Do New World Whites tend to be fairer-complexioned than their Old World counterparts? If so, why?

[Tooting Carmen]

I think they are.

On the one hand, I definitely find both White Americans and White Australians (and probably White Canadians and White Kiwis too, though I don't know so much about them) to be blonder and fairer than British and Irish people, and with more robust Germanic features, even when they are mostly or entirely of British Isles descent.

On the other hand, I find White Brazilians, Uruguayans and Argentinians (and probably those from other Latin American countries too) tend to have notably fewer 'exotic', pseudo-MENA types than you find in Portugal, Spain and Italy themselves. By this I mean people who look like Ana Moura, Inma Cuesta, Rocio Munoz Morales, Megan Montaner, Lucianna di Falco, Maria Carta and Marcella Bella.

The big question, however, is why? Perhaps White people in the New World became even more racially conscious and deliberately tried to mix with the lightest individuals possible?

[Dick]

I think you're overreacting.

[nittionia]

In my experience, the Americans (North Americans) of British Isles descent tend to tan better than those in British Isles today. I'm not sure if they are more blond, but maybe it could be from more continental influences. Many many people, especially with self-reported studies, do not actually know their ancestry completely. Yeah they have British ancestry, but also Palatine and Dutch ancestry is often in the mix.

[Bellbeaking]

1. More upper class people moved, most Aussies are not convicts (despite the dumb as fuck meme that convicts are the primary ancestors of aussies) but Gold Rush capitalists who migrated, for some reason the upper classes do seem fairer, it may be that more attractive traits in women concentrate higher up in the social hierarchy, due to sexual selection. Or it may just be that poor people have shorter hair which looks darker.

2. They live in the sun which bleaches them. Most studies do not really show a big disparity between Aussies and Brits in hair colour, even though I also percieve aussies as a bit more light featured.

3. Lifestyle, Aussies seem fitter, a thick neck and slim body makes a face look more robust and brings out features, lower bodyfat can take a man from atlantid to Keltic nordid real fast, lower stress also leads to prolonged youth and lighter features

4. Stereotypes, quiet reserved introverted people match better with a dark look, and a more extroverted outdoors seems to go better with lighter features. English are often potrayed as more introverted than Aussies.

5. As I said before, Aussies have longer hair in my opinion, it always looks lighter

6. As Penis said above, you may also be overstating this.

[Smeagol]

You'd have to post some actual studies on this and not just anecdotal evidence.

[Tooting Carmen]

You'd have to post some actual studies on this and not just anecdotal evidence.

Well in Britain, the East is generally fairer than the West. Although Mayflower sailed from Devon, how many of the British migrants in the US actually come from Southwest England and not lighter regions further afield?

[Dna8]

I think that the Continental European admixture in Anglo America is understated.

[Smeagol]

Well in Britain, the East is generally fairer than the West. Although Mayflower sailed from Devon, how many of the British migrants in the US actually come from Southwest England and not lighter regions further afield?

I don't know.

[Tenma de Pegasus]

I have four theories about it:

1)Probably because whites from New World dont come always from all parts of the country, but from specific regions. For example, white iberians in Argentina and Brazil dont came from all Iberia, but way more from the Northwest making Galicia and Minho overrepresented. The same way it could happen with Australians, I dont know.

2) Using the same logic, not all countries on New World have lighter phenotypes than their Metropolis, for example White Mexicans and White Puerto Ricans tend to have more exotic vibe than average iberians, not only because they can have recent non euro admixture, but also because Canarians and New Christians are extremely overrepresented there.

3)We also have to consider the time this people arrived in Americas, intra european immigration is something real and always happened on European History, so regions phenotypes can change to more or lesser degrees. For example, 100-120 years ago when north italians arrived in Brazil, Italy was way more diverse than today's Italy. So we can assume North Italy was homogenized and some phenotypes that were common among the immigration waves 120 years can be not so common in North Italy today like it is on their diasporas. I have seen many people here on TA talking about it when they see crownd or group pictures of white brazilians saying they are quite different of modern italians and iberians. But its just the frequence and importance of some phenotypes that changes, the phenotypes we can find in both places.

4) The last theory is that exotic phenotypes came to Americas already discriminated and the discrimination continued here. People like New Christians, Moors and Gypsies had less chance to mix with whites of the colonial elites and they ended up mixing more with non whites. So their exotic look wast lost among the blood of mestizos and mulatos, if you mix an atlanto-med with a black or amerindian the result will be mulato and mestizo and if you mix a sephardic jew with a black or amerindian the result will still be mulato and mestizo.

[Borealis]

I think that the Continental European admixture in Anglo America is understated.

Understated how? Everyone claims German and Polish ancestry. That and Italian. The main island people talk about is Ireland. I have yet to meet a single person claim English ancestry.