Talk:Mediterranean race

Race and culture

Race is nothing more then facial features, skin tones and eye colors. Race is an older more primitive term that is used to describe people. Humans are all the same in terms of physiology making no race (skin tone,facial feature or eye color) better genetically. Culture is what intelligence derives from. Japan has the highest business success rate, the highest technological advancement rate and production rate per square mile on the planet. While only having a small population. This is derived from their culture intelligence. Intelligence on the planet started when the cultures introduced paper into their culture. Paper is the stepping stone (culturally) that created every technological advancement that we have today. Marcelo

Please, anonimous, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum and talk pages serve for discusing relevant and direct issues about the articles in question. Do not use it for the public presentation of your personal views on the world, the universe and everything. Even if you may be right (or not!). Thank you. The Ogre 01:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please remind all people below me as well, my comments derive from the discussion below. Thank you, Marcelo

Pathetic Nordicism

After reading the article and the discussion it is incredible to see how it is tinted with this kind of pathetic Nordicism. It is about time a few truths are said loud and clear to these bunch of wannabes. In the first place, only a profound feeling of inferiority can explain this obsession of trying to present the Nordic race as something superior in relation to any issue related to races. Anyone who feels supeior does not say it, let alone insists on it. If you insist that you are very macho it is probably because you are gay. Basic psycological principle. In the second place, I believe that all races and individuals are equal and have the same dignity as human beings, but if these pathetic Nordicists insist on the same bunch of lies a few things will have to be straighten out: The Mediterranean race is a race that is spread around the Mediterranean and the Middle East. In that region it continues to exist either in quite pure form or as a main substratum of the population. Most civilizations have been Mediterranean: The Summerian, Babylonian, Hittite, Assyrian, Persian, Phoenician, Carthaginian, Iberian, Tartessian, Hebrew, Arab, Egyptian, Etruscan, Greek, Roman, Christian, Western... civilizations. Yes, even our Western civilization, based on ancient Greece, Rome and Christianity, the religion created by Jesus Christ, who happened to be a Jew and therefore of the Mediterranean race. So, I understand that it must be disconcerting for those pathetic Nordicist wannabes when they find all this out, even that the son of God, for Christians, was a Mediterranean. Even more pathetic it is when you read these morons stating that civilations like the Roman was Nordic. What happens, you do not like what you are, just a bunch of albino morons who want to take credit for what the Mediterraneans have accomplished? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.113.5 (talk • contribs)

It is incredible to see the Nordicist tint in this article and in many others related to race on the Internet. In the first place, I want to say that I consider all races and individuals equal and having the same dignity as human beings, but if these pathetic Nordicists continue with they bunch of lies, a few things will have to be said loud and clear: Only a profound feeling of inferiority can explain the obsession with trying to present the Nordic race as something superior whenever there is an issue related to races. Anyone who feels superior does not say it, let alone insists on it. If you keep on insisting on how good you are, it is because you are certainly a loser; basic psychological principle. In the second place, I am going to talk about races now: The Mediterranean race is a race that is spread around the Mediterranean and the Middle East. Most civilizations have been Mediterranean: The Sumerian, Babylonian, Hittite, Assyrian, Persian, Phoenician, Carthaginian, Iberian, Tartessian, Hebrew, Arab, Egyptian, Etruscan, Greek, Roman, Christian, Western... civilizations. Yes, even our Western civilization, based on ancient Greece, Rome and Christianity, the religion created by Jesus Christ, a Jew and therefore a Mediterranean. I can understand that it must be disconcerting for a pathetic Nordicist when he finds out that even the son of God, for Christians, was Mediterranean. Even more pathetic it is when one finds these albino morons (and I mean by that Nordicists not Nordics, which I respect like all races) trying to say that civilizations like Egypt or Rome were Nordic. Patheticism does not know any boundaries. What happens? you do not like what you are, trying to take credit for what Mediterraneans have accomplished? The Nordic race is just left by the Mediterranean in the dust, and they do not go around boasting about anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.8.232.208 (talk • contribs)

This article is about the Mediterranean race or the Nordic race?

