Do you agree that the most distinct feature of Europeans is the high prevalence of light hair/eyes?

[Sebastianus Rex]

That depends. Do even blond and blue-eyed Jews like Grant Shapps and Michael Bolton not pass as Europeans to you?



No it isn't, unless you count light brown hair as "dark". And most Europeans have light eyes too - even parts of Southern Europe like Southern France, Northern Italy, Slovenia and Croatia are circa 40% light-eyed, never mind the bulk of the continent further north. As I hypothesised in the OP, it is not the mere existence of light hair and eyes but their high prevalence that makes Europe distinctive.



Yes and no. More than a few darker Europeans could at least pass reasonably well as Jews or West Asians, especially but by no means exclusively in SE Europe.



I would say in response to that the distinctive European trait in that respect is what some environmentalists disparagingly call "industrialism", or rather the search to move away from nature and live lives which revolve strongly around machinery and technology. The management of said societies can be anything from free-market capitalist to communist with all the different shades in between.



Sort of. But Jews and NE Asians are said to have even higher IQs than Europeans, and along with that I'd argue their cultures tend to value education and intellect more than many European cultures and individuals do. Furthermore, not all of Europe has been so prolific in said "search for knowledge" - sorry to say, but not all of the continent has been like Western Europe (especially NW Europe) by any means.

1. Those are examples of mixed Jewish/gentiles and of European Jewish extraction, their DNA is predominantly European. I was referring to the lighter examples of the populations that genetically fall clearly out of the European clusters, but you always like to complicate with statistically irrelevant examples.

2. Don't argue with me, go argue with the anthropologists who created the definitions of what is light and dark pigmentation wise. Brown hair and medium/mixed eyes are not light according to their definitions and therefore the large majority of Europeans don't have light hair and light eyes.

3. I wrote the "majority or most" I didn't wrote that there isn't a minority that is passable. Funny that you are so much into details and rethoric subtleties regarding some things and suddenly decide to ignore certain key words in a sentence in order to attempt to subvert its meaning. That makes you by definition a sophist , but that's no secret to the whole forum.

4. Wrong again, it's amazing the amount of nonsensical rubbish you can come up with in a day:

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/...est-cover.html

Continents By Forest Cover
Despite being the sixth largest continent with an area of 10,180,000 sq km, Europe has the largest forest cover among the continents of the world. The forest cover of Europe is 1,015 million hectares, as of 2015. Thus, the continent has a forest cover of 1.42 hectares per capita. The Russian Federation accounts for 81% of the continent’s forest area. The forest area of the continent has exhibited a steady rise of 0.08% annually. Over two-thirds of Europe’s forest cover is, however, semi-natural. Northern and eastern Europe has larger areas of virgin forest cover than the western parts of the continent.

In 2019, Yale University released their Environmental Performance Index (EPI) for all 180 countries in order to gauge which countries had the highest environmental quality and which had the lowest. The EPI measures two dimensions, environmental health and ecosystem vitality, through numerous metrics that focus on biodiversity, air and water quality, climate and agriculture. European and North American countries held the highest overall scores, while Asian and African countries saw the lowest, globally.
In 2019, Yale University released their Environmental Performance Index (EPI) for all 180 countries in order to gauge which countries had the highest environmental quality and which had the lowest. The EPI measures two dimensions, environmental health and ecosystem vitality, through numerous metrics that focus on biodiversity, air and water quality, climate and agriculture.

https://www.statista.com/chart/20500...-environments/

5. Already talked about Jewish genetics and if you're honest you will admit that Jews outside of Europe and North America haven't produced anything significant, they benefited from the social and educational context achieved in those territories.

Irrelevant about the supposedly higher IQ of NE Asians, they haven't achieved a fraction of what Europeans did despite being even more numerous. Beside, again your hypocritical double standards, you mention that not all European countries have the same weight on achievements ( and that is factual since the scientific and literary production is tied to the main educational centers, that is the norm in every country and every continent) but you are not divisive and don't miss a chance to generalize about Jews and NE Asians, like they are monolithic entities, that suits you fine.

