Ezio1
Well-known member
I want to dedicate this thread to two people in particular: Sikeliot and BeReal (Kurdkistador).
For a long time, I thought I had a pretty good understanding of phenotypes around the world, and that I was mostly right in my assessments, especially regarding Europe, the Mediterranean, and what has traditionally been classified as the Caucasoid category and its regional variations.
I also took the work of Carleton S. Coon and other classic anthropologists seriously, along with the many books describing the physical characteristics supposedly associated with particular populations. I still respect the work and effort that went into those studies, but after this trip, I feel that some of those classifications and descriptions are outdated, overly rigid, or simply don't reflect the full range of variation we see in real life.
After traveling through Spain, France, Italy, and Greece, and observing people firsthand, including people from West Asian and other Mediterranean populations, my perspective has changed quite a bit.
One thing that particularly stood out to me is that many Southern Europeans, including Spaniards, Italians, and Greeks, don't necessarily resemble the stereotypical description of what people traditionally call a Mediterranean phenotype. (Many Iberians look more like a Atlantic with Gracile med if anything , or Dinarized Atlantid with Gracilr many Italians etc) Meanwhile, many Levantines and other West Asians can display features that closely resemble that classic Mediterranean ideal. Like a full Gracile med or Pontid…There's much more overlap between these populations than rigid textbook descriptions might suggest.
First, BeReal.
I have to give him credit, particularly for his thread on who he considers white:
https://www.anthroworldforum.com/threads/muh-white-who-do-you-consider-white.4522/
I participated in that discussion myself, and after this trip, I understand his arguments much better. I've encountered people from some of the populations he discusses who could easily pass visually as Southern European or as someone from another Mediterranean country.
I also think his detailed breakdowns deserve to be taken more seriously. Rather than automatically assuming he's trying to elevate his own ethnicity or classify certain populations as white for personal reasons, people should examine his actual arguments and the knowledge behind them.
Personally, I no longer view whiteness as something exclusively European. My understanding has broadened, and I can better appreciate the points BeReal was making. I don't necessarily agree with every classification, but I think his arguments deserve serious consideration rather than being dismissed based on assumptions about his motives.
Now, Sikeliot.
Like him or dislike him, I also have to acknowledge that some of his observations were worth taking seriously, particularly his breakdowns of mainland Greek and Southern Italian phenotypes.
I remember people criticizing him for supposedly Slavizing mainland Greeks. But after spending time in Athens and observing Greek locals rather than just tourists and foreigners, I started understanding his comparisons. Some Greeks reminded me of Romanians, while others brought to mind people from Poland or other parts of Eastern Europe. Obviously, I'm not saying all Greeks look that way, but I could understand the observations he had been making. Like some Greeks looked more North Pontid which is a phenotype I would have associate more with eastern Euros or something.
Overall, this trip made me reconsider some of my previous assumptions. I still respect the older anthropological literature and the knowledge I've accumulated over the years, but I now recognize that traditional phenotype descriptions can be too narrow to capture the diversity within populations.
Sometimes you can spend years studying books, photographs, and online discussions, developing your own theories about how populations should look. But actually traveling, meeting people, and observing them firsthand can change your perspective in ways that reading alone cannot.
So, credit where credit is due to both BeReal and Sikeliot. I don't necessarily agree with everything either of them has ever said, but I can acknowledge when their observations have made me rethink my own understanding. I'm willing to give credit where it's deserved, even when it means admitting that someone else had a point all along.
For a long time, I thought I had a pretty good understanding of phenotypes around the world, and that I was mostly right in my assessments, especially regarding Europe, the Mediterranean, and what has traditionally been classified as the Caucasoid category and its regional variations.
I also took the work of Carleton S. Coon and other classic anthropologists seriously, along with the many books describing the physical characteristics supposedly associated with particular populations. I still respect the work and effort that went into those studies, but after this trip, I feel that some of those classifications and descriptions are outdated, overly rigid, or simply don't reflect the full range of variation we see in real life.
After traveling through Spain, France, Italy, and Greece, and observing people firsthand, including people from West Asian and other Mediterranean populations, my perspective has changed quite a bit.
One thing that particularly stood out to me is that many Southern Europeans, including Spaniards, Italians, and Greeks, don't necessarily resemble the stereotypical description of what people traditionally call a Mediterranean phenotype. (Many Iberians look more like a Atlantic with Gracile med if anything , or Dinarized Atlantid with Gracilr many Italians etc) Meanwhile, many Levantines and other West Asians can display features that closely resemble that classic Mediterranean ideal. Like a full Gracile med or Pontid…There's much more overlap between these populations than rigid textbook descriptions might suggest.
First, BeReal.
I have to give him credit, particularly for his thread on who he considers white:
https://www.anthroworldforum.com/threads/muh-white-who-do-you-consider-white.4522/
I participated in that discussion myself, and after this trip, I understand his arguments much better. I've encountered people from some of the populations he discusses who could easily pass visually as Southern European or as someone from another Mediterranean country.
I also think his detailed breakdowns deserve to be taken more seriously. Rather than automatically assuming he's trying to elevate his own ethnicity or classify certain populations as white for personal reasons, people should examine his actual arguments and the knowledge behind them.
Personally, I no longer view whiteness as something exclusively European. My understanding has broadened, and I can better appreciate the points BeReal was making. I don't necessarily agree with every classification, but I think his arguments deserve serious consideration rather than being dismissed based on assumptions about his motives.
Now, Sikeliot.
Like him or dislike him, I also have to acknowledge that some of his observations were worth taking seriously, particularly his breakdowns of mainland Greek and Southern Italian phenotypes.
I remember people criticizing him for supposedly Slavizing mainland Greeks. But after spending time in Athens and observing Greek locals rather than just tourists and foreigners, I started understanding his comparisons. Some Greeks reminded me of Romanians, while others brought to mind people from Poland or other parts of Eastern Europe. Obviously, I'm not saying all Greeks look that way, but I could understand the observations he had been making. Like some Greeks looked more North Pontid which is a phenotype I would have associate more with eastern Euros or something.
Overall, this trip made me reconsider some of my previous assumptions. I still respect the older anthropological literature and the knowledge I've accumulated over the years, but I now recognize that traditional phenotype descriptions can be too narrow to capture the diversity within populations.
Sometimes you can spend years studying books, photographs, and online discussions, developing your own theories about how populations should look. But actually traveling, meeting people, and observing them firsthand can change your perspective in ways that reading alone cannot.
So, credit where credit is due to both BeReal and Sikeliot. I don't necessarily agree with everything either of them has ever said, but I can acknowledge when their observations have made me rethink my own understanding. I'm willing to give credit where it's deserved, even when it means admitting that someone else had a point all along.
