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

[Smeagol]

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.

Baseless assumption. Most light phenotypes in Southern Europe are from ancient Indo-Europeans.

[Valedictorian]

^What he said.

[Tooting Carmen]

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

But either way, do you agree with what I originally said in the OP or not?

[Cristiano viejo]

While it is true that all Europeans overlap, this is mostly due to substantial Germanic and Slavic admixture in Southern Europe

[Erronkari]

But either way, do you agree with what I originally said in the OP or not?

Partly, and partly I agree with Benjamín about which he said except the point of bolivian immigrants which I exposed.
But in a way Chile recived similar amount of immigrants but mostly from Peru.
But the point of social - classes in Argentina is not related of a classic idea that the élite is lighter.
Because in many cases the élite is not integrated by north-european immigrant descendants, but for people who become of colonial background and in other cases (and it's very common that) of immigrants, but especially jewish ones (ashkenazi mostly). And the last are quite light in majority but not all.
German and british descendants, for example, normally they have a good social position, but although they are not even close of the top of the pyramid.

[Tooting Carmen]

Partly, and partly I agree with Benjamín about which he said except the point of bolivian immigrants which I exposed.
But in a way Chile recived similar amount of immigrants but mostly from Peru.
But the point of social - classes in Argentina is not related of a classic idea that the élite is lighter.
Because in many cases the élite is not integrated by north-european immigrant descendants, but for people who become of colonial background and in other cases (and it's very common that) of immigrants, but especially jewish ones (ashkenazi mostly). And the last are quite light in majority but not all.
German and british descendants, for example, normally they have a good social position, but although they are not even close of the top of the pyramid.

I think you'd find that the percentages of surnames that are respectively Italian, Spanish or something else wouldn't vary that drastically based on social class in Argentina, whereas in Chile the working-classes almost always have Spanish or even sometimes indigenous surnames, while the middle and upper-classes have a whole range of European (and sometimes Middle Eastern) surnames. More generally, Chile does seem to have a strong White-Mestizo divide, where the working-classes are very Mestizo and the middle and upper-classes are very White. This is quite different from countries such as Mexico, Colombia and Venezuela, where even the middle-classes (though less so the upper-classes) are still predominantly Mestizo, just not as much as are the working-classes.

[Erronkari]

Partly, and partly I agree with Benjamín about which he said except the point of bolivian immigrants which I exposed.
But in a way Chile recived similar amount of immigrants but mostly from Peru.
But the point of social - classes in Argentina is not related of a classic idea that the élite is lighter.
Because in many cases the élite is not integrated by north-european immigrant descendants, but for people who become of colonial background and in other cases (and it's very common that) of immigrants, but especially jewish ones (ashkenazi mostly). And the last are quite light in majority but not all.
German and british descendants, for example, normally they have a good social position, but although they are not even close of the top of the pyramid.

I think you'd find that the percentages of surnames that are respectively Italian, Spanish or something else wouldn't vary that drastically based on social class in Argentina, whereas in Chile the working-classes almost always have Spanish or even sometimes indigenous surnames, while the middle and upper-classes have a whole range of European (and sometimes Middle Eastern) surnames. More generally, Chile does seem to have a strong White-Mestizo divide, where the working-classes are very Mestizo and the middle and upper-classes are very White. This is quite different from countries such as Mexico, Colombia and Venezuela, where even the middle-classes (though less so the upper-classes) are still predominantly Mestizo, just not as much as are the working-classes.

Yes, totally agree that comparison between Chile and Argentina in that aspect is almost perfect!

[The Blade]

1 - Not familiar enough to comment.
2 - True although it depends whom you are referring to, I have always considered the US a quite mixed country.
3 - True although blondism isn't the most important factor but rather facial features, skull shape and head (and facial) dimensions.
4 - Yes.

[Tooting Carmen]

1 - Not familiar enough to comment.
2 - True although it depends whom you are referring to, I have always considered the US a quite mixed country.
3 - True although blondism isn't the most important factor but rather facial features, skull shape and head (and facial) dimensions.
4 - Yes.

Re point (3), facial features ultimately do matter more than colouring, but even on that basis I'd still argue that even someone heavily Nordid or Faelid like Oscar Wendt or Simon Kjaer would not look as odd in most of Southern Europe as a Gracile Med like Penelope Cruz or Monica Bellucci would in most of Northern Europe.

[The Blade]

Re point (3), facial features ultimately do matter more than colouring, but even on that basis I'd still argue that even someone heavily Nordid or Faelid like Oscar Wendt or Simon Kjaer would not look as odd in most of Southern Europe as a Gracile Med like Penelope Cruz or Monica Bellucci would in most of Northern Europe.

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).