Talk:Mediterranean race/Archive 1

Requesting speedy deletion of this article
This article spreads dangerous fascist and nazism related terrorist ideas and nobody keeps a lid on it. Millions and millions of people died trying to rid the world of this evil and here you are again spreading your 19th century nazi pseudo science as if it was a legitimate up to date human anthropology (37.201.117.239 (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC))

Completely agree. Yet, they try to salvage themselves with a single sentence acknowledging this theory of race is discredited. (Actually, the theory of there being any races within humanity is discredited overall by human DNA research, but the general public - who write Wikipedia - are slow to follow new scientific research findings.) Kitkat9311 (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

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)
 * The hell is this nonsense even about? Just a rant without any attempts for improvements.★Trekker (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

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)


 * Nordicists know no bounds99.124.143.146 (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

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:
 * 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.
 * The image was clearly created as an example of erotica, not for anthropological purposes, so it creates the wrong "tone" for the article.
 * 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:
 * 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?
 * Paul wrote: "Almost all theorists of the Med Race included within it peoples from North Africa..."  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...
 * 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."  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:
 * 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)."
 *  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:
 *  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 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)

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.

It's also an issue of numbers - there are /some/ blonde hair-blues in every part of the mediterranean from Syria to Spain and there are /some/ black hair-browns from Scotland to Scandinavia however the fact remains that the vast majority of greeks are darker and the vast majority of swedish are lighter. You say you're '100% Greek' whatever that means - but the blonde-hair and blue eyes originate from Scandinavia so somewhere along the lines you have some ancestors who through migration/slavery/genetic drift-whatever that inherited at least the genes responsible for the phenotype that produces your outward colour - I personally hazard a guess through slavic migration. 2000 years ago there probably would have been a lot fewer anomalous people (hair and eye colour-wise) with the exception of redheads of course. 81.111.51.141 (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

Apparently the above donor has "conveniently" disregarded the following information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_gene which lends credence to a Mediterranean race and relation amongst its ancient civilizations, totally excluding (genetically and scientifically) the inclusion, infusion, relation, or contribution of Nordic migration. Mediterranean achievements are in no way related to the Nordic race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.147.192.66 (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2008 (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)

Any white person and asians too can have these features 99.124.143.146 (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Reasons why I erased cherry picked information about genetics
Some people use here genetics either without much knowledge of it or because they want to prove some agenda. Both parts of the Mediterranean do not have anything in common to prove the existence of a Mediterranean race. In fact, North Africa and the Middle East are genetically close to Europeans, but to all Europeans. Europeans, all of them, form, on the other hand, a cluster, relatively separated from other Non-European populations, but close to North Africans and people from the Middle East, because they are also Caucasian. Only Finns, in the North, are a bit separated from the rest of Europe, but only a bit, as can be seen in the following map.

Recent autosomal map of Europeans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/science/13visual.html?_r=3&ref=science&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

These are autosomal maps. For a lineage-related-genetic markers genetic map see:

http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

As to the Middle East influence (that we can also call Mediterranean influence), it is indeed one of the basic influences in Europe. But not like most people tend to think. It is largest in the East and North of Europe, from Neolithic migrations, and smallest in the west. Interestingly it is smallest in the South West of Europe, namely in Spain and Portugal, were the Iberian or Basque element is the strongest, this element is the oldest in Europe and comes from Paleolithic times. See.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361/T03

Here is another map were Iberia is the most "western" area in Europe in genetic terms.

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/08/genetic-map-of-europe-again.php

In other words, Europeans form a genetic cluster, that is relatively separated from other Non-European Caucasian groups but still relatively close to both North Africans and Middle Easterners, for the simple reasons that all Europeans are closely related to populations in North Africa and the Middle East. The information that I have deleted is cherry picked, out of context and outdated, just to try and prove an agenda. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.43.52 (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And what agenda would that be? All it said was that the word "medterranean" is used by some modern researchers, and gave examples of its use. Readers can decide for themselves what significance that has. You seem to be the one trying to argue a point here in support of some "truth" about the unity of "Caucasian" groups. Also, 2005 and 2008 is hardly outdated. Paul B (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but out of context, mate. Look at the big picture. In genetics you can argue almost anyhting if you take it out of context to say exactly the opposite. I am going to give you an example:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361/T03

