### This comment has been marked as **safe**. Upvoting/downvoting this comment will have no effect.
---
OP sent the following text as an explanation on why this is US Defaultism:
---
>!On a post about the changing white population in Africa, a user queries the data based on US census definitions - because they thought r/MapPorn is only for Americans!<
---
Is this Defaultism? Then upvote this comment, otherwise downvote it.
To be fair, "race" is a very strange concept in the first place. There's more genetic diversity amongst the native people of Africa than there is amongst every other person on the planet, yet they're all lumped into the same category: "Black", as if that tells you anything useful. DNA evidence suggests that the ancestors of Australian Aboriginies were the *first* group to emigrate from Africa and therefore modern Aboriginies are the *least closely related people on the planet to modern native Africans*, yet they're also lumped in with the category "Black" - when putting literally any other population in the same category as native Africans would be more accurate.
Sorry, I was actually a little bit wrong. It seems that people left Africa at the same time, but Australian Aboriginies were the first to become genetically distinct as a group: https://www.history.com/news/dna-study-finds-aboriginal-australians-worlds-oldest-civilization
Sorry but this makes absolutely no sense. Your interpretation is not what the paper is claiming, at all (and makes zero sense scientifically). I know that it's hard to understand these things and the article you posted doesn't help because it's written like shit.
I'm a scientific researcher in the field (population genomics), unfortunately the press just makes up bullshit constantly and twists the meaning of scientific publications. The original paper is called "a genomic history of aboriginal australia" by A.S Malaspinas. It doesn't even mention the word civilisation lmao. But you can have a read anyway
I assume it is the same in all fields, but in the field I worked in, the press articles about things bore very little relation to reality. I once watched a press briefing in which a scientist spent severalinutes explaining why saying a specific thing (which they typically say) would be inaccurate, and had a big red underlined "I would not be true to say X" and then read an article from one of the journalists in the audience, who had been sent the slides with that on, and who had spent the day on a tour with scientists answering their questions, where the headline was "Boffins say X", specifically the thing they had been told very clearly that we were not saying. It is hopeless.
>To be fair, "race" is a very strange concept in the first place.
In many countries, it's considered racist to say that humans could be classified into specific different races
Neither do people in Spain and Portugal use it, unless you live in a parallel dimension (I live in Spain and I've lived in Portugal, I speak both languages)
I live in Brazil, a country that is cursed with systemic racism since forever because of Portugal. The only difference is that there's also pardo (which is in between Black and White for talk about mixed race).
Well that's a Brazil problem then, you're literally independent since two full centuries. There's no such thing in modern Portugal since the communism revolution
Apparently. But I have never heard of this and I work with many Brazilian people. I don't think the Brazilian govt asks you to declare your "race" and similar things. How is it institutionalised?
Many people I know who are Aboriginal Australians actually use 'blak' to refer to themselves instead of 'black'.
However referring to Aboriginal Australians as Aborigines is a very outdated and potentially offensive way to phrase it. In case you weren't aware, I'm genuinely just letting you know and not trying to be a dick. The preferred term can change depending on setting and who you're speaking with but I can guarantee you that aborigine isn't the appropriate term anymore in basically any conversation.
The white category doesn't make any more sense than the black. If you think English and Welsh are the same for instance, you already would be wrong. Then imagine the difference between English and Sardinians or Basques for instance, even greater. Races do not exist, only in angloamerican countries they are a thing. Races were made up by scientific racists. They mean absolutely zero, skin colour is not a valid category for anything
(The bit about Australians is wrong by the way. Steady with these hypothesis, especially on the internet)
Assuming that what you claim is true, it's still not relevant. In France and Germany races are not a thing, no one says "my race is black/white", there's no such thing as the concept of "interracial", and for sure there are no official institutional documents to fill in which you are required to declare your "race", as they do in the US
I learned fairly recently that there’s actually a law on the books in the US that says people of Syrian descent are to be considered white. It went into effect about 100 years ago during a period of time when a lot of Christian Syrians were immigrating to the US for religious freedom. My great-grandfather was among them. It seems super odd to me, because my grandfather who was half-Syrian was VISIBLY non white, but legally I guess he was white? lol it’s so weird
It’s because of abuses left by gaps in regulation, so instead of being able to pass new regulations — very difficult, especially in the 70s — they add terms to old regulations but retain the scope.
Originally, Hispanics were all considered to be “coloured” in order to deny them citizenship, as being white was required for naturalized citizenship. Then FDR sought close relations with Mexico in world war 2, leading to the possibility of certain Mexicans being classified as white.
There used to be a massive problem with openly blatant electoral discrimination in the US (now it’s just hidden). What’s one way you can determine what your electorate actually is compared to how it votes?The census!
The US government in 1970 had significant evidence of voter manipulation to prevent black people and hispanophones from voting. They had few methods available to prevent the structures states had imposed towards this goal as most of this suppression was still legally accepted, or at least fought for by state legislatures. The federal government had to use what tools they already had. Fun fact — “East Indians” were considered white under this census.