Why whenever there is a issue related to races there is always this obsession with the Nordic race. Obviously the only explanation is clear as water. This article is supposed to be about the Mediterranean race. If someone has an interest in the Nordic race there should be a separate article. This article should be erased and done again. If the Mediterranean race is to be portrayed it should be in a serious and scientific way. What do all these quotations by Nazi or pre-Nazi authors mean? This should be a scientific presentation of the Mediterranean race, not about theories on superiority or inferiority, which is more typical of nazi forums. I am going to delete this article. Watch out for nazi nordicists. They are using internet and am afraid also Wilkipedia too often. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.147.26.78 (talk • contribs)

Honestly!

Honestly, I found the "absurd erotica", as user:Paul Barlow calls it, more useful than that "map of the races in europe" which states that people from the East of Turkey are 'Alpine'. Actually, I had been looking for an image that shows how a person supposed to be of the Mediterranean race would look like for so long and finally found in Wikipedia someone that uploaded an image that perfectly served for my purpose (and maybe for the purpose of other people, too). To my mind, those topics should be discussed before taking into action. If I there's no response to this paragraph, I'll revert changes. GTubio 09:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

You may as well say that it should have been discussed before Wurwurk changed the image in the first place. The crucial points are these:

1. This article is about an historical concept, which is no longer used in anthropology but which was important in the history of anthropology at a time when "race theory" was influential. The whole of the article is about writers of the period c1900-1930. To have a picture of a modern woman implies that this race-category is still active. Sure, people still talk loosely about "Mediterraneans", but it is no longer a scientifically adopted category. So an image should be used that illustrates the concept as used in the 1900-1930 period.
2. The image was clearly created as an example of erotica, not for anthropological purposes, so it creates the wrong "tone" for the article.
3. The woman is hardly "typical"; she seems to be a model.

According to Grant (and other writers of the time), the so-called "Alpines" did come originally from "east of Turkey", so I don't know why you find that problematic. The view is, as I say, historical - as is the view that "Caucasians" came originally from the Caucasus. Paul B 15:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, the map must be kept for the reasons you have just pointed out. Where I don't agree as fully is in the arguments you provide for having to remove the image of the Mediterranean woman. It doesn't matter if she is not, as you say, "typical" (which could be further discussed what typical is), the point is that she shares TYPICAL TRAITS of what anthropologists at that time called "Mediterranean race" (if she didn't share those traits then the image would be completely useless and should be removed without delay). Furthermore, it is neither relevant if the image was (clearly or not) created as an example of whatever if we can use it properly in this article. Maybe if the woman wasn't beautiful you wouldn't have taken (mistaken?) it as a clear example of erotica. Honestly, I think that an image is better than one thousand words and, if you are talking about a group of physically classified people, an image of a person of that group is a must-be. Sure there are images that fit better than what we had, but I prefer the former image rather than nothing. I look forward to hearing your response. GTubio 20:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

You see, they delete it at once. They are a bunch of conspirators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.50.134 (talk • contribs)

• "more useful than that "map of the races in europe" which states that people from the East of Turkey are 'Alpine'."

Georgians and such widely fall into the category, you basically just have to have a round head to be Alpine. Funkynusayri 15:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Overemphasis on Nordicism

I have noticed a disturbing trend here at Wikipedia where articles dealing with topics related to race, anthropology, politics and history are all too often flawed by a persistent hard left slant. It is evident in this article, with its preoccupation with and exageration of the historical significance of 'Nordicism' and gratuitous references to Afrocentrism. The most notorious proponent of Nordicism - Nazi Germany - was of course intimately allied with and enamored of fascist Italy; Hitler's 'Master Spy', Wilhelm Canaris, proudly claimed to be a direct descendant of the swarthy 19th century Greek Admiral Constantine Canaris- so the suggestion that Nordicists generally regarded Mediterraneans as miscgenated untouchables is obviously exagerrated. No mention is made of the fact that a sub-branch of the Mediterranean Race, the Atlanto-Mediterranean, included persons indigenous to Britain. Ironically, by uncritically reiterating the suggestion that the relatively dark complexion of Meditterraneans (as compared with Nordics) is the result of interbreeding with black Africans, they are effectively reiterating the radical Nordicist belief that that the original inhabitants of the Mediterranean were pale whites, darkened by miscgenation with black Africans. The only difference is motive - the Nordicists were attempting to place their ancestors in the realm of classical civilization (much as Afrocentrists do today), while the authors are apparently engaged in some sort of 'deconstruction of whiteness'. In any event, this idea that Meditterraneans are dark because they are essentially 'mulattoes' is not only innacurate, but highly offensive to many Mediterraneans. WikipediaEditor 02:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

