Berbers are white and caucasoid people?

I think the English didn't care so much for the fact that the Irish had white skin, they seems to attack them for skull and facial morphology, comparing them to Africans, and sometimes apes.

0QHZie4.png


YZCj9Nh.png


ZDt3C7y.png


6My9Asx.png


yDtBSGS.png


 
^^Seems like this was very much influenced by the work of William Z. Ripley, who argued the "Roman nose" or Aquiline nose was a trait of Teutonic races. Because all of the depictions of the English have it. While the prevailing theme was that the Irish had a "dog-like" nose.
 
I've seen a few Irish people that look like that in terms of facial features but they are white
I think the they eventually saw them as White (Save for the dehumanizing ape-like facial caricatures) as well. But socially, they were considered equal to blacks.

UGDYgM5.jpg


Going back to this map:

y70ghOh.png


This is an accurate portrayal of the type of stock that the founding fathers of the United States wanted for prospects of immigration.

The first congress passed an immigration law that stated only Free White men of good moral character were allowed to immigrate to the United States. Furthermore, it was only property owning protestant men who had the right to vote.

I think back then, regarding race, the concept at that particular time and place was closer to specific ethnicity, or rather Macro ethnicity. . The English, knew they were descendants of the Anglo-Saxons, thus they included the ancestral lands of the Anglo-Saxons, as a viable origin.

Nevertheless, as the world became smaller, and more non-English immigrants came in, they had to extend it to other parts of Europe.

But White racial unity in the USA, really took hold with the expansions into the frontier. Because at that point it was the White man vs the Red man. To the Native Americans, all of the Europeans were like the English.
 
But White racial unity in the USA, really took hold with the expansions into the frontier. Because at that point it was the White man vs the Red man. To the Native Americans, all of the Europeans were like the English.
muJq7c6.png
 
@Jovialis What a funny map!!! Thanks!
BTW I do'nt get how to give "likes" in this new Eu
y70ghOh.png


Funny, yet true!

Clearly this standard was too stringent to last, however. However, North Africans wouldn't even be in the running by early U.S. standards.

pedia configuration.
 
to split hair:
There is NO European and 'europoid' group with an allover same skin colour! (Not more for skin than for hair or eyes)
English people of "ancient times" (before the 60-70's) were often of middle skin colour (mix light-ligt brunet) or light colour (the kind associated often to 'nordic' dark blond hair, kind of skin which tans slowly under sunshine). very white skin with freckles was not rare, and some 'mate' or light brunet' skins were found, very more rare.
Irish people show sometimes this kind of dark skin; what puts a difference is that they show very more often very light skin with freckles than English people as a whole. But if we group this red heads skin with the others light skins, they have not more, maybe less global light skin than English people.
I repeat I don't speak here of "new English people".
 
to split hair:
There is NO European and 'europoid' group with an allover same skin colour! (Not more for skin than for hair or eyes)
English people of "ancient times" (before the 60-70's) were often of middle skin colour (mix light-ligt brunet) or light colour (the kind associated often to 'nordic' dark blond hair, kind of skin which tans slowly under sunshine). very white skin with freckles was not rare, and some 'mate' or light brunet' skins were found, very more rare.
Irish people show sometimes this kind of dark skin; what puts a difference is that they show very more often very light skin with freckles than English people as a whole. But if we group this red heads skin with the others light skins, they have not more, maybe less global light skin than English people.
I repeat I don't speak here of "new English people".
The Irish have more Types 1+2 (lightest skin types) than the English and less Type 4.

Ireland has 26pc of Type 1; 49.6pc of Type 2; 19.7pc of Type 3 and only 4.3pc of Type 4.

The UK has 14.9pc; 39.7pc; 37.2pc and 8pc in these categories.
 
Last edited:
The Irish have more Types 1+2 (lightest skin types) than the English and less Type 4.

Ireland has 26pc of Type 1; 49.6pc of Type 2; 19.7pc of Type 3 and only 4.3pc of Type 4.

The UK has 14.9pc; 39.7pc; 37.2pc and 8pc in these categories.

I have noticed that English have more light hair/blonde than Irish
 
The Irish have more Types 1+2 (lightest skin types) than the English and less Type 4.

Ireland has 26pc of Type 1; 49.6pc of Type 2; 19.7pc of Type 3 and only 4.3pc of Type 4.