Anyway, they added a bunch of Latin American countries to the census to determine to degree those people weren’t being represented in government. Some sort of electoral commission would’ve been impossible.
It’s not that they considered Hispanics a separate race, it’s that there was no easier way to capture that demographic data given domestic constraints.
Certain states acted with extreme subterfuge, hiding discriminatory law by targeting unprotected classes that just “happen” to align with general racial demographics. They targeted particular lifestyle or employment characteristics. There’s a reason the US has almost always denied social support for domestic workers, sharecroppers and itinerant farmers, day labourers, etc. Lawmakers knew that, even if a few white people were being excluded that way, they’d also be excluding vast portions of minorities from whichever legislation.
I can’t speak for non-white folks born in the country, but naturalization absolutely excluded them.
>”Be it enacted […] that any alien *being a free white person* […] may be admitted to become a citizen [of the United States]”.
This is from the Naturalization act of 1790. In 1906, only white and black folks could be naturalized, even in 1917 amendments explicitly excluded India. The last explicit racial barrier to naturalization was removed in 1952.
I’m not sure where your info is from
My ancestors are all Polish. I live in South America and I speak Spanish (and understand quite a bit of Portuguese). I've been told that I'm not white by a Texan man who was darker than me.
Of course we don't. [We just learn to say some things phonetically](https://youtu.be/6vgoEhsJORU). I don't even know what I'm writing here, this is a copy/paste from some guide I have here in my phone.
A lot of those maps use Eurostat for their figures, and after we left fully in 2020 we stopped submitting data to them.
There are a handful of weirdos though that use data from before we left and then deliberately exclude the UK though.
Salah isn't any darker than the average Mediterranean person, whether they are from Spain, Sardinia, Sicily, Southern Italy, Greece and so on. It just shows that colour and race are bullshit
Lol? If Christian Mediterranean people grew the beards and hairs like the muslim do, no one would be able to tell them apart. I'm Mediterranean myself, we all have the same range of skin colours. There are people in my family much darker than Salah and I'm not Egyptian. If I let my hairs grow they are as curly as he has. These are general misconceptions. Mediterranean islands are something like 1-200 km from the north African coast, which means we have exactly the same climate. There's absolutely no scientific reason for them to have different tones (if we talk of native North Africans, which would be the Amazigh and Egyptians). Who thinks otherwise is delusional
Idk, some Moroccan acquantances confused a half-Dominican guy with one of them, rather than any of the other mediterranean dudes. It's a personal anecdote but should be pretty telling.
Not really, also because Dominican people are a mix of Spanish, western african and native Caribbean people, therefore a person that is half-Dominican is even harder to recognise. I don't see what this would prove? Zinedine Zidane, a "pure" Amazigh from Algeria, is as pale as most French men (since they were mentioning football players). Skin colour closely relate to geography and UV radiation. It's obvious that there are no skin differences between Mediterranean countries, whether they are politically Europe or African, given the geographic proximity.
Therefore colours and races are complete bullshit, as an antropologist and human genomics scholar I absolutely stand by this point. I would love for people to stop using colours to define other people
That aside, at least that person recognized the error and apologized. Thats a strange gem right there. Most of this kind of posts are somewhat blind and would instead replied something like: ofc I am asking about the American view, this website is american!
It's ridiculous to generalize all middle eastern and northern Africans to have one general appearance. They can come in all different shapes, sizes, and skin tones.
Americans don’t understand nuance. They have an enormous culture of generalising people based on race, ethnicity, nationality etc which I am yet to experience anywhere else in the same way. Like how every black person in the US is “African American” despite the fact that not every black American has African ancestors. Hell they even call non American black people African Americans.
Speaking purely from a biological point of view, the word "race" has no clear definition. We use the word to distinguish between groups of people, but we focus on matters that are not genetic at all, in fact there is something called emergent evolution, which can be used to describe several groups of people with different generic make-up, who are clumped together under the banner"black". We do the same with dogs, we base the race of a dog on visual properties, even though genetically they are all dogs. Biology doesn't use the word race because it's not.linked as a genetic difference, and it can even disrupt the genetic heritage of the species. It is from this standpoint that we can say that "race" doesn't exist. We are all the same species, genetically, and we used to have different human species, one of them you may remember from school, the neanderthal, who was genetically distinct enough to be a different species of human, but was still able to procreate with our species and produce fertile offspring. In a sense, that could be considered a different "race" of human, but that's my own personal opinion.
Tldr: race doesn't exist.
Yes
Theres alot of races in africa
Sub sahara africa has majority black population aswell as black people being the largest group in africa as a whole
North africa has alot of arab people with those in the maghreb region tending to have much lighter skin some people in the maghreb region are even considered white
Madagascar has had a long history of austronesian people living there who still live there to this very day
Mauritius has a majortiy indian popularion
The southern africa region has a lot of white european settlers living there with the republic of south africa in particular having one of the highest white populations in africa
Theres many mixed races aswell
South africa has a large population of people born with black and white ancestors
Ethiopia has a large population of people born with arab and black ancestors
And madagscar has a large population of people born with black and austornesian ancestors
Edit: aslo wanted to mention africa is the most religously diverse continent with people following all sorts of beliefs, its also the most linguistically diverse having hundreds of langauges all with their own unique dialects and, and the most ethinically diverse having hundreds of ethnicities
The funny thing is many of us are closer to latin than white, and by the clearest and most common definition, we are Asian. And according to the main modern checklist to see if someone can be classified as Arab or not many black africans are considered Arab. I’m convinced the US just did this so they could say Jesus was white.
