It seems not all european have the same skin color like CV claims

[Centurion]

France is on a range of pigmentation which can be seen as similar with the area going from Austria and Slovakia to Northern Balkans. Spain is on a range of pigmentation which is similar with the area going from Northern Balkans to MENA countries. The problem is that there's a point, when you are as dark as non-Europeans, when you start to be too dark for your own good. That's why Spaniards are in denial of the existence of their numerous MENA and South Asian looking people.

French don't have that issue, they are reasonably dark, but not excessively, with also a frequency of light eyes and blondism which is lightyears higher than among Spaniards.

Manliness is not related at all with darkness anyway. The light-haired and light eyes Germanic warriors who protected, and then conquered the Roman Empire, were far more manly than the swarthy and decadent weakling who populated South Europe at that time. This is an humiliating truth that South Europeans don't like to be reminded.

Iberians and South Italians are the swarthiest AND the poorest of the Western Europeans. And also the least productives and innovative. While these facts are not necessarly correlated, it doesn't prevent that they are true.

[Septentrion]

In term of skin color, there's less differences between South Europeans and Levantines than between South Europeans and other Europeans. Let's be honest about that.

Even in term of wealth. This ranking show that Spain and Portugal are not only the darkest, but also the POOREST country of Western Europe, far poorer than all the rest of Western Europe, and that Greece is roughly at the same level of pigmentation AND of wealth that...Turkey!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...PP)_per_capita

Well, Greece is poorer than Turkey actually, just like it was in 1500.

I beg to differ. There is a much higher frequency of skin type 5 in the Middle East than in Southern Europe. Secondly, the overall standard of living in Europe is higher. This is why you have more people migrating to Europe including Southern Europe than they would to the Middle East. The gap between the rich and poor is much larger there.

[Centurion]

I beg to differ. There is a much higher frequency of skin type 5 in the Middle East than in Southern Europe.

I talked about Levant, not the whole Middle East.

Secondly, the overall standard of living in Europe is higher. This is why you have more people migrating to Europe including Southern Europe than they would to the Middle East. The gap between the rich and poor is much larger there.

South Europe have immigration too, yes, but it doesn't prevent that South Europeans countries are significantly less rich than Celtic and Germanic countries, and that therefore South Europeans migrate to Celtic and Germanic countries too, just like African and Asian people.

[Tooting Carmen]

Well many Gulf Arab countries themselves are made up of 50%+ foreigners (including quite a few Westerners)...

[Septentrion]

France is on a range of pigmentation which can be seen as similar with the area going from Austria and Slovakia to Northern Balkans. Spain is on a range of pigmentation which is similar with the area going from Northern Balkans to MENA countries. The problem is that there's a point, when you are as dark as non-Europeans, when you start to be too dark for your own good. That's why Spaniards are in denial of the existence of their numerous MENA and South Asian looking people.

French don't have that issue, they are reasonably dark, but not excessively, with also a frequency of light eyes and blondism which is lightyears higher than among Spaniards.

Manliness is not related at all with darkness anyway. The light-haired and light eyes Germanic warriors who protected, and then conquered the Roman Empire, were far more manly than the swarthy and decadent weakling who populated South Europe at that time. This is an humiliating truth that South Europeans don't like to be reminded.

Iberians and South Italians are the swarthiest AND the poorest of the Western Europeans. And also the least productives and innovative. While these facts are not necessarly correlated, it doesn't prevent that they are true.

Oh slow down a little! European civilization was born in Southern Europe not the north. OK. Remember that. Germanic, Celtic, Slavic, Baltic, Finnic people were just Barbarians.

[SouthDutch7991]

All this skin color and phenotype shit is so fucking stupid. Europeans all come from the same ancient populations that are unique to Europe, Having 60% farmer instead of 40% isn't going to make a meaningful difference in how "white" someone is, jesus christ. It's such a wog thing to use skin tone only as the basis for "whiteness" especially among Europeans who are all relatively the palest worldwide. White means European, which like it or not is actually a very consistent ancestral grouping that includes everyone from Andalusia to Aland. I'm sorry but you're not a different "race" on a genetic level just because you come from Spain or Poland or England. It's really stupid and I see these kinds of arguments all over this forum as if skin tone, from a group of people living further south and tanning more often, matters more than the fact that they come from the same basal ancestral European populations are shared across Europe. The original 19th century racial scientists NEVER used skin tone alone to determine someones race, which is really dumb. The difference between white, tanned, and white, untanned, is a very minor thing.

