How ethnically European (white) is Europe in 2024?

[norbert]

Many Europeans have East Asian admixture. If Turks aren't white because of that then the Finns and Russians aren't either.

With all due respect, Maciamo, your maps are heavily outdated and inaccurate. I have seen all kinds of "admixture" maps over the last few years and they all differ tremendously. This tells me that these calculator games should be dismissed as amateurish curiosities.

Another example is this: https://www.eupedia.com/europe/autosomal_admixture_frequencies_by_country.shtml

According to this, the Germans are 100% West Eurasian, yet they harbour up to 1% East Eurasian admixture on your map. The Italians, who have almost none of this admixture according to your map, are shown to be 98.1 West Eurasian.

I think the numbers are heavily inflated, also in the case of the Russians unless you interpret them as a nation like the Americans, not an ethnic group. But even in that case, they'd be over 90% West Eurasian. Besides, what your maps shows as East Eurasian is basically Uralic and that component itself was predominantly West Eurasian.

As for the Turks, I had friends among them since school, I had them as coworkers, I see them almost every day and while some look white, the absolute majority doesn't. You can clearly see that those people are not from Europe and no admixture ratio chart is going to convince me otherwise.

 

[Tomenable]

BTW I was in Istanbul and it doesn't look like a European city at all.

I could feel strong "Middle Eastern vibes" when I was in that city.

 

[qh777]

In my view, white is synonymous with the older anthropological term Caucasian which has been replaced by the term West Eurasian. So in my mind White=West Eurasian. European would be a subcategory of West Eurasian and Middle Eastern & North African would be another subcategory.

 

[norbert]

In my view, white is synonymous with the older anthropological term Caucasian which has been replaced by the term West Eurasian. So in my mind White=West Eurasian. European would be a subcategory of West Eurasian and Middle Eastern & North African would be another subcategory.

Caucasian is or was synonymous with West Eurasian but white means Europeans only. You can't seriously believe that Moroccans or Yemenis are white.

 

[Tomenable]

That's why this thread is about European populations in Europe, excluding MENA ethnic groups.

 

[Tomenable]

In my view, white is synonymous with the older anthropological term Caucasian which has been replaced by the term West Eurasian. So in my mind White=West Eurasian. European would be a subcategory of West Eurasian and Middle Eastern & North African would be another subcategory.

If you include MENA peoples as white, then another dillema is what to do with Central Asians or Afghans?

There are even Indians who look white after all. And many Central Asians such as Tajiks can often look white.

 

[qh777]

Caucasian is or was synonymous with West Eurasian but white means Europeans only. You can't seriously believe that Moroccans or Yemenis are white.

I’ve seen Yemeni people have a complexion that resemble that of Mediterranean populations. I have also seen quite pale Moroccans. Northern Europeans can achieve a dark tan that looks like Yemenis. It’s just not advisable to abuse tanning beds. Or to spend that much time in high UV latitudes.

 

[qh777]

If you include MENA peoples as white, then another dillema is what to do with Central Asians or Afghans?

There are even Indians who look white after all. And many Central Asians such as Tajiks can often look white.

Yes you do have a point there all I can say it’s because they have high west Eurasian admixture Steppe, Iran Neolithic, Anatolia Neolithic and then varying amounts of ancient ancestral South Indian.

 

[qh777]

This is what comes to mind. Very extreme case but it's achievable.

 

[norbert]

I’ve seen Yemeni people have a complexion that resemble that of Mediterranean populations. I have also seen quite pale Moroccans. Northern Europeans can achieve a dark tan that looks like Yemenis. It’s just not advisable to abuse tanning beds. Or to spend that much time in high UV latitudes.

You're not making sense now. Getting a tan doesn't have anything to do with genetics and ethnicity. It's like putting your hand in a fire and saying you can achieve a dark tan that looks like that of Yemenis. MENA people are West Eurasians but not white just like East Eurasian doesn't equal East Asian. There's a difference between Papuans and the Japanese or Chinese.

I have never seen anyone refer to MENA people as white nor do they consider themselves white. Only in America did they use a rather dubious category like "Caucasian" to refer to a broad variety of peoples. Even the term white itself is very abstract but it is generally used for people of European ancestry.