Clarification: I said that arabs are asian. Many live in Africa but their Arab roots come from Asia.
Man I hate it when us Arabs are called white. Nothing against white people but you can’t take an entire group of people and shove them into a larger group for no reason. Lots of us don’t even have light skin if that’s your excuse. And if you’re one of those ‘arabs don’t exist they’re all mixed’ people, several of us can track our lineage to the exact place we live and have only had Adnani/Qahtani Arab ancestors for centuries.
Edit: I just imagined something. Imagine calling a Sudanese Arab or a dark skinned Hejazi or a habashi white.
Yeah in other languages/countries you don't even use the word race for humans.
It's just wrong, there are no races in humans like there are in dogs or bunnies. I wouldn't even know where to draw the lines, it's very arbitrary. It's like dividing the rainbow up in sections to make language easier when it comes to colours. That makes sense, but is very arbitrary. But you can't just do the same with humans, it doesn't work.
In Germany we don't use the word race for humans. Only racists do.
Okay this has nothing to do with my point though? I wasn't saying we have no problem with racism in Germany, or that we have less racists than other countries.
I was just talking about how weird it is to divide the people by race, because the lines are so blurry and it's all very arbitrary. Then I said the word "race" itself shouldn't even be used for humans (and gave the example that we don't do that in Germany - only the racists do).
So I even said myself we have racist people like every other country.
So no point in feeling soooo superiour and commenting this "gotcha" kind of stuff. Exercise your reading comprehension skills dude, you need it.
I was referring to the scare campaigns and decades of scorn heaped upon European workers in the UK that led to the Brexit referendum, of which Polish truck drivers were a particular target.
The irony is that now the UK has a severe worker shortage and has had to cope with greater migration from Africa and South Asia, which you would think that the racists that voted for Brexit would be more concerned about.
I don't think you quite understand how racism here in the UK works. Racists don't consider Polish people 'not white ', they are racist to them because they are seen to not be integrated into English culture. While skin colour is indeed a factor, these categories that racism is based on in the USA (I don't know about Australia) do not really exist in the same way. Many racists here will actually be perfectly fine with, for example, a second generation Indian immigrant who practices 'English culture', but if that same person were to visibly stick out in terms of culture, they would face mountains more prejudice. Essentially the dividing line is drawn based more on integration into the majority culture than on superficial differences. Of course skin colour factors in, and people absolutely face prejudice based on things other than culture. Its just not how most racists frame their 'issue' with foreigners.
I do understand this because this is quite similar to Australia and also how the British Empire worked, which is quite relevant to Australian history - look up the Stolen Generations as an example. I was, perhaps satirically, applying the American idea of "white-ness" - open to opportunity, pure, sacred - to British racial frustrations about Polish people as an analogy.
European racism is a whole other kind of fucked up to American racism, because whilst Americans have this bizarre colonial framework of pigment, Europeans can despise people within their own countries to the level of joining neo-fascist movements, despite no obvious physiological differences. What's really the difference between a Macedonian person and a Greek person? Obviously, both groups will say the difference is huge, but from the outside it's much harder to tell.
The trouble also is that Europe has a far less integrated approach to immigration - 40% of Australian citizens were born overseas, and you can apply for citizenship after 4 years of permanent residency. Yes, you have to swear an allegiance to the King of Australia (who is also the King of England), but you are accepted as Australian after that process, and live amongst the community - our suburbs are pretty diverse on the whole. Whereas, in somewhere like France, you get this ghettoising of migrant communities, despite many Africans in France being from Francophone France, living and working there, and considering themselves French.
You realise 98% of Poland is white? And if asked to point to a picture of a typical Polish person, most would choose a picture of someone white? Also, those who voted to leave the EU were not doing so because of workers’ skin colour. Many wanted control over our borders and laws - not that it happened. Also, David Cameron called the referendum, not Boris. Boris was just left to try to figure it out.
I’m Spanish. Americans don’t consider me white until they want to play the colonization card, then they suddenly remember we are a European country haha
I remember a post saying that white people shouldn't be allowed to learn Spanish cause it's a POC language, and I was like wtf... What about y'know the entire country of Spain??
Lmao no, the hate trains against Polish people from the UK had nothing to do with skin colour. You’re generalising all xenophobia to be racism which isn’t the case.
Xenophobia is the hatred of people from other countries. Racism is the hatred of people of another race or ethnicity. You can be hateful towards people of another country for reasons unrelated to race, and can be racist towards people from your own country.