The UK has 14.9pc; 39.7pc; 37.2pc and 8pc in these categories.
Thanks for your post. It isn't what I had believed I had seen, but if your states are based on a big sample (my own evaluations are based on little samples for skin and on external aspect (so under environment when skin colour state recquires to observe sunfree places of the body). Do you know what reflectance studies say about that?
Have you other studies for other European countries based on the same criteria?
 
A question more: who did these states on skin colour in the Isles? I ask this because I find curious this division in only four categories? Some "studies" are published by beauty products professional, so not always so accurate that believed. I observed that the relatively "dark" skins in Europeans could be divided at least in two drawers: the 'mate' hue (French meaning) and the 'olive' hue (French meaning), the last one more frequent near Mediterranea. I have the 'mate' one which doesn't seem to me relevant of your type 3, because darker, but I always found other Europeans (even in Brittany, though seldom) with a skin darkest than mine, and often associated (not always!) with jet black hair when my skin hue is more often associated with very dark brown.
 
Agree with all for hair colour(s): as a whole the cline fairer to darker (roughly said) in Britain is more clear when one moves from East to West than from North to South. Western Highlands pop (of origin!) is/was among the least fair pop's in Britain concerning head hair, what is not true for eyes and skin.
 
This is just my opinion but in my mind Caucasian, white, west Eurasian, and caucasoid are synonymous.
 
y70ghOh.png


Funny, yet true!

Clearly this standard was too stringent to last, however. However, North Africans wouldn't even be in the running by early U.S. standards.
This was Franklin's own eccentric view, and was not shared by his contemporaries. Compare Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778), whose groupings were European white, American reddish, Asian tawny, African black.

That said, Franklin's short 1751 paper, "Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc," is very much relevant to today's situation and holds a great many insights about population dynamics. He was far wiser than today's statesmen (save for maybe Victor Orban).

I have linked a copy. Paragraph 24 contains his peculiar taxonomy of nations.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-04-02-0080

I would suggest reading all the other paragraphs. Paragraph 3, for example, for the observation that cities are population sinks, even without the factor of disease.
3. In Cities, where all Trades, Occupations and Offices are full, many delay marrying, till they can see how to bear the Charges of a Family; which Charges are greater in Cities, as Luxury is more common: many live single during Life, and continue Servants to Families, Journeymen to Trades, &c. hence Cities do not by natural Generation supply themselves with Inhabitants; the Deaths are more than the Births.

See Paragraph 13 for various causes of a people's diminishment: (1) Being conquered; (2) Loss of territory; (3) Loss of manufacturing; (4) Loss of food supply; (5) Bad government and insecure property; and (6) Introduction of Slaves.

On the benefits of protecting domestic manufacture:
16. Foreign Luxuries and needless Manufactures imported and used in a Nation, do, by the same Reasoning, increase the People of the Nation that furnishes them, and diminish the People of the Nation that uses them. Laws therefore that prevent such Importations, and on the contrary promote the Exportation of Manufactures to be consumed in Foreign Countries, may be called (with Respect to the People that make them) generative Laws, as by increasing Subsistence they encourage Marriage. Such Laws likewise strengthen a Country, doubly, by increasing its own People and diminishing its Neighbours.

On the perils of trade with East Asia:
17. Some European Nations prudently refuse to consume the Manufactures of East-India. They should likewise forbid them to their Colonies; for the Gain to the Merchant, is not to be compar’d with the Loss by this Means of People to the Nation.

Consumerism as anti-natalism:
18. The greater the common fashionable Expence of any Rank of People, the more cautious they are of Marriage. Therefore Luxury should never be suffer’d to become common.

Contra mass immigration:
21. The Importation of Foreigners into a Country that has as many Inhabitants as the present Employments and Provisions for Subsistence will bear; will be in the End no Increase of People; unless the New Comers have more Industry and Frugality than the Natives, and then they will provide more Subsistence, and increase in the Country; but they will gradually eat the Natives out. Nor is it necessary to bring in Foreigners to fill up any occasional Vacancy in a Country; for such Vacancy (if the Laws are good, § 14, 16) will soon be filled by natural Generation.
 
Last edited:
I don't know what show this is from, but it is pretty funny:

There are plenty of inadequates online who think like Pierce's dad.

Why do the pseudo-aristocratic "Pierce's Dad" types think they are so special when they owe their "high status" to some armed thug or royal mistress in the distant past?
 
I've seen a few Irish people that look like that in terms of facial features but they are white
To me that Anglo Teutonic depiction looks far more like Roman and Greek statues or Michelangelo's David -which still adopted classical parameters of beauty- rather than an average Brit.
Funny.
 

This thread has been viewed 29864 times.

Back
Top