You can take the data for Spain (IberiaS)that you can see in this article and if no comparisons are made with the rest of Europeans, you can argue that the Middle Eastern contribution is relatively large in Spain (because it is in fact significant), argueing that it may even be the result of the Muslim occupation of Spain, as a possibility. In fact if the article had only concentrated on the Spanish this fact could be used for that theory. The surprise comes when other European populations are analysed and the Middle Eastern contribution is not only common in the rest of Europe, but much bigger than in Spain and surprisingly, Spain has the smallest middle Eastern Contribution in Europe, in spite of the Arab occupation. In short, if single studies are produced without comparisons to other populations, they are often the subject of wrong conclusions, and even manipulation. In the field of genetics one of the most common things in internet now is how users take these individual studies out of context to try and prove whatever. As always, the big picture is necessary to uncover deceivers. Adn again, yes, both North African populations and Middle Eastern populations are closer to Europeans than to any other popualtions and that is well known in genetic circles. It is no weird thing. And as you can see I have provided data that account for all Europeans, not only studies that concentrate on sigle populations and leave us ignorant about the rest. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.233.3 (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

all people from the British isles are a Mediterranean and Nordic mix —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.112.93.105 (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

why was my edit about italians... edited back?
you're telling me that only southern italians have the mediterranean look? have you ever been to north italy? even though northern italians are paler in comparison to their southern counterparts, it still doesnt make them nordics or even pure alpines. there's a quote about many irishmen being part or looking like people from the mediteranean race and you would not put northern italians in?! lol ok. p.s. romans, etruscans etc. are not south italians. just a heads up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrone johnson (talk • contribs) 16:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've already explained on your talk page (and in my edit summary) why your edit was reverted. You altered a quotation. Take it up with Huxley, whose words you changed. Paul B (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: lol my mistake. it still buffles me though that huxley mentions irishmen and bretons and not northern italians. Patrone johnson


 * Irish and Bretons are Celts. The Bretons/Britons came from Britain to Brittany escape the Saxons, which is how Brittany got its name. It was common at the time to include Celts in the non-Nordic category, which later came to be redefined as "Mediterranean". All of this is obsolete historical theorising, with only a marginal relationship to modern thinking on the topic of population ancestry. After all, not one believes that "dark whites" in Europe are the result of a mixture of "the Xanthochroi and the Australioids"! Paul B (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Answer:Yeah Northern Italians are in average darker than even Southern spaniards or Southern Portuguese but there is this weird habit of mentioning only southern Italians. Infact, Spaniards got mediterranean features from latin italians in roman empire. Central and Southern Italians are even darker than Northern Italians, Spaniards and Portuguese. I think it's because Central and Southern Italians in average much darker than Spaniards and Portuguese so Northern Italians who are as dark as Southern Spaniards and Southern Portuguese stick out in contrast.

False claim
The following claim how the article opens is false:

"The Mediterranean race was one of the three sub-races into which the Caucasian race and the people of Europe were divided by anthropologists in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries"

Many anthropologists continued to recognise the Mediterranean race as having a scientific basis well beyond the mid-20th century:

OrangeGremlin (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Coon, Carleton. (1965). The Living Races of Man. Knopf.
 * Baker, John R. (1974). Race. Oxford University Press.
 * Lundmen, Bertil. (1977). The Races and Peoples of Europe. New York: IAAEE.
 * Cappieri, Mario. (June, 1979). "The Etruscans". The Mankind Quarterly. p. 336.
 * Also I would add that some anthropologists continue to do so. I will find some sources. OrangeGremlin (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Edits based on https://sites.google.com/site/mediterraneanpeople
There seem to be some edits to this article based on a Google Sites page at https://sites.google.com/site/mediterraneanpeople

This seems to be original research as far as I can tell, and I will try to clean up the article a little to reflect what the article's premise is, rather than current theories and ideas. -- BCorr | Брайен 17:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Mediterranean Race
The Mediterranean race is the result of Nordics mixing with darker Hamitic & Semitic peoples. The Arabs and North Africans are a different race and Europeans are a different race. The Berbers are Semitic peoples mixed with European peoples. Egypt was Hamitic and it still is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.131.236 (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Mediterranean is actually the first white race (of the main 3 known in Europe) to appear on the fossil record, so now you have learn something new, pathethic nordicist.