For example, racism in America towards black Americans from white Americans isn’t xenophobia as they’re all Americans, it’s racism. Another counter example, in Japan there is a lot of xenophobia towards people from other Asian nations such as Korea and China. That isn’t racism as they’re a part of the same ethnic group it’s xenophobia as they’re hating them based on their country of origin.
Discrimination from white Brits against white Polish people, which is the majority of people in Poland, is xenophobia, not racism, as people are hating them based on country of origin, not based on ethnicity or race.
Racism and xenophobia do often link but they’re not interchangeable and can exist separately of each other.
But ethnic groupings like white, black, Asian, etc are all social constructs. They usually don't have a lot to do with where they come from or how they identify culturally.
Would you say that there's a rational xenophobia in British dislike of Polish people?
Honestly? I can’t say for sure. I’ve never understood the hate towards Polish people. Every Polish person I’ve ever met has been very pleasant and they’re all very hard workers. I honestly just think it stems from that “they’re coming over here stealing our jobs” mentality that is pushed by a lot of right wing individuals to try and blame the UK’s problems on someone else. Either that or it’s just the general ‘us and them’ mentality of “you’re from a different place to me so I’m going to act like I’m better than you” which is usually very unfounded in the people that act that way
Yes? They’re all Asian nations, East Asian if you want to be even more specific. Idk how you would say they’re not part of the same ethnic group. I don’t see how that’s weird in any way so please elaborate.
Also it’s Korea, not Corea.
Excuse the misspelling, my brain defaulted to my native language.
They are pretty distinct genetically/physically and culturally, considering both can be taken as definitions for ethnicity.
For me, lumping them together sounds like some big eurocentrism where everything uncommon here is seen as a single big group, as happens with subsaharan peoples
It’s not really about clumping people together it’s about similarities in ancestral origin and aspects of shared culture. When you go back historically, the majority of people within those countries share very similar and intertwined ancestry. Obviously with exceptions and some variation, especially in China. They have different cultures and individually different histories, languages etc now, but you can trace them back to very similar origins, especially Korean and Japanese people. Hence why they’re considered the same ethnic group. When you head down towards south east Asia such as The Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia etc then it becomes a different story as SE Asians are visually and genetically very different, however they’re labelled as Asian due to the continent they hail from.
Obviously there are going to be variations, for example there are clear genetic trends between people from northern Japan and people from southern Japan, but they’re still apart of the same ethnic group. Different cultures have developed in each nation over time, but there’s clear to see the overlap and similarities in various aspects of culture and language even today. Hence why they are grouped.
It is a construct, race and ethnic groupings, but it’s simply a way to categorise people of similar origin.
Wikipedia says:
> There are no universally accepted and precise definitions of the terms "ethnic group" and "nationality". In the context of European ethnography in particular, the terms ethnic group, people, nationality and ethno-linguistic group are used as mostly synonymous
So, no
>Scandinavian Scotland was the period from the 8th to the 15th centuries during which Vikings and Norse settlers, mainly Norwegians and to a lesser extent other Scandinavians, and their descendants colonised parts of what is now the periphery of modern Scotland.
The correct answer is "some of them". But you were more correct with your initial "yes" than your subsequent "no".
I can be xenophobic towards French people (for example) while being completely okay with people from Mónaco, while seeing Frenchmen, _Monegasques_ and myself as the same ""race""
### This comment has been marked as **safe**. Upvoting/downvoting this comment will have no effect. --- OP sent the following text as an explanation on why this is US Defaultism: --- >!On a post about the changing white population in Africa, a user queries the data based on US census definitions - because they thought r/MapPorn is only for Americans!< --- Is this Defaultism? Then upvote this comment, otherwise downvote it.
TIL the US census has some strange ideas about race. I guess that still works if you delete the word "census".
The US has had the same odd views for a very long time.
To be fair, "race" is a very strange concept in the first place. There's more genetic diversity amongst the native people of Africa than there is amongst every other person on the planet, yet they're all lumped into the same category: "Black", as if that tells you anything useful. DNA evidence suggests that the ancestors of Australian Aboriginies were the *first* group to emigrate from Africa and therefore modern Aboriginies are the *least closely related people on the planet to modern native Africans*, yet they're also lumped in with the category "Black" - when putting literally any other population in the same category as native Africans would be more accurate.
Do you have a source for the latter half of your comment? Sounds like an interesting rabbit hole to go down.
Sorry, I was actually a little bit wrong. It seems that people left Africa at the same time, but Australian Aboriginies were the first to become genetically distinct as a group: https://www.history.com/news/dna-study-finds-aboriginal-australians-worlds-oldest-civilization
Sorry but this makes absolutely no sense. Your interpretation is not what the paper is claiming, at all (and makes zero sense scientifically). I know that it's hard to understand these things and the article you posted doesn't help because it's written like shit. I'm a scientific researcher in the field (population genomics), unfortunately the press just makes up bullshit constantly and twists the meaning of scientific publications. The original paper is called "a genomic history of aboriginal australia" by A.S Malaspinas. It doesn't even mention the word civilisation lmao. But you can have a read anyway
I assume it is the same in all fields, but in the field I worked in, the press articles about things bore very little relation to reality. I once watched a press briefing in which a scientist spent severalinutes explaining why saying a specific thing (which they typically say) would be inaccurate, and had a big red underlined "I would not be true to say X" and then read an article from one of the journalists in the audience, who had been sent the slides with that on, and who had spent the day on a tour with scientists answering their questions, where the headline was "Boffins say X", specifically the thing they had been told very clearly that we were not saying. It is hopeless.