Nevertheless, it is factual that the vast majority (if not all) European countries are over achievers in comparative terms despite the internal, continental, assimetries.

[Tooting Carmen]

1. Those are examples of mixed Jewish/gentiles and of European Jewish extraction, their DNA is predominantly European. I was referring to the lighter examples of the populations that genetically fall clearly out of the European clusters, but you always like to complicate with statistically irrelevant examples.

Do you mean individuals like Suha Arafat? OK then.

2. Don't argue with me, go argue with the anthropologists who created the definitions of what is light and dark pigmentation wise. Brown hair and medium/mixed eyes are not light according to their definitions and therefore the large majority of Europeans don't have light hair and light eyes.

Even the Scandinavian countries are only 40-50% true blondes, yet no one regards them as "predominantly dark-haired". And yes, Europeans as a whole have in the majority either blue, green or grey eyes.

3. I wrote the "majority or most" I didn't wrote that there isn't a minority that is passable. Funny that you are so much into details regarding some things and suddenly decide to ignore certain key words in a sentence to tempt to subvert the meaning of a sentence. That makes you by definition a sophist , but that's no secret tho the whole forum.

OK.

4. Wrong again, it's amazing the amount of nonsensical rubbish you can come up with in a day:

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/...est-cover.html

https://www.statista.com/chart/20500...-environments/

Richer countries have more money to invest in environmental protection. However, as those articles you quoted themselves clearly state, most of the forestry in Europe is in Russia, which as a whole is extremely sparsely-populated, more-or-less on par with Canada and Australia in that regard. Take Russia out, and you'll find that Europe is the most densely-populated and overcrowded part of Earth apart from the Indian Subcontinent and Southeastern China.

4. Already talked about Jewish genetics and if you're honest you will admit that Jews outside of Europe and North America haven't produced anything significant, they benefited from the social and educational context achieved in those territories.

Irrelevant about the supposedly higher IQ of NE Asians, they haven't achieved a fraction of what Europeans did despite being even more numerous. Beside, again your hypocritical double standards, you mention that not all European countries have the same weight on achievements but you are not divisive and don't miss a chance to generalize about Jews and NE Asians.

No, the double standard is when people like to claim Jewish achievements as being European achievements, yet usually like to say that Jews are non-white in order to distance themselves from them. Do you see Jews as White or not?

As for NE Asians, China for a long time was very complacent and insular and didn't have the zeal to expand and develop in a way that the West (and in its own way the Islamic world) did. However, things are rapidly-changing and it will be the world power sooner or later. On the other hand, even you have praised the Japanese, saying they are in many ways the most civilised nation on Earth and have done remarkably well considering their topography and lack of natural resources. South Korea has also been a miracle: in a few decades it has emerged from being one of the poorest to one of the richest countries on Earth, with strong manufacturing and technology sectors most Western countries nowadays could only dream of.

Lastly, do you really think that Albania is not much different to Norway? That is surely nonsense-on-stilts.

[Sebastianus Rex]

Do you mean individuals like Suha Arafat? OK then.



Even the Scandinavian countries are only 40-50% true blondes, yet no one regards them as "predominantly dark-haired". And yes, Europeans as a whole have in the majority either blue, green or grey eyes.



OK.



Richer countries have more money to invest in environmental protection. However, as those articles you quoted themselves clearly state, most of the forestry in Europe is in Russia, which as a whole is extremely sparsely-populated, more-or-less on par with Canada and Australia in that regard. Take Russia out, and you'll find that Europe is the most densely-populated and overcrowded part of Earth apart from the Indian Subcontinent and Southeastern China.



No, the double standard is when people like to claim Jewish achievements as being European achievements, yet usually like to say that Jews are non-white in order to distance themselves from them. Do you see Jews as White or not?

