If we were to divide the map by (dominant) ethnicity in the region, basing ourselves in the 3 major human groups...

>Also Latin America has a ton of African diaspora
It varies a lot from country to country.

Brasil has a lot of Africans, in every other country in LA it is

I'd like for some other people to confirm the Eastern US vs Western US thing, since I always tough it was just a meme.

The average White in America is still 98.6% European. Plus "Hispanic" includes literal full Iberian blooded Spaniards and Portuguese.

No, it is just very unpopular in LA to identify as black.

But it's also very common to group Amerindians and mestizos with blacks. Which is not accurate.

And either way I would like to believe that the people carrying out the census would take this into account.

Come on, user. I don't people to start memeing about >argentina >white, but I'm from buenos aires the first time I saw a black person I was like 8 in an airport.

Afghanistan is one of the most mixed socities on Earth. You can have black (african) looking afghans, indian looking ones, white looking ones and even asian looking ones.

They should be their own colour.

black =/= non white
I'm British, I should know.

Is there no "dominant" group per say?

Also what about Pakistan? Might as well ask since we're in the topic.

All the Pacific Islands should be orange.

>I'm British
Opinion disregarded.

Even black people in Latin America don't identify as black, this is well known.

They identify as black or African.

It's not an opinion you retard.
Pakis aren't white but but they aren't african blacks either.

Siberia should be orange. It's still mostly Asians living there despite the Russian rule.

I know but any mention of argentina in the context of a race discussion triggers the meme in my experience.

No they don't. They identify as pardo or whatever.

>pardo
That's triracial people.

>Also what about Pakistan? Might as well ask since we're in the topic.
A mix between Northerner Indians and Pashtun's I think.

>Pakis aren't white but but they aren't african blacks either.
Australoid?

Black Americans are also largely multi-racial, yet still identify as black.

Yes, or something to that effect.
Though I'm sure the preference would be Indo-Aryan.

That's because of the one-drop rule.

I'm not sure, I don't have any other places to read on the topic at the moment but wikimemedia says the majority of the population is slavic.

Which admittedly should in itself be considered 50/50?

I'm not sure about it still.

Middle east is closer to Europeans, from what I understand in fact they're the precursors to "modern" Europeans.

But now that you mention Australoid, isn't there a region of Africa inhabited by this group? And isn't this group considered a 4th major group separated from the other 3?

>But now that you mention Australoid, isn't there a region of Africa inhabited by this group?
Madagascar

So a rule only enforced in a minority of states which hasn't been enforced anywhere since the 1960s?

Regardless of how they identify, I think we can all agree that having 1 far off ancestor of X group and actually qualifying as being part of X group are not one and the same.
Blacks in the US are maybe a bit too distanced from Africans, and maybe it isn't fair to group them together at this point, but within all the established groups they fit the African description the best.

In Latin America it is common for amerindians and mestizos to be grouped with blacks just due to their dark skin tone, and it is truth that some blacks don't like identifying as blacks themselves, but that shouldn't be reflected in demographic statistics.

It shouldn't be reflected in demographic data, but it is. Roberto Clemente thought he was a spaniard. Sad.

>Though I'm sure the preference would be Indo-Aryan.
Yeah.
From some quick googling online, it seems 'Indo-Aryans' tend to have more 'chiseled', longer features while Australoid Indians tend to have smaller/rounder faces, more oily skin and a much higher chance of having nappy hair.

Pic related, one of the first pics I found on google images.

>But now that you mention Australoid, isn't there a region of Africa inhabited by this group? And isn't this group considered a 4th major group separated from the other 3?
You mean Australian Aboriginals?

>Blacks in the US are maybe a bit too distanced from Africans, and maybe it isn't fair to group them together at this point, but within all the established groups they fit the African description the best.
If the average Black is 75% African, 25% other with two Black parents I see no issue in classifying them as African.

Looking better?

Should we consider Pygmy and Australoids part of the same group?

Those numbers include actual African Americans(African immigrants) so skew the percentages for black Americans a bit.

Actually disregard the question about pygmy and Australoid. I wasn't thinking when I wrote it.

>Should we consider Pygmy and Australoids part of the same group?
I guess so?

Yeah haha. I never heard about Pygmies descending from early India so I was surprised.

I've never seen anything more autistic

We don't have too many African immigrants here. 2.1 million (and that includes all of Africa, not just Black sub-Sahara) so they don't skew data THAT much. Genetic testers can't even decide how much European DNA the average African has. Some people have it as low as 19%, making the 25% too high.

I got confused for a moment.

What about a mirror?

Non-black Africans identify as white.

>3 race theory
idiots, read Livingstone

That pops out a lot of results in Google friend.

>ethnicity

You mean race

And MENA are mulattoes

>90%
85-86% actually

*63%
And that's excluding hispanic whites
Also, even if you did have your statistics right, that still means that there's more white Americans than Frenchmen in the world.

Pretty easy since "White American" are just an "ethnicty" made from every Europeans

Are they really? I'd think their skin colour is more due to the climate rather than because of race.

>And MENA are mulattoes

In what way are we mulatto?

Well if you wanna be specific about it, you can say "European Americans" and it would fill the same role.

The black admixture senpai.

>hispanic whites
Oh yeah counting mestizos as white makes America less diverse (kek).
In 30 years pic will be the average amerimud white

The iberians don't need to emigrate to the US of A. Only mestizos,mulattos and Cubans (which are the only white hispanics in America) emigrate to that shithole

If you want to divide the world by ethnicity you'll probably get something like this. Europeans, Mediterreneans, Mongoloids, Asiatics, Bantu and Eskimo peoples are a majority in these approximate areas.

>Cubans are white

The majority of the population is slavic because no one lives in the eastern area of russia

That might be true for NA Arabs, but as a Levantine Arab, I find it hard to believe that I have significant African admixture.

That's pretty good, I'll save it for future reference desu

Bro chill, including the hispanics only adds another 9% to the white total to bring it up to 72%.
Gonna be hard to mix the whole country when they only make up 16% of it, there's only slightly more of them than there are blacks.

encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/6075/Clines-and-Continuous-Variation.html

Indo-European

There are five major groups of people in the world

>Whites
>Blacks
>Arabs
>Indians
>Asians
>Native Americans

All others are just a mix of those. Sami? Mix of white and asian. Indonesians? Mix of asian and indian. Greeks? Mix of white and arab.

What have Indians,Japanese and Gulf Arabs in common?

Indo-europeans expanded from the middle east and a lot of european culture has it's roots in the middle east and North Africa.

Native Americans didn't likely separate from asians long enough to be considerably different biologically speaking. A lot of people have also pointed out how Hindus are indo-european as well.

what about Jews?

Or Irish, Poles and Italians, who were not considered white until the 1910s?