern Europe on the basis of their features, and I don't believe they are. At least not in Sicily. Not sure about Andalusia.

[Tooting Carmen]

I don't agree with #3 because it relies on the assumption that blonde haired, blue eyed Southern Europeans are passable in Northern Europe on the basis of their features, and I don't believe they are. At least not in Sicily. Not sure about Andalusia.

Maybe if you analyse them closely they wouldn't necessarily, but the point is most ordinary people are not that pedantic. Anyway, do you agree with the other three statements?

[Deneb]

I don't agree with 1. I have observed more blonde people in Argentina and Uruguay, and by much margin, than in Chile.

[Tooting Carmen]

I don't agree with 1. I have observed more blonde people in Argentina and Uruguay, and by much margin, than in Chile.

It depends on which social circles in Chile you enter, whereas Argentina and especially Uruguay are more homogeneous. And do you agree with the other three statements?

[Deneb]

It depends on which social circles in Chile you enter, whereas Argentina and especially Uruguay are more homogeneous. And do you agree with the other three statements?

In relation to number 2 I've never been to America, so I prefer not to comment. I have doubts about number 3. I have no idea about number 4.

[Valedictorian]

1.) Both Chile and Argentina are countries that have received a quite significant European immigration throughout their history (although the former has much more Iberian influence than the latter), that being said, Chile does seem to be more heterogenous than Argentina, mainly due to their native Mapuche influence and the Bolivian immigrants which add up to the Amerindian share (the latter which is also present in Argentina, btw.) But although Argentina may be more homogenous in the meaning that a large amount of the population is of South European descent, let's not forget that they have a larger Central-North European input than Chile; thus it is only reasonable to expect more pseudo Northern looking people in Argentina. I agree with the Cuba and Puerto Rico thing, PR is definitely much more mixed than Cuba. If I recall correctly, Cuba was the only Latin American country in which a pseudo-apartheid system was instilled, so that explains a lot.

2) Quite a bit of people in this forum overrates their countries whiteness or has some kind of white washing agenda, which is dumb AF, especially if we're talking about Latin American countries (as you have said before, the most mixed race continent in the world.) But I don't really agree with the USA thing, because although it is an extremely diverse country and it has a large black and Hispanic population, the first thing that comes to my mind when I think of European diaspora (mostly or completely unadmixed) in the Americas is the USA.

3) The Germanic admixture that is found in Southern Europe is misunderstood, because it mainly comes from "barbarian" tribes such as the Goths and other tribes, who migrated throughout pretty much all Europe until finally arriving to Italy and Spain 500 years later. Therefore the Goths and the other Germanic tribes involved in the migration period had several stages of ethnogenesis and were subjected to a lot of foreign influence by all the native populations they encountered (bear in mind that they had the custom of taking the women of the tribes they vanquished). I mean, do you really expect a tribe of pure-blood blonde hair-blue eyed Germanics running around Europe for 500 years? They might all share ancestry that goes back to Scandinavia, but when you get down just a few generations you're going to have a wide mix of other ethnicities with them. So given that the Germanic blood was so diluted at the point it arrived to Southern Europe, I'd wager to say that the lighter complexioned Southern Europeans have their own look. Take a look at the lighter Spanish footballers such as Pique. They all look Spanish to me, not NW European.

4) NE Asian colonialism is responsible for that, so I wholeheartedly agree.

[Tooting Carmen]

(1) Perhaps I should have clarified it better. Although of course Argentina has more people with fully European phenotypes than does Chile - whether Nordic, Alpine or Mediterranean - my point is that, when you compare the middle and upper-classes of Chile and Argentina, the former can often be blonder and fairer than the latter, due mainly to significant British and German input. By contrast, while Argentina has had immigration from throughout Europe too, most people there, regardless of social class, are essentially an Italo-Spanish mix.

(2) Yes of course the USA is mostly a White country (though for how much longer?), but the point is that - especially in the major cities - it is nowhere near as much as what much of its media might convey. Granted, quite a few Black sitcoms and singers have been popular globally throughout the years, but predominantly Hispanic or Asian programmes, films or even in the latter's case singers are still relatively rare. If you watch many American TV programmes such as Friends and Sex And The City (set in New York); Baywatch, Desperate Housewives and Beverley Hills 90210 (set in California) or Frasier (set in Seattle), they do not reflect the sheer ethnic diversity of their locations whatsoever.

(3) Surely the Germanic and Slavic invasions have at least partially contributed to the prevalence of lighter phenotypes in Southern Europe? Because without them, then surely lighter phenotypes would be no more common in Iberia, Italy or the Balkans than truly Med phenotypes are in Northern Europe.

[Erronkari]

1.) Both Chile and Argentina are countries that have received a quite significant European immigration throughout their history (although the former has much more Iberian influence than the latter), that being said, Chile does seem to be more heterogenous than Argentina, mainly due to their native Mapuche influence and the Bolivian immigrants which add up to the Amerindian share (the latter which is also present in Argentina, btw.) But although Argentina may be more homogenous in the meaning that a large amount of the population is of South European descent, let's not forget that they have a larger Central-North European input than Chile; thus it is only reasonable to expect more pseudo Northern looking people in Argentina. I agree with the Cuba and Puerto Rico thing, PR is definitely much more mixed than Cuba. If I recall correctly, Cuba was the only Latin American country in which a pseudo-apartheid system was instilled, so that explains a lot.

2) Quite a bit of people in this forum overrates their countries whiteness or has some kind of white washing agenda, which is dumb AF, especially if we're talking about Latin American countries (as you have said before, the most mixed race continent in the world.) But I don't really agree with the USA thing, because although it is an extremely diverse country and it has a large black and Hispanic population, the first thing that comes to my mind when I think of European diaspora (mostly or completely unadmixed) in the Americas is the USA.

3) The Germanic admixture that is found in Southern Europe is misunderstood, because it mainly comes from "barbarian" tribes such as the Goths and other tribes, who migrated throughout pretty much all Europe until finally arriving to Italy and Spain 500 years later. Therefore the Goths and the other Germanic tribes involved in the migration period had several stages of ethnogenesis and were subjected to a lot of foreign influence by all the native populations they encountered (bear in mind that they had the custom of taking the women of the tribes they vanquished). I mean, do you really expect a tribe of pure-blood blonde hair-blue eyed Germanics running around Europe for 500 years? They might all share ancestry that goes back to Scandinavia, but when you get down just a few generations you're going to have a wide mix of other ethnicities with them. So given that the Germanic blood was so diluted at the point it arrived to Southern Europe, I'd wager to say that the lighter complexioned Southern Europeans have their own look. Take a look at the lighter Spanish footballers such as Pique. They all look Spanish to me, not NW European.

4) NE Asian colonialism is responsible for that, so I wholeheartedly agree.

I think that you forget that Argentina has more Bolivian immigrants by far, not Chile, you said the opposite.
Argentina has the most numerous bolivian diaspora.

"En la Argentina, a inicios del siglo XXI, reside la comunidad boliviana más numerosa del mundo. El censo de 2001 registró 233.464 bolivianos legales radicados en Argentina, en partes iguales para mujeres y varones. Esto se debe en gran parte, a la abundancia económica, y a las favorables oportunidades que tienen los inmigrantes en Argentina, y buena calidad de los hospitales gratuitos."

https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inmi...a_en_Argentina

[Erronkari]

Duplicated*.