«Two 25,000-year-old skulls discovered in Dolni Vestonice (Czech Republic) were described by Jelinek as "gracile dolichomorphic" and "practically typical Mediterranean".

The Brno (Czech Republic) skull can therefore be regarded as the oldest find of the Mediterranean type.

(Jelinek 1968)

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0011-3204(196912)10:5<475:NMAHSI>2.0.CO;2-5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.37.171.168 (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

My god!
I come from reading the Nordic race article, full of bias and ridiculous statements and come here to find the same about the Mediterraneans. What is this a competition about who is more handsome, more smart and more everything! Pathetic. By the way, how does this genetic map is coherent with a Mediterranean race?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Haplogroups_europe.png

Pin Pon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Mediterranean Race??
The Mediterranean race does not exist and it is an attempt of Race unification. It is lazy at best. Spanish, Portuguese, Greeks & Italians generally still look like Nordics with Semitic Phoenician admixture. Spanish mixed with Iberians and later Arabs. The Greeks mixed with Minoans and Phoenicians. The Portuguese mixed with the Moors. This is proof that the Mediterranean race does not exist.

Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Hebrews are all Phoenicians. You can also add the assimilated Iberians to Phoenicians. This is most likely the Mediterranean gene.

Egyptians are Hamitic and originally they were a Somalian type peoples. The Hieroglyphs prove this. The Egyptians had a late mixture with Mediterranean settled Nordics.

Algerians, Libyans and Moroccans all look like Africans mixed with Whites. This mixing occurred during the Italian/French colonialism. Also North Africans shipped in Women/Men from Spain.

Plus Iranians, Afghans, Pakistani's and North Indians are a mixture of Aryans, Arabs and Orientals. This is a completely different division. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.131.236 (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You need an update badly, my friend. Here: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n4/full/ncomms2656.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Article needs to be purched.

Still here are some parts of the text:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/04/mtdna-haplogroup-h-and-origin-of.html