If you have something useful to add, add it, rather than moaning about its absence. The reference to Afrocentrism is anything but gratuitous, since there is a direct relationship between these debates about the modelling of race and the ways in which connections or separations between "black" and "white" identity have been theorised. The idea that Mediterranean darkness derives from being "mulattos" would only be offensive to a racist. Anyway, it is clearly explained that this theory belongs to the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. If you think this article is 'hard left' in tone, you are fantasising! Paul B 07:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Paul B wrote: "The idea that Mediterranean darkness derives from being mulattos would only be offensive to a racist ..." By this reasoning, Nordicism should only be offensive to a racist! In fact, its offensive for many reasons, but the only reason that matters is that its wrong. The references to Afrocentrism and Nordicism are both gratuitous. These are footnotes to the topic if anything, but are presented as the meat. An accurate, balanced article would simply give the neutral facts first and foremost, and mention tangential issues (such as Afrocentrism and Nordicism) only as an afterword. This article is so informed by a 21st century, PC sensibility that it gives the impression that the concept 'Mediterranean race' was a dirty word of sorts, divisive or controversial in its time, and it most certainly was not. It was regarded by most as an innocent if overly formal term for a subdivision of the larger 'white' or 'caucasian' race. I intend to contribute to the article when I have time to do so properly. WikipediaEditor 23:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

"By this reasoning, Nordicism should only be offensive to a racist!" You've lost me I'm afraid. What reasoning are you referring to? Nordicism is the ideological belief that "Nordic" peoples constitute a master race. I guess it's "offensive" if you are not Nordic, but flattering if you are! I don't see how it relates to the point I made. Almost all theorists of the Med Race included within it peoples from North Africa. You seem to misunderstand the point of this article. It is about the ways in which a particular sub-category of "Caucasians" came to be interpreted during the period when the tripartite division (Nordic/Alpine/Med) was most influential – roughly from 1900-1930, but lingering on to Carleton Coon's work in the early 60s. During that period Nordicism was central, not periphoral to the debate. That is the substance. It's anything but periphoral. What in earth is "PC" about this I've no idea. That's not to say extra material about the concept of a Med racial sub-category could not be added, say on the ways in which Sergi, Ripley and others characterised it. Likwise there's no reason why the usage of the concept beyond the period currently covered should not be added to the text. Paul B 14:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I invite you to consider the following obvious comparison:

1. Paul B wrote: "The idea that Mediterranean darkness derives from being mulattos would only be offensive to a racist ..." "The idea that the relatively light complexion and caucasian features of most Egyptians as compared with Sub-Saharan blacks could be derived from being descended from an aboriginal Nordic race would only be offensive to a racist..." Are you still lost?
2. Paul wrote: "Almost all theorists of the Med Race included within it peoples from North Africa..." <SIGHS and buries head in hands> Of course North Africans are Mediterranean - there is nothing 'Afrocentrist' or controversial about that. What is Afrocentrist is the notion that the indigenous population of North Africa is 'black' (that is, racially 'Negroid', which is nonsense). Could it be that you have been confused by the semantics of the term 'Afrocentrism' (he asked incredulously)? Afrocentrism is a euphemasim for what (if the word 'Negro' hadn't been effectively outlawed by PC censors - along with any other meaningful term describing people indigenous to Sub-Saharan Africa) would perhaps more accurately be described as "Negrocentrism", a world view that seeks to place black people at the center of all significant history and culture. It is not about continental (here, African) chauvinism, but racial (here, black) chauvinism. Um... you really didn't know that? Oh well. In any event...
3. Paul wrote: " Nordicism is the ideological belief that "Nordic" peoples constitute a master race. I guess it's "offensive" if you are not Nordic, but flattering if you are! I don't see how it relates to the point I made." <Sighs again> For a Nordicist to tell an Italian that the ancient Romans didn't look like them (ie. like - say - Al Pacino), but rather, they looked like him (ie. like Arnold Schwartzeneger) - that the only reason Italians today look more like Pacino than Schwartzenegger is because they've mixed with blacks - IS offensive. Similarly, for an 'Afrocentrist' (ie. Black supremacist) to tell an Italian that the ancient Romans didn't look like them (ie. like - say - Al Pacino), but rather, they looked like him (ie. like rapper Ice Cube) - that the only reason Italians today look more like Pacino than Ice Cube is because they've mixed with whites - IS offensive. In any event, the important point is that it's wrong, not that its offensive.