As for NE Asians, China for a long time was very complacent and insular and didn't have the zeal to expand and develop in a way that the West (and in its own way the Islamic world) did. However, things are rapidly-changing and it will be the world power sooner or later. On the other hand, even you have praised the Japanese, saying they are in many ways the most civilised nation on Earth and have done remarkably well considering their topography and lack of natural resources. South Korea has also been a miracle: in a few decades it has emerged from being one of the poorest to one of the richest countries on Earth, with strong manufacturing and technology sectors most Western countries nowadays could only dream of.

Lastly, do you really think that Albania is not much different to Norway? That is surely nonsense-on-stilts.

1. Another statistically irrelevant example.

2. If the majority of Scandinavians is not blond, therefore the majority of even those populations is medium or dark haired, not light...let alone the whole continent.

3. Russian Europe does not include Siberia and on the individual list you can see that even some European countries with mid to low percentage of forest whitin the continent, still have more than loads of non European countries.
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/forest_area/

4. Define "white" ?

5. And where were they before aquiring western knowledge? As you wrote, some of the poorest countries in the World.

6. Albania is a very small country with a significant Muslim population and was under a very repressive communist regime for decades, it's by no means representative of the European average, it is in fact often pointed as an outlier.

[Vessna]

When compared to other racial groups, that is. After all, many MENAs and East Asians and even some South Asians can have light skin, but the difference is they almost uniformly have dark hair and dark eyes. By contrast, even countries like Portugal, Spain, Italy, Albania, Bulgaria and Greece still have many more people (per capita) with light hair and light eyes than anywhere in Asia or Africa does.

No, I do not agree that eye and hair color is the most distinctive characteristic of Europeans. First and foremost, it’s their genetics. Phenotype is secondary to genotype and may vary. European facial features are usually different than MENA and Asian groups, even if phenotypical coloring is similar.

[Tooting Carmen]

1. Another statistically irrelevant example.

I think you misunderstood. I was actually agreeing with you that she and other similar types look West Asian/Levantine even with the light colouring.

2. If the majority of Scandinavians is not blond, therefore the majority of even those populations is medium or dark haired, not light...let alone the whole continent.

It is generally understood that light hair includes blonde, light brown and red.

3. Russian Europe does not include Siberia and on the individual list you can see that even some European countries with mid to low percentage of forest within the continent, still have more than loads of non European countries.
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/forest_area/

This still doesn't detract from the fact that Europeans and especially North Americans have rather larger carbon footprints than most other parts of the planet, although the Chinese in particular are certainly catching up.

4. Define "white" ?

So we can at least agree that 'whiteness' is subjective and elastic?

5. And where were they before acquiring western knowledge? As you wrote, some of the poorest countries in the World.

South Korea yes, and as it happens before the 1980's there were even periods when the DPRK was doing better. However, even before Tojo, Japan was hardly poor or underdeveloped, certainly for its time.

More generally, I do find it risible how you've all of a sudden become such a European chauvinist - certainly many of your posts before your 3-month or so break revolved around your perception of European/Western decline and decadence, and albeit half-jokingly you would say that Muslims shall reimpose traditional morals on Europeans and that the Chinese will indeed take over the world.

6. Albania is a very small country with a significant Muslim population and was under a very repressive communist regime for decades, it's by no means representative of the European average, it is in fact often pointed as an outlier.

Granted, but neither is the majority of Europe quite as educated, prosperous or well-to-do as Norway. The point is they are both extremes within the context of Europe. Inasmuch as there is such a thing as a "European average" it'd possibly be Portugal in fact - poorer than the rest of Western Europe (except perhaps Greece) but still wealthier than the majority of Eastern Europe bar the three post-1991 major success stories of Czechia, Estonia and Slovenia.

