5 ms·
Interesting fact - Slavs are the largest white sub-ethnicity in the world.
by gethly 1y ago
Interesting fact - Slavs are the largest white sub-ethnicity in the world.
- fbu 1y agoMore than Germanic ?
- gethly 1y agoGrok says Slavic 300M-350M, Germanic 150M-180M, Romance 190M-200M, Celtic 80M-100M, Uralic 20M-25M.
- personalityson 1y agoDoes this include US population?
- fbu 1y agoGrok could say anything. Isn't there a rule yet on just blatantly copy/pasting AI answers ?
- actionfromafar 1y agoGr0k wouldn't lie to you about race. Maybe the spacerace.
- helge9210 1y agoReminds me of a joke: calling a Slav white is like buying a "made in Vietnam" Rolex.
- graycrow 1y agoSorry, but this joke is stupid.
- helge9210 1y agoNot if you consider all the modern negative connotations of being called "white". Eastern Europe was under colonial rule (of Russian empire) up until 1980-90s.
- peppingdore 1y agoDoesn’t the word “white” obviously refer to the skin color? If you think it has to bring something about colonialism it’s probably because you have somewhat of a twisted perception of reality.
- vintermann 1y agoNot colonial rule, and not the Russian Empire...
- sam_lowry_ 1y agoYou happen to be a Russian over 60, right?
- vintermann 1y agoNo, just someone who is not a jingoist for an Eastern European country. Though I'm sure Russian jingoists over 60 today too prefer to see Soviet-allied states as "their empire". It's no more true than saying Argentina was a US colony - which means yes, you could say it, but we'd all be dumber for thinking of it like that.
- ajuc 1y agoRussians are Slavs too. They are the last remaining colonial empire and historically one of the worst bullies ever. Poles are Slavs, and they colonized EE before Russians took over. It's just a pointless subdivision within a pointless hierarchy. Races as defined by Americans don't match skin color nor DNA proximity. Skin color doesn't match DNA proximity. And none of these map cleanly into "bully vs victim" subdivisions. Mostly because groups of people move from bullies to victims and back over time. People who systematically have the chance to bully others will eventually do that.
- personalityson 1y agoIf not white, what are they?
- ajuc 1y ago"White" in USA means "Anglo-Saxon Protestants + some groups we accept as close enough". Makes no sense, but the whole idea of races is dumb from the start (same skin color is a very bad proxy for DNA similarity), so it's pointless to correct them.
- peterfirefly 1y ago> very bad proxy for DNA similarity It's actually a remarkably good one. If we continue to mix for several hundred years more then it won't be. For now, it is.
- ajuc 1y agoBecause of the founder effect, white people have way lower genetic diversity. It's like we've split the encyclopedia into three books: A-S, T, and U-Z.
- otabdeveloper4 1y ago> white people have way lower genetic diversity This isn't true.
- polotics 1y agoIndeed really not true. For example: I am quite mixed, declared my own race on an unclaimed spot of non-scientific identity-formation, and despite what some would say and discounting any possible future irradiation, my genitic diversity is absolutely zero ;-)
- peterfirefly 1y agoAfrica's higher human diversity is mainly in low-population groups like the Khoisan. The big groups are not nearly as diverse (although they do carry some Khoisan genes, for example).
- vintermann 1y agoAccording to a fairly arbitrary decision of which sub-groups to split up further and which to see as one. And quite likely, you will also need another fairly arbitrary decision of which groups to include as "white" (if you included Turkic people as white, and saw them as a single group, I'm pretty sure there are more of them than Slavs).
- anal_reactor 1y agoI have a theory based on absolutely nothing that cultures rarely ever fundamentally change. When Americans decided that racism is bad, they didn't reject the racial theory as a whole, they just concluded that some details of its application were wrong. Otherwise it's difficult to explain why a seemingly race-blind society keeps discussing race all the time, and dedicates so much effort into preserving information about who is what race. Similarly, despite democratic revolutions, both Russian and Chinese societies keep going back to some form of monarchy - this form of governance is just deeply ingrained in their culture, and you won't change it overnight.
- myrmidon 1y ago> Otherwise it's difficult to explain why a seemingly race-blind society keeps discussing race all the time, and dedicates so much effort into preserving information about who is what race. I think a core problem there is that people fail to realize that emphasizing and celebrating the own ethnicity/gender/sexuality/religion opens the door for discrimination along those lines. Demonstrating "pride" to belong to some group is never consequence-free, and often a really bad trade-off overall.
- vintermann 1y agoI basically agree. There should be no pride or shame in things you can't take neither credit or blame for. I also don't buy the common argument that taking pride in something is necessary to counterweight the shame associated with it in the past. But I also think there are positive ways of celebrating your culture.
- lifestyleguru 1y agoInteresting fact - "white ethnicity" is used mostly in context of a "racial theories" by Germanic and Anglo-saxon societies according to which Slavs are not white, yet Slavs somehow believe they belong to the "white group". Hint - it's not about skin shade or color. The Germanic complex of Slavs is a real thing, e.g. some Slavs believe they are superior because they "descend from Vikings".
- gethly 1y agoYou might be referring to the works of Madison Grant where he split whites into three groups: Nordics, Alpines and Mediterranean. The Nordics are seen as the most white, Alpines as less white and Mediterraneans even less white. In this case Slavic people are in the Alpine class. If you look at Viking migration by DNA, you can find 1:1 match with Grant's Nordic peoples areas in Europe.