Capiche? WikipediaEditor 01:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not offended by anyone saying Italians and Mediterraneans have African ancestry. It would make me proud. In fact, I think it's racist to be offended by someone suggesting you might have black ancestry somewhere. Malcolm X himself said he believed Italians had African ancestry. I'm not offended by that at all. I believe it is true that many Mediterraneans have black ancestry, but apparently this is too controversial to discuss. -I AM HERE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.31.4.46 (talk • contribs)

TO WikipediaEditor- Oh dear, you are a deeply confused person aren't you? Your increasingly irrational exlamations do not help with reasoned debate. Let's repeat the points in the hope that you can finally grasp them:

1. The article states that some theorists of this time (c.1900s) stated that Med characteristics arose from mixing with peoples from across the Med. That's a fact. Whether you or anyone else finds it offensive or not is irrelevant. It's like complaining about an article on Nazism that says they didn't like Jews on the grounds that it's "offensive" to Jews to include the statement in the article. It would be central to the subject of the article. Capiche?

However my point is that it should not be "offensive" to anyone to be told that they they derive from a genetically mixed heritage. Almost all of us do. If it were demonstated that the light complexions of Egyptians did derive from some ancient Nordic migration then that would simply be a fact, and should not "offend" anyone. It's very very unlikely, but ancient migrations and mixings of peoples happened all the time, so would hardly be a big deal. The fact that some dingbat white supremacists do try to insist on this Nordic Egyptian fantasy is only offensive because it flies in the face of all the evidence we have and because it reveals their ideological agenda – the denigration of all races otgher than their own. It's the agenda that's offensive, not the argument itself, which would just be a neutral theory about ancient migrations without the agenda that is attached to it.

You write, "Of course North Africans are Mediterranean - there is nothing 'Afrocentrist' or controversial about that. What is Afrocentrist is the notion that the indigenous population of North Africa is 'black' (that is, racially 'Negroid', which is nonsense)."

<SIGHS and buries head in hands> Oh dear oh dear. You really are confused aren't you? North Africans are included by theorists of this time in the Med race. Obviously they are Mediterranean in the literal sense, since North Africa is on the Mediterranean. The issue here is the modelling of race and the ideological implications of the category of the "Med Race" as one which includes in a single concept both North Africans and Southern Europeans. I suggest you actually read Sergi's or Ripley's books. I suggest you look at early twentieth century copies of the Journal of Negro History and the writings of DuBois to see how this argument became relevant to the early history of Afrocentrism. Sergi claims that Med peoples originated in Africa and migrated into Europe. Authors in the JNH make arguments about the origins of Greek Cultural thought in African peoples that parallel some of the "Out of Africa" claims more recently made by Bernal and others. Furthermore the argument provides an intellectual tool against the one drop theory that valorises racial mixing and the claim that Greco-Roman culture had its roots in Africa. This is as much a crucial part of Afrocentrism as the simplistic claims about ancient Egyptians or Berbers being "black".

(sighs again)

Stop being pointlessly "offended" and look at the arguments and the issues. And no, you are mistaken when you write that "the important point is that it's wrong." It is not wrong as an account of what these theorists wrote and what was historically and ideologically important about it. That is the subject of the article. Paul B 15:40 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I haven't been in any hurry to respond to your latest comments, with all due respect, because your comments have a rather delicious 'self-delegitimizing' quality. I mean, you seriously cite Martin Bernal! (You can't make this stuff up folks - see his previous comments above ;)). There is one rather remarkable line in Paul's latest response that can't be ignored however. First, he quoted me as follows:

You write, "Of course North Africans are Mediterranean - there is nothing 'Afrocentrist' or controversial about that. What is Afrocentrist is the notion that the indigenous population of North Africa is 'black' (that is, racially 'Negroid', which is nonsense)."