Pipon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

All of you are wrong, lost and hopeless SMH...Akmal94 (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Most/some
The citation clearly states that "Europeans, according to most anthropologists from the 1870s [...], could be divided into 3 racial typologies [...], Teutonic, Alpine and Mediterranean." So that's most rather than some. There is no justification for changing this and also removing the citation that supports it. Paul B (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, then I'll keep "most". The reason I reverted is because a previous editor added additional content not found in the source. Latin Wolf   (talk)  07:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I cannot unsderstand the significance of the difference between "is one of the sub-races into which the Caucasian race was categorized by most anthropologists" and "was one of the sub-races of the Caucasian race as held by most anthropologists". How is that "additional content"? It just phrasing exactly the same thing slightly differently. Paul B (talk) 08:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's not "phrasing exactly the same thing slightly differently". My edit makes it clear that it is a race (whether someone is a fan of it or not) and that it used to be classified as a sub-category of the "Caucasian race". The other edit isn't as clear. Latin Wolf   (talk)  09:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no such difference whatever. But I do see a problem in what you are now claiming. You seem to be saying that you want to assert this this race really exists but that it formerly was classified as part of the "Caucasian race". That is deeply problematic, and largely utrue. Mediterranean peoples are still classified as Caucasian among those who use that term. Paul B (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if you can't differentiate the two, that's not my problem. Also, whether you like my claims or not, that is entirely different. Deeply problematic and untrue according to whom? The anthropology I follow might not be the same as ones followed by other anthropologists. After all, there is no one way of thinking. Latin Wolf   (talk)  10:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If the "anthropology" you follow is just something you make up, then that is a problem, yes. We have a concept of reliable sources, weight and WP:FRINGE. This article is about an historical concept, not your opinions. I rthink any meaningful "differnce" between the versions exists entirely in your mind. Paul B (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it is not something "I make up". I don't appreciate how rudely you are speaking to another contributor. Latin Wolf   (talk)  19:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * He's quite right, though. There's little appreciable difference between the phrases. Soupforone (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Mediterreanism
I've moved the coherent parts of the Mediterraneanism material that was added a few months ago to its own page. It's largely offtopic since the Meditteranean race concept as coined by Sergi, Coon, etc. pertained to a particular physical type within certain anthropometric limits. As such, this physical type was not limited to just the Mediterranean region, and its counterparts were other physical types like Alpine and Dinaric. It did not mean "all people from the Mediterranean region", as the Mediterraneanism material seemed to suggest, though "Mediterranean" was held to be the dominant physical type there. The Mediterranean region actually had (and has) many different physical types corresponding with the typologies of yesteryear, including Alpines, Dinarics, Nordics and Pontids, in addition to individuals of Mediterannean type. Soupforone (talk) 10:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In that sense, it is similar to Nordicism. Many different types other than than typological "Nordid" are present in North Europe. But are there sources for that term? FunkMonk (talk) 12:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The fellow who wrote it was apparently blocked a while ago for some reason. But it does appear to be something of a neologism, with no consistent meaning. Soupforone (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Eurafrican
Note: We can not confuse a brunette Mediterranean with a White and Black mulatto, basically because the refinement of the Caucasian race is clearly revealed in the dark Caucasian with characteristics non existed in the negro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:511F:DA00:754D:DC45:EFC:9831 (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Sergi on his Eurafrican species : ''"The Eurafrican species thus falls into three races: the African, with red-brown and black pigmentation; the Mediterranean, of brunet complexion, inhabiting the great basin including part of northern Africa, formerly occupying Asia Minor, the three great peninsulas of Europe, the Mediterranean islands, and the Canaries, as well as a portion of western, central, and eastern Europe, now difficult to determine; finally, a Nordic race, of blond skin and hair, blue or grey eyes, most numerously represented in Scandinavia north Germany and England. Thus the Mediterranean stock is a race or variety of the Eurafrican species, and differs from the two other varieties chiefly in colour... But that original stock could not have its cradle in the basin of the Mediterranean, for the confluence of peoples and for their active development; the cradle whence they dispersed in many directions was more probably in Africa. The study of the fauna and flora of the Mediterranean exhibits the same phenomenon and becomes another argument in favour of the African origin of the Mediterranean peoples... To-day, however, some years after I first reached this conviction, a confirmation, almost unexpected, has come from prehistoric archaeology and related studies, as I shall show in the sequel when discussing the primitive civilisations of the Mediterranean stock. For the present, keeping within the domain of physical anthropology, we shall find confirmation and demonstration in an almost complete study of certain African populations occupying an extended area and possessing marked homogeneity in skeletal characters, to a less extent also in external characters, as well as in the languages formerly and still spoken. I refer to the populations which pass under the old name of Hamitic, chiefly on account of the linguistic characters which have contributed to classify and group them in a single stock... It is the cranial and facial forms that lead us to accept the consanguinity of the African Hamites, of red-brown and black colour, with the Mediterranean peoples; the same characters reveal the consanguinity of the primitive inhabitants of Europe, and of their remains in various regions and among various peoples, with the populations of the Mediterranean, and hence also with the Hamites of Africa. For some time past I have reached the conclusion that the so-called Reihengraber type of the Germans and the Viking type of the Scandinavians, being identical in character with the Mediterranean and Hamitic types, had the same African origin; the populations with these cranial and facial forms in the north of Europe are, as I have shown, of African origin, separate branches of the same trunk."'' Soupforone (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Soupforone, in the quote that you add, Sergi explicitly says that the Mediterranean race inhabits parts of northern Africa. To avoid confussion, I suggest to include the following information: "Sergi hypothesized that the Mediterranean race derives from a common African origin".