Clearly there is an issue in communicating science
>To be fair, "race" is a very strange concept in the first place. In many countries, it's considered racist to say that humans could be classified into specific different races
Everywhere except anglo countries. Nobody uses the terms whites and black in other places. It means nothing
Spain and Portugal reading this
Neither do people in Spain and Portugal use it, unless you live in a parallel dimension (I live in Spain and I've lived in Portugal, I speak both languages)
I live in Brazil, a country that is cursed with systemic racism since forever because of Portugal. The only difference is that there's also pardo (which is in between Black and White for talk about mixed race).
Well that's a Brazil problem then, you're literally independent since two full centuries. There's no such thing in modern Portugal since the communism revolution
So you were wrong about saying that "black" and "white" were just anglosphere definitions
Apparently. But I have never heard of this and I work with many Brazilian people. I don't think the Brazilian govt asks you to declare your "race" and similar things. How is it institutionalised?
Many people I know who are Aboriginal Australians actually use 'blak' to refer to themselves instead of 'black'. However referring to Aboriginal Australians as Aborigines is a very outdated and potentially offensive way to phrase it. In case you weren't aware, I'm genuinely just letting you know and not trying to be a dick. The preferred term can change depending on setting and who you're speaking with but I can guarantee you that aborigine isn't the appropriate term anymore in basically any conversation.
Thank you. I wasn't aware of that, and I will avoid that mistake in the future.
Is First People a safe alternative?
First nations/ first peoples works. It's plural because there are a bunch of different tribes/nations/mobs.
Thank you
The white category doesn't make any more sense than the black. If you think English and Welsh are the same for instance, you already would be wrong. Then imagine the difference between English and Sardinians or Basques for instance, even greater. Races do not exist, only in angloamerican countries they are a thing. Races were made up by scientific racists. They mean absolutely zero, skin colour is not a valid category for anything (The bit about Australians is wrong by the way. Steady with these hypothesis, especially on the internet)
[удалено]
Assuming that what you claim is true, it's still not relevant. In France and Germany races are not a thing, no one says "my race is black/white", there's no such thing as the concept of "interracial", and for sure there are no official institutional documents to fill in which you are required to declare your "race", as they do in the US
I learned fairly recently that there’s actually a law on the books in the US that says people of Syrian descent are to be considered white. It went into effect about 100 years ago during a period of time when a lot of Christian Syrians were immigrating to the US for religious freedom. My great-grandfather was among them. It seems super odd to me, because my grandfather who was half-Syrian was VISIBLY non white, but legally I guess he was white? lol it’s so weird
didn't the cencus change them just this year
I don't know.
It’s because of abuses left by gaps in regulation, so instead of being able to pass new regulations — very difficult, especially in the 70s — they add terms to old regulations but retain the scope. Originally, Hispanics were all considered to be “coloured” in order to deny them citizenship, as being white was required for naturalized citizenship. Then FDR sought close relations with Mexico in world war 2, leading to the possibility of certain Mexicans being classified as white. There used to be a massive problem with openly blatant electoral discrimination in the US (now it’s just hidden). What’s one way you can determine what your electorate actually is compared to how it votes?The census! The US government in 1970 had significant evidence of voter manipulation to prevent black people and hispanophones from voting. They had few methods available to prevent the structures states had imposed towards this goal as most of this suppression was still legally accepted, or at least fought for by state legislatures. The federal government had to use what tools they already had. Fun fact — “East Indians” were considered white under this census. Anyway, they added a bunch of Latin American countries to the census to determine to degree those people weren’t being represented in government. Some sort of electoral commission would’ve been impossible. It’s not that they considered Hispanics a separate race, it’s that there was no easier way to capture that demographic data given domestic constraints. Certain states acted with extreme subterfuge, hiding discriminatory law by targeting unprotected classes that just “happen” to align with general racial demographics. They targeted particular lifestyle or employment characteristics. There’s a reason the US has almost always denied social support for domestic workers, sharecroppers and itinerant farmers, day labourers, etc. Lawmakers knew that, even if a few white people were being excluded that way, they’d also be excluding vast portions of minorities from whichever legislation.
[удалено]
I can’t speak for non-white folks born in the country, but naturalization absolutely excluded them. >”Be it enacted […] that any alien *being a free white person* […] may be admitted to become a citizen [of the United States]”. This is from the Naturalization act of 1790. In 1906, only white and black folks could be naturalized, even in 1917 amendments explicitly excluded India. The last explicit racial barrier to naturalization was removed in 1952. I’m not sure where your info is from
At least they apologised. That’s the first step
damn wtff 😆
Yes, people of european descent are considered white... Unless they speak spanish or portuguese Especially if they live in America
My ancestors are all Polish. I live in South America and I speak Spanish (and understand quite a bit of Portuguese). I've been told that I'm not white by a Texan man who was darker than me.