He then continues:

<SIGHS and buries head in hands> Oh dear oh dear. You really are confused aren't you? North Africans are included by theorists of this time in the Med race. Obviously they are Mediterranean in the literal sense, since North Africa is on the Mediterranean

This is a rather extraordinary display of Paul's confusion. Of course North Africans are Mediterranean, and not just in 'a literal sense', but in EVERY sense. I never objected to as much. I merely point out that the indigenous population of North Africans has histiorically been classified as caucasian - not 'black'. I don't object in the slightest to the classification of North Africans as Meds. What I object to is the suggestion that the indigenous populatiom of Mediterranean Afirca is black/negroid - it aint.

Furthermore, I agree with you that someone shouldn't be offended at the suggestion that they are of mixed heritage - we all are, and contemporary DNA analysis suggests there is more variation within than between 'races'.

However, just as you are offended (or can understand how one could be offended) by the idea of Nordics in prehistoric Egypt NOT because the idea of Nordics in Egypt is offensive per se but because of the motives for such claims, you should be offended (or at least understand how one could be offended) by the suggestion that Negroes contribute signifcantly to the genetic heritage of Southern Europeans - again - NOT because one should find the prospect of black ancestry repugnant, but because the claim is motivated by racial politics rather than sound scholarship.

Capiche?

I respectfully suggest that any further debate on this subject between us take place on our respective personal discussion pages - we are cluttering this page up. WikipediaEditor 22:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I have been reading the arguments of this page, and Paul,s arguments and now I have no doubts. These people are presenting these articles in the encyclopedia as the Mediterranean race, but then they use for their discussion authors who are behind Nordicism and they insist on presenting the Mediterranean race like it was presented in the 19th or beginning of the 20th century and cite a racist like Grant and so on. One of these guys even says that if there should be a picture of a Mediterranean it should reflect how it would have been presented almost 100 years ago. These articles on races all have a very Nodicist connotation. They all go about the idea of Nordics as being somewhere. But this is only confirming one thing. I bet that all these articles are being written by people from the U.S. I have lived in different places due to my job. Six years in The United States, and nowhere have I seen such an obsession with race as in that country. It is the most racist country that I have known. The government tries to fight it, but popular culture is too strong. It is impossible to try to explain anything to these people. They have been just brought up with too many racist ideas in their heads in a more or less conscious way. They see the world in a way which is unique and impossible to change. It would take generations. I also lived 3 years in Germany, where they should have been more contaminated by these ideas, but there is no comparison. Everyone can easily see that most internet pages dealing with White supremacism and Nordicism come from the U.S. In this article about race, that should be a scientific article since it is in an encyclopedia, they point out theories like the one stating that Mediterraneans where mixed with Black Africans and that this is why they are like that, trying to imply that in fact they were Nordic when the Mediterranean was the cradle of civilization and all that. It is hopeless. You will talk to them and they will continue with their view of the world. There are only two possible reasons: One is that they are Nodicists trying to pass for regular scholars. The other, quite probable, is that they are not Nordicists. They just carry with them a view of the world that has been passed down generation after generation. In either case it is not very useful to try and reason with them. They will just tell you. "This is not a contribution to the encyclopedia." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.50.134 (talk • contribs)

(What you just said is completely unfair to the United States. I despise racism, also. But you cannot compare the U.S to Germany. The U.S. has been inhabited by so many different races, ethnic groups, religions, and cultures. Germany has not. Germany has had one constant culture, and the majority of Germans are of German ethnicity. There are hardly any Blacks, Asians, dark Italians, or Jews in the country, so the white German people have never really had to coexist with these other groups. Maybe if they did, you would see how racist Germans can be. Plus, in the modern U.S., people closely identify and cling onto their cultures and races so that they may have their own identity in such a large country. This may come off as racism to you, but it is merely the resisting of assimilation into one big bland US culture. ok, now I'm out of this argument) - JJ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.31.4.46 (talk • contribs)