I just struggle to understand what significance it's supposed to have and why these arguments even exist. This isn't 1950 anymore, we can use genetics to look at what a persons anthropological background is. We don't need to do silly shit like pulling up cards of different cherry picked people.

[Jana]

France can't be 31% skin type IV for sure, unless they counted MENA immigrants. Type IV skin is minority even in Mediterranean Europe and frequent/very present only in deep south of the continent.
Percentages of skin type IV in countries like Iceland, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands etc look like BS. They obviously counted immigrants as well.

Type IV skin tone in northern Europe is like 1-2%, if that.

[Centurion]

Well many Gulf Arab countries themselves are made up of 50%+ foreigners (including quite a few Westerners)...

Of course. These Gulf Arab countries are very thriving and rich so they need workforce and attract a lot of immigrants. Spain, however, is a poor shithole in comparison and is crippled by chronic very high unemployment rate. So they attract less immigrants. But there's still a significant number though. And Spaniards are bullied by them. See that BLM riot in Spain for example:

https://democratie-participative.buz...-des-magasins/

Oh slow down a little! European civilization was born in Southern Europe not the north. OK. Remember that. Germanic, Celtic, Slavic, Baltic, Finnic people were just Barbarians.

There's no "European Civilization", Europe is divided between 3 Civilizations: Occident, Orient and the Russian World. South Europe is divided between Occident and Orient.

And today Southern Europe is poor, unproductive and unninovative compared with Germanic, Celtic, Baltic and Finnic countries. Even Central Euro Slavic countries are as much developed as Southern Euros countries nowadays. And, at the exception of North Italy (which benefit of some kinship with Germanic and Celtic people, and therefore do better), the achievements of Southern Europeans during modern times have been insignificant compared with those of Celtic and Germanic countries. The "barbarians" have surpassed the "civilized" Southern Europeans, and by far. This and the fact that they have been conquered and submited by the Germanic "barbarians" are humiliation and forfeiture that South Euros have a hard time to swallow.



And anyway, Jurgen Spanuth, among others, have proven decades ago the Atlantean and Hyperborean Civilizations, located in Northern Europe, have existed for real. Until it collapsed due to a great cataclysm which happened at the end of the XIIIth Century BC, leading to the Bronze Age collapse and the migration of the People of the Sea, who where actually Nordic people emigrated from the collapsed Atlantis.

One branch of these Nordic people were the Dorians who will settle in Greece, leading to the Ancient Greek Civilization. But the Nordic blood get diluted and later Greece merged with Orient, entered in decline, and the center of progress and innovations naturally moved to its original source, which is Celtic and Germanic Europe. The Greek philosophers themselves knew that they were of Nordic origin and that Atlantis and Hyperboree was the homeland of their ancestors. And Aristotle himself stated that the origin of philosophy actually came from...the Celts! This fact is mentioned is the below video (at 1:42:30)

[Septentrion]

All this skin color and phenotype shit is so fucking stupid. Europeans all come from the same ancient populations that are unique to Europe, Having 60% farmer instead of 40% isn't going to make a meaningful difference in how "white" someone is, jesus christ. It's such a wog thing to use skin tone only as the basis for "whiteness" especially among Europeans who are all relatively the palest worldwide. White means European, which like it or not is actually a very consistent ancestral grouping that includes everyone from Andalusia to Aland. I'm sorry but you're not a different "race" on a genetic level just because you come from Spain or Poland or England. It's really stupid and I see these kinds of arguments all over this forum as if skin tone, from a group of people living further south and tanning more often, matters more than the fact that they come from the same basal ancestral European populations are shared across Europe. The original 19th century racial scientists NEVER used skin tone alone to determine someones race, which is really dumb. The difference between white, tanned, and white, untanned, is a very minor thing.

I just struggle to understand what significance it's supposed to have and why these arguments even exist. This isn't 1950 anymore, we can use genetics to look at what a persons anthropological background is. We don't need to do silly shit like pulling up cards of different cherry picked people.

Europeans are not homogeneous. There are differences whether genetically or phenotypically. The original anthropologists did use skin tones to differentiate. Why do you think we have the Von Luschan scale way before the Fitzpatrick scale?

[Septentrion]

Europeans are not homogeneous. There are differences whether genetically or phenotypically. The original anthropologists did use skin tones to differentiate. Why do you think we have the Von Luschan scale way before the Fitzpatrick scale?