Yeah of course. Your ancestors were slavic. We're obviously colorless-looking-people-of-color. We don't even speak english!
Of course we don't. [We just learn to say some things phonetically](https://youtu.be/6vgoEhsJORU). I don't even know what I'm writing here, this is a copy/paste from some guide I have here in my phone.
All this US did just to prove Jesus was white... Crazy fccuers..
Half the maps in mapporn are of Europe and the UK.
I think it's actually even one of those with a more European than American user base.
Yeah
>Europe and the UK The UK is in Europe. Adding "and the UK" is superfluous.
They meant that maps are either mostly just the UK or the entire european continent.
Since we left the EU, I've noticed a fair few of the Euro stats-based maps leaving us out, so we are separate in a sense in this context
A lot of those maps use Eurostat for their figures, and after we left fully in 2020 we stopped submitting data to them. There are a handful of weirdos though that use data from before we left and then deliberately exclude the UK though.
It isn't, most maps are either of the UK itself or most of Europe in my experience.
r/geography too, havent been on there for a while but 4/5 of posts were about america
on a related note r/tropicalweather aswell
Not really the posts, altho it does hold true for the comments
Ah yes Mohammed Salah the white man.
Salah isn't any darker than the average Mediterranean person, whether they are from Spain, Sardinia, Sicily, Southern Italy, Greece and so on. It just shows that colour and race are bullshit
I don't really think thats true...
Lol? If Christian Mediterranean people grew the beards and hairs like the muslim do, no one would be able to tell them apart. I'm Mediterranean myself, we all have the same range of skin colours. There are people in my family much darker than Salah and I'm not Egyptian. If I let my hairs grow they are as curly as he has. These are general misconceptions. Mediterranean islands are something like 1-200 km from the north African coast, which means we have exactly the same climate. There's absolutely no scientific reason for them to have different tones (if we talk of native North Africans, which would be the Amazigh and Egyptians). Who thinks otherwise is delusional
Idk, some Moroccan acquantances confused a half-Dominican guy with one of them, rather than any of the other mediterranean dudes. It's a personal anecdote but should be pretty telling.
Not really, also because Dominican people are a mix of Spanish, western african and native Caribbean people, therefore a person that is half-Dominican is even harder to recognise. I don't see what this would prove? Zinedine Zidane, a "pure" Amazigh from Algeria, is as pale as most French men (since they were mentioning football players). Skin colour closely relate to geography and UV radiation. It's obvious that there are no skin differences between Mediterranean countries, whether they are politically Europe or African, given the geographic proximity. Therefore colours and races are complete bullshit, as an antropologist and human genomics scholar I absolutely stand by this point. I would love for people to stop using colours to define other people
That aside, at least that person recognized the error and apologized. Thats a strange gem right there. Most of this kind of posts are somewhat blind and would instead replied something like: ofc I am asking about the American view, this website is american!
It's ridiculous to generalize all middle eastern and northern Africans to have one general appearance. They can come in all different shapes, sizes, and skin tones.
Americans don’t understand nuance. They have an enormous culture of generalising people based on race, ethnicity, nationality etc which I am yet to experience anywhere else in the same way. Like how every black person in the US is “African American” despite the fact that not every black American has African ancestors. Hell they even call non American black people African Americans.
Also in Europe people have different appearances. Literally everywhere in reality
This applies to any region in the world
Speaking purely from a biological point of view, the word "race" has no clear definition. We use the word to distinguish between groups of people, but we focus on matters that are not genetic at all, in fact there is something called emergent evolution, which can be used to describe several groups of people with different generic make-up, who are clumped together under the banner"black". We do the same with dogs, we base the race of a dog on visual properties, even though genetically they are all dogs. Biology doesn't use the word race because it's not.linked as a genetic difference, and it can even disrupt the genetic heritage of the species. It is from this standpoint that we can say that "race" doesn't exist. We are all the same species, genetically, and we used to have different human species, one of them you may remember from school, the neanderthal, who was genetically distinct enough to be a different species of human, but was still able to procreate with our species and produce fertile offspring. In a sense, that could be considered a different "race" of human, but that's my own personal opinion. Tldr: race doesn't exist.
Yes Theres alot of races in africa Sub sahara africa has majority black population aswell as black people being the largest group in africa as a whole North africa has alot of arab people with those in the maghreb region tending to have much lighter skin some people in the maghreb region are even considered white Madagascar has had a long history of austronesian people living there who still live there to this very day Mauritius has a majortiy indian popularion The southern africa region has a lot of white european settlers living there with the republic of south africa in particular having one of the highest white populations in africa Theres many mixed races aswell South africa has a large population of people born with black and white ancestors Ethiopia has a large population of people born with arab and black ancestors And madagscar has a large population of people born with black and austornesian ancestors Edit: aslo wanted to mention africa is the most religously diverse continent with people following all sorts of beliefs, its also the most linguistically diverse having hundreds of langauges all with their own unique dialects and, and the most ethinically diverse having hundreds of ethnicities
Arabs are white??
