We gotta clarify some things. First off, what is 100% white looking to you? And please do not say first and foremost skin color, because then we know you're an idiot. Second off, phenotype even among 100% native stock can produce pseudo uncommon looks that may not look typical in a group. Tribes always had people that were different looking, outliers even millenia ago even among genetically pure populations and then with natural mixing - that's simply the complexity of looks. Second, centuries ago? Meaning 100s of years ago... if we go back probably to anything before German anthropologist created their stupid racial classifications in the late 19th century to create justification of superiority complex than you will find no one cared much about subtle differences in europeans. It's true iberians attached racial rules during the age of exploration, but it was between big distinction groups... native indians, spaniards + Portuguese europeans, and blacks. Then they created mixed classifications to go even further. But anyway, there were obvious differences in looks you could see between these populations. But I really doubt the differences we compare today from europeans and even some MENAs - one's who have evident fully caucasoid features - was nearly as strong as people make them to be on this forum, or in real life bc of dumb liberal obsessions with race.
You have to first identify and define what is white to you so we can better understand what you mean. Because right now, I can show many examples of people who may not be considered white in the definition of many (Primarily americans) while having heritage 100% from that european region. Starting off with me, my brother, and sister, and going all the way to Sweden up north
I don't think the term white was very popular in Europe until recently due to America's influence on the term either. I realize it existed in europe for a long time, but its use was irrelevant bc european pops for a long time did not have immigration or foreigners until recently. Now with high immigration and mixing people are going back on it and the term seems to be revitalized. I think it being used to show differences in groups in a country is okay when they are blatantly obvious... but to use it for other reasons like saying a native is a foreigner bc of an outlier look is just nazi-like obsession. Example: now if I were to go to Germany I'll be confused as turkish or moroccan due to having darker skin... and maybe experience racial profiling bc of immigration and the liberal obsession with looking at differences in "race". Same could be done to any euro with darker skin, or a little bit more of an off-white look from the lens of a euro above the 45th latitude. Turn the time way back, I probably wouldn't because the obsession with subtle differences isnt nearly as high as it is today in phenotype.
Bookmarks