Rank the Regions of your Country from the Lightest to Darkest

[Lusos]

I'm not sure. I would guess Minho or Douro Litoral but differences here aren't huge.

You forgot the Islands.
But I cant see how you going to figure out who's the lightest and the Darkest.

It also depends of what season.In the summer most of us have a tan,without using sun beds.

[Stanley]

There are many Scottish/Irish-Scots in USA, especially in the South(my first post). Scottish ancestry, just like Dutch and French is heavily underrepresented in ethnic surveys. Because it's not "cool" nowadays to be a Ducth/French/Scottish American. Italian and Irish on the other hand...

That's because most Italian and Irish Americans have recent (19th/early 20th century) immigrant ancestors from those respective countries, whereas "Dutch" and "French" Americans (excepting those of recent immigrant heritage) are like a percent or two Dutch or French from distant colonial ancestors they likely don't even know about. It has nothing to do with what's cool.

It's hard to say how light or dark Scottish and Scots-Irish Americans are, with that ancestry being so distant and inevitably mixed with other ethnicities.

[WOOHP]

That's because most Italian and Irish Americans have recent (19th/early 20th century) immigrant ancestors from those respective countries, whereas "Dutch" and "French" Americans (excepting those of recent immigrant heritage) are like a percent or two Dutch or French from distant colonial ancestors they likely don't even know about. It has nothing to do with what's cool.

It's hard to say how light or dark Scottish and Scots-Irish Americans are, with that ancestry being so distant and inevitably mixed with other ethnicities.

I'm not talking about them with distant French/Dutch ancestry, as many midwesterners(former "New France") would have French ancestry today. There are still those, like me for an example who are pred. French or atleast significantly French or Dutch. But they don't usually relate to that.

Yes it is actually more cool to be Irish or Italian American today. I know several people who are like 25% Italian and 75% German but still consider themself to be "Italian" American.

[Stanley]

many midwesterners(former "New France") would have French ancestry today.

Really? I've never had the impression that French was a significant ancestry here. I mean, my city has a French name but that's only because its antecedents but not its ancestral settlers/early immigrants were French. Like how "Iowa" is Native American but Iowans are overwhelmingly not.

Yes it is actually more cool to be Irish or Italian American today. I know several people who are like 25% Italian and 75% German but still consider themself to be "Italian" American.

I get your point there.

[Peyrol]

Italian americans are a shame for the World.

[WOOHP]

Really? I've never had the impression that French was a significant ancestry here. I mean, my city has a French name but that's only because its antecedents but not its ancestral settlers/early immigrants were French. Like how "Iowa" is Native American but Iowans are overwhelmingly not.

Several acquaintances and friends in the midwest(Michigan, Illinois, Ohio mostly) who have done a genealogy search have found that they actually have some distant French ancestry.

[Stanley]

Italian americans are a shame for the World.

Haha some aren't so bad. I know a few, growing up in a largely Catholic community, but the random Italian-American Midwesterner is nothing like the stereotypical Italian-American from the Northeast.

Since I'm contributing to a bunch of off-topic stuff I'll try to answer the original question. The Upper Midwest, the Dakotas and Minnesota in particular, would have to be the lightest since they are almost exclusively German and Scandinavian with some old-stock American and other NW-European ancestry. The rest of the Midwest and the Pacific Northwest would be next. Perhaps New England (minus the bigger cities there) after that. There's no real underlying pattern to the ancestral makeup of the whole of the US, so it's hard to rank beyond that, plus I don't often leave the Midwest so it would only be conjecture.

[WOOHP]

Haha some aren't so bad. I know a few, growing up in a largely Catholic community, but the random Italian-American Midwesterner is nothing like the stereotypical Italian-American from the Northeast.

Since I'm contributing to a bunch of off-topic stuff I'll try to answer the original question. The Upper Midwest, the Dakotas and Minnesota in particular, would have to be the lightest since they are almost exclusively German and Scandinavian with some old-stock American and other NW-European ancestry. The rest of the Midwest and the Pacific Northwest would be next. Perhaps New England (minus the bigger cities there) after that. There's no real underlying pattern to the ancestral makeup of the whole of the US, so it's hard to rank beyond that, plus I don't often leave the Midwest so it would only be conjecture.

I agree, Italians from the Midwest are nothing like the New Jersey Italians.

So you pretty much agree with my first post?

[Peyrol]

I thought that in absolute (grouping all the ethnic groups) the darkest US part was the South due to Aframs.

About italian.americans in the Midwest...i know they aren't as the ''New Englanders'' italians...my maternal grandfather was born in Joliet, Illinois...i know them quite well, lol.

[WOOHP]

I thought that in absolute (grouping all the ethnic groups) the darkest US part was the South due to Aframs

I excluded minorities.

The white population of the south is pred. Anglo with significant German, Irish and Scottish. Except Louisiana ofc.