Look, the article is about a racial category that no longer exists as such. It is about how that category emerged and about how it was incorporated into models of racial difference in the period when "race theory" was influential. I'm sorry you don't understand that. The Nordic/Alpine/Mediterranean model was how these groups were divided up at this time. The "mixture" argument was commonplace among Nordicists, like it or not and was also used by opponents of the one-drop position to argue for the benefits of genetic diversity. Paul B 02:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You continue on the same track, as it should be expected. Have you never read a scientific article about The Mediterranean Race, or about any other Race? The article is not being presented in the encyclopedia with an entry like: View on the human races by Nordicist theories. The article is being presented as The Mediterranean Race. It only takes basic intelligence to see the difference. Yet you continue pointing out theories that are not scientific, and continue citing as a source Nordicist theories.You could also cite The March of the Titans as a source. If you want to write about the view of race by Nordicist theories that is another matter. Not that I think it is very constructive to give publicity to those ideas, but anyone is obviously free to do it. But make it clear, do not present it under an entry that is about the Mediterranean Race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.156.225.195 (talk • contribs)

There is no "scientific article" on the Mediterranean race because there is no longer any such racial category. That point is made very clearly in the opening srentences of the article and again at the end. The same is true of the "Alpine race", but no-one complains about that article for the simple reason that no-one identifies themselves as part of the "Alpine race". It's role as an obsolete category is immediately understood. The problem here is that you identify yourself in the name that was given to this race - as though the article is about "Mediterranean peoples". It isn't. It's about a historically significant category.Paul B 17:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you. Of course I identify myself with the Mediterranean race. You just have to go to Spain, Portugal, Italy and then to Norway and to Japan to see that there are races. So on this point we do not agree either. But as I said, name the entry in the encyclopedia properly, and that would be it. And if you doubt the existence of this race I invite you to come to my home town, Mérida, Spain, founded more than two thousand years ago by the Romans under the name Emerita Augusta. Have a look at the dozens of frescos depicting men and women that have survived and that are open to the public, compare them to the people who live there and you will see that they look exactly the same. No Nordics, No Black Africans, both races that I respect and admire, but they belong somewhere else my friend. So what is offensive is to see a lot of foreigners speaking of us without having a clue about us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.11.70.153 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, you seem to misinterpret how our naming policy works. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." In this case, the article title clearly corresponds to the concept as is expressed in all notable English-language literature on the subject. Your own idiosyncratic interpretation of the term is not relevant here. --Fastfission 02:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, of course, Fastfission. That's plain English, ain't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.11.70.153 (talk • contribs)

I certainly agree with the idea of a specific race around Mediterranean area. Being Italian, I see many similar features on my fellow Italians, as well as on the Spanish, Portuguese, Greek, Turkish, and various other ethnic groups around the Mediterranean Sea. I know that this racial theory is very controversial and has fallen from the mainstream, and I don't agree with all of the old theories myself, but I do think their is some race around the Mediterranean Sea similar to the "Mediterranean race" described in this article. I AM HERE 28 February 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.31.4.46 (talk • contribs) It's not too controversial to discuss. We can say what we like on this page, but in the article we have to refer to the evidence of scolarship on the subject. That's all. If you have any information about past and present theories of Med racial ancestry feel free to add them! Paul B 17:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

italians, spaniards, and portuguese are among what's known as the romance peoples. the turkish people are one of the turkic peoples. so far i don't know anywhere near as much about any of these peoples as i do indians, in the sense of the indigenous peoples of the western hemisphere, technically not including the eskimos and aleuts, but i'm definitely working on learning... Gringo300 08:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I hate anything similar to bloging...

But... I have to speak here, for at least the fact that I have Mediterranean ancestry (Greek, Italian, southern French, and Spanish), and just the simple fact that I'm a human being that wishes for all human beings to one day be seen as equal and have us all do away with such nonsense as nordism, eurocentrism, afrocentrism, or any other kind of "centrism." It's racist to BOTH viewing Mediterraneans as "mulattoes" and/or as "less" than nordic... To those who speak against the "so-called" 'leftists'... huh... please, to both those who speak against leftists and those who claim to be leftists... get your leftists straight!!!! Realize what a REAL Leftist is!!! Okay... now that I've gotten that off my chest... Everyone on this planet is related (99.9% similar DNA between ALL ethnicities) from a scientific {AND LOGICAL} perspective, Mediterraneans are "olive skinned" (or-between the 'nordics' and 'africans' if you so choose to speak) because of geographical origins... it's warmer and sunnier in, say, Italy, than it is in, say, Norway... simple enough to understand. There are blonde, blue-eyed Greeks, and tan, black-haried, brown-eyed Germans, ... I think I rest my case!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Carlon (talk • contribs)

Word up :). I'm 100 % greek and I got blonde hair and blue eyes. Tourists always seem to think that I'm just another tourist. When I say I'm greek they go "Noooo!? Really!? I tought you were german or something..(ive spoken to alot of turists on my sommber jobb in a shop)".. Sigh. Altough greeks don't seem to have any problems in beliveing me.