 

[qh777]

You're not making sense now. Getting a tan doesn't have anything to do with genetics and ethnicity. It's like putting your hand in a fire and saying you can achieve a dark tan that looks like that of Yemenis. MENA people are West Eurasians but not white

You're correct the U.S. Census lumps people from Europe, the Middle East and North Africa together as Caucasian. I'm trying to reconcile the term white with West Eurasian. If one fixates on skin tone alone then saying some groups from Southern Europe would not count as being White. And in the past that was the case where only northern Europeans were classified as white. I base it broadly on shared genetics and from a bird's eye view that populations in west Eurasia have pale "White" complexions while at the same time having darker tones similar to South Indians. Generally speaking, facial traits are similar when compared to other groups like East Eurasians (Chinese, Koreans, Japanese etc.). Central Asia is a melting pot between West and East Eurasia so individual populations will be able to pass as either. There are just too many populations in the middle east that have paler complexion like some Berbers and Armenians and they must be included. It's just my take.

 

[Vallicanus]

You're correct the U.S. Census lumps people from Europe, the Middle East and North Africa together as Caucasian. I'm trying to reconcile the term white with West Eurasian. If one fixates on skin tone alone then saying some groups from Southern Europe would not count as being White. And in the past that was the case where only northern Europeans were classified as white. I base it broadly on shared genetics and from a bird's eye view that populations in west Eurasia have pale "White" complexions while at the same time having darker tones similar to South Indians. Generally speaking, facial traits are similar when compared to other groups like East Eurasians (Chinese, Koreans, Japanese etc.). Central Asia is a melting pot between West and East Eurasia so individual populations will be able to pass as either. There are just too many populations in the middle east that have paler complexion like some Berbers and Armenians and they must be included. It's just my take.

Doesn't the U.S. police force refer to people who are Middle Eastern/MENA as being separate from "Caucasians" of European origin?

 

[qh777]

Doesn't the U.S. police force refer to people who are Middle Eastern/MENA as being separate from "Caucasians" of European origin?

I have watched quite a few episodes of the show Cops. And I can't recall any middle eastern suspects being filmed. But any suspects of perceived European descent were referred to as Caucasian or White.


"In the United States, law enforcement agencies often classify individuals of Middle Eastern descent as "White" or "Caucasian" for official purposes, such as on forms and reports. This classification is based on federal guidelines, specifically from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which groups people from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region under the "White" category.

However, the classification may vary depending on the context and the agency's practices. There has been ongoing debate about creating a separate category for individuals of Middle Eastern and North African descent in federal and demographic reporting, but as of now, "White" or "Caucasian" remains the standard classification for people from this region in most official records."

 

[Vallicanus]

I have watched quite a few episodes of the show Cops. And I can't recall any middle eastern suspects being filmed. But any suspects of perceived European descent were referred to as Caucasian or White.


"In the United States, law enforcement agencies often classify individuals of Middle Eastern descent as "White" or "Caucasian" for official purposes, such as on forms and reports. This classification is based on federal guidelines, specifically from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which groups people from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region under the "White" category.

However, the classification may vary depending on the context and the agency's practices. There has been ongoing debate about creating a separate category for individuals of Middle Eastern and North African descent in federal and demographic reporting, but as of now, "White" or "Caucasian" remains the standard classification for people from this region in most official records."

The FBI TV series never refers to MENA people as "Caucasians"but calls them "Middle Eastern".

 

[qh777]

The FBI TV series never refers to MENA people as "Caucasians"but calls them "Middle Eastern".

I don't really watch crime shows nowadays and haven't heard of that one.

 

[Vitruvius]

You're correct the U.S. Census lumps people from Europe, the Middle East and North Africa together as Caucasian. I'm trying to reconcile the term white with West Eurasian. If one fixates on skin tone alone then saying some groups from Southern Europe would not count as being White. And in the past that was the case where only northern Europeans were classified as white. I base it broadly on shared genetics and from a bird's eye view that populations in west Eurasia have pale "White" complexions while at the same time having darker tones similar to South Indians. Generally speaking, facial traits are similar when compared to other groups like East Eurasians (Chinese, Koreans, Japanese etc.). Central Asia is a melting pot between West and East Eurasia so individual populations will be able to pass as either. There are just too many populations in the middle east that have paler complexion like some Berbers and Armenians and they must be included. It's just my take.

You post is extremely confused.

Southern Europeans are a fair skinned people. Their skin color does not differ noticeably from Northern Europe.