[Vessna]

I also don’t understand the obsession with Europeans. Like why do non Europeans care what percentage of us are blonde? Would it make a genetically European person less Euro or “white”? That’s such an autistic nonsense. I once was dmd by a Brazilian person stating that I must be not fully euro because my eyebrows were dark lol like what

[Tooting Carmen]

I also don’t understand the obsession with Europeans. Like why do non Europeans care what percentage of us are blonde? Would it make a genetically European person less Euro or “white”? That’s such an autistic nonsense. I once was dmd by a Brazilian person stating that I must be not fully euro because my eyebrows were dark lol like what

Read carefully what I said in the OP. It is not the existence of light hair and eyes in Europe but their high prevalence that is different from anywhere else in the world. Light skin, however, is far more commonplace throughout the planet.

[Sebastianus Rex]

I think you misunderstood. I was actually agreeing with you that she and other similar types look West Asian/Levantine even with the light colouring.



It is generally understood that light hair includes blonde, light brown and red.



This still doesn't detract from the fact that Europeans and especially North Americans have rather larger carbon footprints than most other parts of the planet, although the Chinese in particular are certainly catching up.



So we can at least agree that 'whiteness' is subjective and elastic?



South Korea yes, and as it happens before the 1980's there were even periods when the DPRK was doing better. However, even before Tojo, Japan was hardly poor or underdeveloped, certainly for its time.

More generally, I do find it risible how you've all of a sudden become such a European chauvinist - certainly many of your posts before your 3-month or so break revolved around your perception of European/Western decline and decadence, and albeit half-jokingly you would say that Muslims shall reimpose traditional morals on Europeans and that the Chinese will indeed take over the world.



Granted, but neither is the majority of Europe quite as educated, prosperous or well-to-do as Norway. The point is they are both extremes within the context of Europe. Inasmuch as there is such a thing as a "European average" it'd possibly be Portugal in fact - poorer than the rest of Western Europe (except perhaps Greece) but still wealthier than the majority of Eastern Europe bar the three post-1991 major success stories of Czechia, Estonia and Slovenia.

1. Ok, got it, her hair looks dyed anyway.

2. According most definitions, light brown is medium.

3. You really believe that crap of the carbon footprint ?

4. So what's your definition of white ?

5. Japan was under developed in many ways, they were still on a semi-feudal regime but were competent regarding the industrialization of the country.

The west is indeed in fast decline and the emerging powers like China are catching up, how does that contradict what I wrote? I'm not anyone's cheerleader, I try to be as objective as possible.

6. Norway is also not a good historical example, before the earlier 20th century it was the country with the largest proportion of emigrants to North America, after Ireland. Agricultural disasters and famines were common in large parts of Scandinavia prior to the industrial and agricultural revolutions.

[Damião de Góis]

Perhaps limiting determinations to pubes is better. Other than pubic hair being notably more likely to be reddish in correlation with facial hair pubic hair and scalp hair are fairly similar in distribution based on Swedish standards. Pubes unlike scalp hair are usually sheltered from the sun.

This is based on the Linders & Lungborg study of Swedish recruits:

https://books.google.com/books?id=iS...tliche&f=false

That is indeed a problem. Measuring blonde hair in southern Europe is meaningless due to melanin degradation caused by the strong sun, especially in Portugal who are more like the lebanese anyway. So people with apparent blonde hair are actually people with brown hair with melanin degradation because of the southern european sun, while people with apparent brown hair are actually people with black hair because of the same reason.

Measuring pubic hair might seem like a brilliant idea, but you forgot about nudists which are very popular in Europe and so that would be a problem too.

To address this problem i think you should go and ask your swedish friend to take pictures of his asshole (which might be the only unexposed body part), and then conduct your pigmentation statistics from there.

[Vessna]

Read carefully what I said in the OP. It is not the existence of light hair and eyes in Europe but their high prevalence that is different from anywhere else in the world. Light skin, however, is far more commonplace throughout the planet.

It’s not just high prevalence of light eyes/hair/skin. Our genetics and facial features in general is just different. You won’t find northern euro phenotypes anywhere else regardless of eye/hair color.