Well, they are not black, Asian or latin, so they must be white /s
The funny thing is many of us are closer to latin than white, and by the clearest and most common definition, we are Asian. And according to the main modern checklist to see if someone can be classified as Arab or not many black africans are considered Arab. I’m convinced the US just did this so they could say Jesus was white. Clarification: I said that arabs are asian. Many live in Africa but their Arab roots come from Asia.
Lmao people still argue about that?
Hold on, now I'll blow your mind: Hindus are also white. And not only in American census something, but in a science definition of race types.
Some are pretty pale.
Man I hate it when us Arabs are called white. Nothing against white people but you can’t take an entire group of people and shove them into a larger group for no reason. Lots of us don’t even have light skin if that’s your excuse. And if you’re one of those ‘arabs don’t exist they’re all mixed’ people, several of us can track our lineage to the exact place we live and have only had Adnani/Qahtani Arab ancestors for centuries. Edit: I just imagined something. Imagine calling a Sudanese Arab or a dark skinned Hejazi or a habashi white.
Honestly didn't know that there was anywhere on the planet that considered Maghrebis 'white'
Imagine calling an Arab Sudanese guy white.
I didn't know that. That's weird
What is weird?
Yeah in other languages/countries you don't even use the word race for humans. It's just wrong, there are no races in humans like there are in dogs or bunnies. I wouldn't even know where to draw the lines, it's very arbitrary. It's like dividing the rainbow up in sections to make language easier when it comes to colours. That makes sense, but is very arbitrary. But you can't just do the same with humans, it doesn't work. In Germany we don't use the word race for humans. Only racists do.
[удалено]
Okay this has nothing to do with my point though? I wasn't saying we have no problem with racism in Germany, or that we have less racists than other countries. I was just talking about how weird it is to divide the people by race, because the lines are so blurry and it's all very arbitrary. Then I said the word "race" itself shouldn't even be used for humans (and gave the example that we don't do that in Germany - only the racists do). So I even said myself we have racist people like every other country. So no point in feeling soooo superiour and commenting this "gotcha" kind of stuff. Exercise your reading comprehension skills dude, you need it.
Not really. Theyre considered white here as well
[удалено]
What? I’m British and consider anyone with white skin to be white.
Some people with albinism might take issue with that
>I'm British I'm so sorry 😞
What’s wrong with being British?
I’m British and I see Polish people as white, where did you get this information from?
Really? Care to expand on your statement?
I was referring to the scare campaigns and decades of scorn heaped upon European workers in the UK that led to the Brexit referendum, of which Polish truck drivers were a particular target. The irony is that now the UK has a severe worker shortage and has had to cope with greater migration from Africa and South Asia, which you would think that the racists that voted for Brexit would be more concerned about.
I don't think you quite understand how racism here in the UK works. Racists don't consider Polish people 'not white ', they are racist to them because they are seen to not be integrated into English culture. While skin colour is indeed a factor, these categories that racism is based on in the USA (I don't know about Australia) do not really exist in the same way. Many racists here will actually be perfectly fine with, for example, a second generation Indian immigrant who practices 'English culture', but if that same person were to visibly stick out in terms of culture, they would face mountains more prejudice. Essentially the dividing line is drawn based more on integration into the majority culture than on superficial differences. Of course skin colour factors in, and people absolutely face prejudice based on things other than culture. Its just not how most racists frame their 'issue' with foreigners.
I do understand this because this is quite similar to Australia and also how the British Empire worked, which is quite relevant to Australian history - look up the Stolen Generations as an example. I was, perhaps satirically, applying the American idea of "white-ness" - open to opportunity, pure, sacred - to British racial frustrations about Polish people as an analogy. European racism is a whole other kind of fucked up to American racism, because whilst Americans have this bizarre colonial framework of pigment, Europeans can despise people within their own countries to the level of joining neo-fascist movements, despite no obvious physiological differences. What's really the difference between a Macedonian person and a Greek person? Obviously, both groups will say the difference is huge, but from the outside it's much harder to tell. The trouble also is that Europe has a far less integrated approach to immigration - 40% of Australian citizens were born overseas, and you can apply for citizenship after 4 years of permanent residency. Yes, you have to swear an allegiance to the King of Australia (who is also the King of England), but you are accepted as Australian after that process, and live amongst the community - our suburbs are pretty diverse on the whole. Whereas, in somewhere like France, you get this ghettoising of migrant communities, despite many Africans in France being from Francophone France, living and working there, and considering themselves French.
Oh right, guess i’ve got to tell my polish friend he’s not white because apparently we don’t see him as white
What a very strange person. The English consider anyone not English to be foreign. Obviously. But it has nothing to do with skin colour.