I think all european sub-races are capable of being blond and blue-eyed, not just nordics.

Genetics anyone?

This article should include what modern genetic research has to say about categories such as Mediterranean Race. Look up articles as Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA), Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe, Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Genotype-phenotype distinction, Human genetic variation, Human migration, Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups and Human mitochondrial DNA haplogroups, just to name a few... The Ogre 13:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm no geneticist. Add the relevant material if you are familiar with it. Paul B 15:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

References

If you're going to claim asian and african admixture, add the proper references. Most works suggest the Alpines divided the original european stock between Nordics and Mediterranids. As for the short skull, I don't know where you got that from. Mediterraneans are surely dolichocephal inclined.

You are right about Ripley's cephalic typology. I'll change that. We - that is the article itself - are not claiming "asian and african admixture". The statement in the lead is just a potted summary. The references are given in the more detailed accounts of the views of various Nordicists and to Sergi's theories, which are foootnoted. The notion that the Roman empire was weakened by racial mixing with "Asiatics" originates with Gobineau, and is trotted out repeatedly by Nordicists up to the Nazi era. See this SS handbook, for example.[1] I have added refs. Paul B 17:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I moved the A. James Gregor ref to the Nordicism article, since it is not about the Med race, but an attack on Nordic theory. The Coon material goes in the discussion of Coon. Chronology needn't be rigid, but we have to have some sense of what follows what. Paul B 01:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Still, I feel the paragraph in question, the first on Racial Theories, is biased towards nordicism. It makes it seem like we have nordicism on one side and racial mixture advocacy on the other, which is clearly a misguidance. We seem to have knowledge regarding nordicist references, but very little building on their counterstatements. I hope that'll be balanced somehow.

I accidentally put in the wrong ref to the Nazi booklet, in case you were wondering (I was working on two articles at the same time). I think some of the Germanic stuff in the early debates section is rather too marginal, since it's not even about race, but about German/Latin cultural differences from a German POV, so I'll remove it. Paul B 12:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Infobox example

I wandered what people that about the infox example of people..since its only an example of what the MODERN Mediterranean race look and are......the med has always changed as has all races in europe....its not supposed to be Off the mark completely.

It is not appropriate because this is an early 20th C racial category. If you look at the map you will see that it includes north Africans in Grant's model, as it does in Sergi's original model. Later accounts include Indians (see Racial groups in India (historical definitions)). Paul B 22:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that this article is about the "Distribution of the European Races" and not only from where they maybe had their origins...but i do think maybe if the infobox had examples of the early 20th century Mediterranean people including North african and some middle eastern countries.....which all lie within the Mediterranean sea or basin ...would be good.??

So if its not about the modern identity only..although the white race includes much of the Mediterreanean basin anyway..eg: Lebanon, Parts of Morrocco, etc...[[Spain21] 10 July 2007 (UTC)]

Why isn't Portugal there?

Why is Italy there, if half part of the country is Alpine/Nordic?Opinoso 00:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry , id left it out i guess cause it isnt on the meditteranean sea..but if its just to do with the med race..then it includes them too..sorry.. and about the italians..well they are in the meditteranean sea..so they are meds..but half is also med(at the time of this early 20th C map)...now its probably different..but what do you do ..leave it out completly?....the majority of ital is the med race,,when include sardinia and sicily..in land space..Spain2113 July 2007 (UTC)

Theoretical Article

This article should not even be on Wikipedia. This is what is stated in the article: "The Mediterranean race was thought to be prevalent in southern Europe, parts of North Africa, South Asia and the Middle East, and was characterised by moderate to short stature, narrow shoulders, long skull (dolichocephalic), dark hair, dark eyes & complexion."

If it is a theory, while is this a full-fledged article. Everyone knows that their no such thing as a Mediterranean, Nordic etc. race. Caucasian is the race. These are just sub-groups. Also not every Spaniard, Italian and Greek are Mediterranean. Many people in these countries are Alpinic as well.

Why is'nt France, Wales, Britain, and other places included in the population of Mediterraneans; basically all of Wales is Mediterranean!