There has never been any point in history I'm aware of where only northern Europeans were considered white by any sort of state governing body. There existed individuals who have held this viewpoint at a personal level of course but that's it. Not even the NSDAP went so far as to claim Italians or Greeks were not whites ("aryan" was the terminology they used). To me it's ridiculous to lump the entirety of west Eurasians into the term "white". White is a term used to describe people of fully European ancestry so simply use it synonymously with that.

 

[qh777]

I still kind of do only refer to Europeans as white. But at the same time, I want to expand it to north Africa and the middle east As I mentioned before it's my opinion and it's based off of shared genetics from neolithic and before plus interactions more recently like the bronze age through medieval period. It's also based on that there are skin tones comparable to European populations.

"And in the past that was the case where only northern Europeans were classified as white."

This sums up what I've seen/read before:

• The U.S. Immigration Context​

  • Late 19th and Early 20th Century:In the United States, whiteness was often synonymous with Northern European ancestry, particularly during waves of immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe.
    • Italians, Greeks, Jews, Slavs, and other groups were sometimes excluded from the social privileges of whiteness.
    • The Immigration Act of 1924 (also called the Johnson-Reed Act) explicitly favored Northern and Western Europeans while restricting immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe.
  • Over time, these groups became assimilated into the broader category of "white," especially after World War II.

 

[HereToLearn]

The Irish are as north-western Euro as they come yet they were sometimes excluded from the social privileges of whiteness too at that time. So were the Poles.

Let's just ignore what early 20th century / late 19th century's Americans thought, that was just plain crazy and wrong.

 

[Vitruvius]

I still kind of do only refer to Europeans as white. But at the same time, I want to expand it to north Africa and the middle east As I mentioned before it's my opinion and it's based off of shared genetics from neolithic and before plus interactions more recently like the bronze age through medieval period. It's also based on that there are skin tones comparable to European populations.

"And in the past that was the case where only northern Europeans were classified as white."

This sums up what I've seen/read before:

• The U.S. Immigration Context​

  • Late 19th and Early 20th Century:In the United States, whiteness was often synonymous with Northern European ancestry, particularly during waves of immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe.
    • Italians, Greeks, Jews, Slavs, and other groups were sometimes excluded from the social privileges of whiteness.
    • The Immigration Act of 1924 (also called the Johnson-Reed Act) explicitly favored Northern and Western Europeans while restricting immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe.
  • Over time, these groups became assimilated into the broader category of "white," especially after World War II.

Italians, Greeks, Jews and Slavs have always been considered white in the legal and census context of American immigration, regardless of the dissenting opinions of some WASPs carrying personalized nordicist tendancies. While Northern European immigration was certainly historically favored in the US it is incorrect to claim that Italians, Slavs and Greeks were not classified as whites on a legal level. All of these populations in the immigration census records were universally classified as white and during the first half of the 20th century and they were naturalizing at unprecedented rates. Perhaps some have forgotten, but US citizenship was restricted to whites and africans up until 1952 and several lawsuits were attempted by those immigrants who failed to fall into either category but desired naturalization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozawa_v._United_States). As a personal anecdote I currently retain all of the immigration and naturalization records of all eight of my Italian great grandparents as well as those of my grandparents and every single document reads: "Race: White".

The idea that only northern or northwestern europeans were only considered white within the US is a lie that is pushed by promoters of Nordicist and Multiculturalist agendas to try to cleave Italians, Greeks and Slavs from the European heritage which they very clearly belong to. The repetition of this lie is really quite slanderous and offensive to those of us whose family history this does concern.

 

[qh777]

You're not making sense now. Getting a tan doesn't have anything to do with genetics and ethnicity.

• Tanning ability is directly influenced by genetics. Genes like MC1R, SLC24A5, and others play significant roles in determining baseline skin tone and the capacity to produce melanin in response to UV exposure.
• The fact that a person can tan (and the depth of that tan) is a genetically mediated trait and therefore tied to ethnicity and ancestral heritage. Shared genetic ancestry among West Eurasian populations explains why some Northern Europeans can tan to a tone resembling Near Easterners.
• If the Stimulus is there Northern Europeans can indefinitely maintain a darker tone
• The ability to tan is rooted in genetics, specifically the capacity of melanocytes in the skin to produce melanin in response to UV exposure.
• When a pale-skinned person achieves a tan as dark as someone from the Middle East, it is a real, observable state that reflects their genetic flexibility. This demonstrates that:
  • The potential for that darker tone is already encoded in their biology.
  • It isn’t a hypothetical—it’s a real state they can achieve under the right environmental conditions.