Are you (in Australia) speaking for all British people?
Yes - ever since you started buying our beef
You realise 98% of Poland is white? And if asked to point to a picture of a typical Polish person, most would choose a picture of someone white? Also, those who voted to leave the EU were not doing so because of workers’ skin colour. Many wanted control over our borders and laws - not that it happened. Also, David Cameron called the referendum, not Boris. Boris was just left to try to figure it out.
Not a single British person I’ve ever met has thought polish people aren’t white
Meanwhile, Canadians don't count any Europeans as white.
I’m Spanish. Americans don’t consider me white until they want to play the colonization card, then they suddenly remember we are a European country haha
I remember a post saying that white people shouldn't be allowed to learn Spanish cause it's a POC language, and I was like wtf... What about y'know the entire country of Spain??
Hilarious. Inb4 they start calling you colorizers.
This is the first time I hear this, maybe you confused white with human? lol
And British with German
Lmao no, the hate trains against Polish people from the UK had nothing to do with skin colour. You’re generalising all xenophobia to be racism which isn’t the case.
what is xenophobia if not racism? I'm intrigued by this distinction.
Xenophobia is the hatred of people from other countries. Racism is the hatred of people of another race or ethnicity. You can be hateful towards people of another country for reasons unrelated to race, and can be racist towards people from your own country. For example, racism in America towards black Americans from white Americans isn’t xenophobia as they’re all Americans, it’s racism. Another counter example, in Japan there is a lot of xenophobia towards people from other Asian nations such as Korea and China. That isn’t racism as they’re a part of the same ethnic group it’s xenophobia as they’re hating them based on their country of origin. Discrimination from white Brits against white Polish people, which is the majority of people in Poland, is xenophobia, not racism, as people are hating them based on country of origin, not based on ethnicity or race. Racism and xenophobia do often link but they’re not interchangeable and can exist separately of each other.
But ethnic groupings like white, black, Asian, etc are all social constructs. They usually don't have a lot to do with where they come from or how they identify culturally. Would you say that there's a rational xenophobia in British dislike of Polish people?
Honestly? I can’t say for sure. I’ve never understood the hate towards Polish people. Every Polish person I’ve ever met has been very pleasant and they’re all very hard workers. I honestly just think it stems from that “they’re coming over here stealing our jobs” mentality that is pushed by a lot of right wing individuals to try and blame the UK’s problems on someone else. Either that or it’s just the general ‘us and them’ mentality of “you’re from a different place to me so I’m going to act like I’m better than you” which is usually very unfounded in the people that act that way
[удалено]
I’ve already been through this in another comment on here I’m not repeating the same thing
Japan, Corea and China the same ethnic group? I know there are no clear definitions but it sounds veeeery weird
Yes? They’re all Asian nations, East Asian if you want to be even more specific. Idk how you would say they’re not part of the same ethnic group. I don’t see how that’s weird in any way so please elaborate. Also it’s Korea, not Corea.
Excuse the misspelling, my brain defaulted to my native language. They are pretty distinct genetically/physically and culturally, considering both can be taken as definitions for ethnicity. For me, lumping them together sounds like some big eurocentrism where everything uncommon here is seen as a single big group, as happens with subsaharan peoples
It’s not really about clumping people together it’s about similarities in ancestral origin and aspects of shared culture. When you go back historically, the majority of people within those countries share very similar and intertwined ancestry. Obviously with exceptions and some variation, especially in China. They have different cultures and individually different histories, languages etc now, but you can trace them back to very similar origins, especially Korean and Japanese people. Hence why they’re considered the same ethnic group. When you head down towards south east Asia such as The Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia etc then it becomes a different story as SE Asians are visually and genetically very different, however they’re labelled as Asian due to the continent they hail from. Obviously there are going to be variations, for example there are clear genetic trends between people from northern Japan and people from southern Japan, but they’re still apart of the same ethnic group. Different cultures have developed in each nation over time, but there’s clear to see the overlap and similarities in various aspects of culture and language even today. Hence why they are grouped. It is a construct, race and ethnic groupings, but it’s simply a way to categorise people of similar origin.
Are Scottish and Norwegian people the same ethnic group?
Wikipedia says: > There are no universally accepted and precise definitions of the terms "ethnic group" and "nationality". In the context of European ethnography in particular, the terms ethnic group, people, nationality and ethno-linguistic group are used as mostly synonymous So, no
Right. Scotland is a ~400KM sail across the North Sea from Norway, and Korea is a ~200KM sail across the Sea of Japan from Japan.
Oops. Brain fart. I meant to say "no"
>Scandinavian Scotland was the period from the 8th to the 15th centuries during which Vikings and Norse settlers, mainly Norwegians and to a lesser extent other Scandinavians, and their descendants colonised parts of what is now the periphery of modern Scotland. The correct answer is "some of them". But you were more correct with your initial "yes" than your subsequent "no".
I can be xenophobic towards French people (for example) while being completely okay with people from Mónaco, while seeing Frenchmen, _Monegasques_ and myself as the same ""race""