Try reading the article beyond the first paragraph. --JWB 22:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I did, so how about adding English, and Irish populations in the box as well!

There shouldn't be a box. It's an absurdity, but that's no reason why there shouldn't be an article. Paul B 00:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly Paul, considering that this "so-called" sub-race has fallen out of use today. As mentioned in the article, the Mediterranean race was though to include only southern Italians so why is the whole Italian population included in the box!#

The countries included are ones ,where they have an 'original' MAJORITY or large Mediterranean race where they ORIGINATE...not always ended up!...so the Irish and english are not part of the 'Mediterranean race' in general since they arent even on the med basin.....and YES alot of people do use the term 'Mediterranean' race, i have heard many people describe themselve as so in Spain, Italy etc....but still are collectivly the white race....in the UK they use terms often such as the Welsh race, English race and Scottish race.....just to distinguish them seperatly..thats all.....by the way..people use they words Nordic ALL the time in europe.... 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, the "Mediterranean race" is a theoretical concept as the writer above states. It fits with the other similar racial concepts of the time like "Alpine race" and "East Baltic race". It's not just about any people who lived in the Med, anymore than "Caucasian race" is about people who live in the Caucasus. Putting an infobox confuses the issue in the same way that sticking one on Alpine race that lists people who live near the Alps would. Paul B 13:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

the term is used when someone wants to describe themselves in detail..other than nationality. I think sticking with most of the original people's of the med is the best example you can get.. Im not sure if the infobox makes much confusion as i understand it well & i think its self explanitary..let alone ,people are confused with the Map ...and think people arent reading the article either..it seems..26 July 2007 (UTC)

You certainly don't appear to have read it. Paul B 16:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You dont have appreared to have read how this stupid theory only applies to southern Italians, not the north!

Yawn. I have read Sergi's original book The Mediterranean Race, and Ripley's book too. I'll be bound you'd never even heard of them before you glanced at this article. And no, there are many different interpretations of the extent and scope of this postulated "race". Only some writers insisted that the north of Italy was predominently non-Med. Read Racial Theories in Fascist Italy. And sign your posts Paul B 14:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Atlanto-Mediterraneans

Atlanto-Mediterraneans might have red hair. Nagara373 07:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

thats incorrect. prove it with a source before you add it to the article. And there are other mediterranean types in britain such as robust med and armenoid and dinaric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.165.71 (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Afrocentrism

There is too much information about or related to Afrocentrism in the article. Afrocentrism is an extremist theory, only relatively popular in the US. Afrocentrism, like its sister doctrine, Nordicim, as anyone knows, just try to prey on the unparaleled history and heritage of the Mediterranean peoples (not race, which does not exist as such) and just reflect jealousy and envy. Maybe additional proof of the US-centrism of these articles. Chloe.

Too much? The only reference to Afrocentrism is in this sentence: "This fed into the development of Afrocentrism" - a sum total of 7 words. Paul B (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, read it well. Maybe you are not familiar with it. Chloe.

Maybe you aren't. Sergi, Dubois and others are not Afrocentrists. Sergi was the actual inventor of the concept of a Mediterranean race. You are confusing African-American scholarship with Afrocentrism. Paul B (talk) 10:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Move

I suggest a move to Mediterranean people

This would be more correct, as the article does not just draw a division as ethnic, but also culturally, and therefore defining them as just a 'race' is incorrect. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Race and people are not synonymous terms. The Mediterranean race is defined by craniometrics, not self-identification. Funkynusayri (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Mixing allegations

Apparently mixing with Africans and Asians changed the racial character of European Mediterraneans. But the Africans were from modern-day Morocco east to Egypt, and the Asians were from modern-day Turkey south to Israel/Palestine. In other words all along the Mediterranean coast. These people were the SAME race as Europea Mediterraneans. While the cultural character of the people may have been altered, there could not have been any biological alteration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.152.206 (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's what was said by some writers. We just report it. Paul B (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but the article gives the impression these Africans and Asians were somehow racially very different from the Mediterranean race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.176.35 (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Mediterranean origins

I have heard somewhere that anyone with dark brown hair and brown eyes have Mediterranean origins or Mediterranean ancestors, is this true?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.246.56 (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Alpines have similar features in that regard. 41.245.171.32 (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)