"I studied in succession the peoples of the Mediterranean and their physical characters, specially the forms of skull and face. The ancient skulls of continental and insular Italy, and the persistence of their forms in the modern population, wherever it has been preserved, the skulls of the Iberian peninsula, of Greece, of Ancient Egypt, then those of the rest of northern Africa and of the Canary Islands, all reavealed by their constant uniformity, and the uninterrumpted succession of the same forms, that they must necessarily belong to a single original stock. But that original stock could not have its cradle in the basin of the Mediterranean, a basin mor fitted for the confluence of peoples and for their active development; the cradle whence they dispersed in many directions was more probably in Africa. The study of the fauna and flora of the Mediterranean exhibits the same phenomenon and becomes another argument in favour of the African origins of Mediterranean peoples" (Sergi 1901, p.39-40). Sergi, G. (1901) The Mediterranean Race. James343e (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, Sergi posits that the Mediterranean race originally evolved in the Sahara and dispersed from there in all directions. Soupforone (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

DO NOT remove the references to South Asia from the article
It is really pathetic to see people removing text from the article that clearly states the presence of Mediterraneans and the Mediterranean race in South Asia, which includes the countries of India, Pakistan and Afghanistan -- these countries are explicitly mentioned in the very same sources that the article cites and in the subtext as well! You cannot selectively quote parts of the sources and edit out what you think is irrelevant when it is clearly a fact in the first place. This reeks of ethnocentrism and if I see it happen again I will not take it lightly. The person who edits it to remove the correct, accurate information regarding the presence of the Mediterranean race is South Asia will be reported and banned. You have been warned.
 * Banned by who? FunkMonk (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Mediterranean race. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120511091339/http://dienekes.110mb.com/texts/biasutticaucasoid/ to http://dienekes.110mb.com/texts/biasutticaucasoid/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Coon on skin hair and eye color
"The Mediterranean man is a relatively hairy fellow. His head is covered with a heavy growth of straight, wavy, or ringleted hair, usually fine in texture; rarely does the true Mediterranean go bald. His eyebrows are full, often meeting over the nose. Ilis beard develops throughout adult life. While it is not the heaviest beard of all mankind, it is often a close runner-up. His body hair also increases throughout life and individually varies greatly in quantity. As a rule his skin is some shade of white, from pink or peaches-and-cream to a light brown. Skin color should always be taken on some unexposed part of the body. Among Middle Easterners this is simple, because they cover as much of the body as is consistent with their work. The exposed skin color may be a dark brown, while the skin of the underarm is ten shades lighter. (The sun shines brightly in the Middle East.) While fair-skinned people are to be seen, they live chiefly in shaded bazaars and government offices, whence they rarely emerge into the dazzling light of day. The Mediterranean’s hair is usually black or dark brown, while his whiskers may reveal a few strands of red or even blond Blond hair may be seen, but it is the exception. " " One of the characteristics of the Mediterranean race is a minority tendency toward blondism. This is seen much more frequently in the eyes, since blond hair, which appears in infants, usually darkens as the hair coarsens with age. Among Mediterraneans every shade of eye color appears. Coal black is exceptional, a dark or medium brown most common. Nearly a fourth of any sample, however, will have blue, gray, or green eyes, usually mixed with brown in the iris pattern. Eyes do not darken with age; hence the greater prevalence of light eyes rather than blond hair among the adult. Like pink skin, blue eyes and blond hair appear most often among people whose work or social status keeps them indoors. Descendants of the Prophet, courtiers, and wealthy merchants are more often blond than farmers or camel drivers. In my opinion this does not mean that blonds are in any way superior to brunets, in the Middle East or elsewhere. It rather indicates that in a hot, brightly illuminated environment blonds are at a disadvantage when out of doors." This is all copied from the source listed in the reference. Doug Weller  talk 11:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Correction
I added the part where Sergi suggested the cradle originated: "the Eastern part of Africa, in the region of the great lakes, near the sources of the Nile, and including Somaliland" pg.42

I kept the part where it suggest the Sahara region as the place of origin of the stock because as stated in the book at pg 43 : "In North Africa and Sahara also very numerous flint arrow-heads and fragments of worked flint have been found, a certain proof of the existence of a large population. The idea has thus arisen that Sahara rather than Eastern Africa was the original home of the populations which have occupied the Mediterranean basin and Hamitic Africa, or Africa north of the Sudan." but he noted that: "It appears to me now, however, that to establish absolutely the place of origin of a human stock is neither an easy nor safe task; we can only indicate approximately, in the present case, the most probable region of Africa. If it seems to me most reasonable to look to the region of the great lakes, it is because that region is most favourable to human existence, and if similar conditions were also to be found in the Sahara at the Quaternary epoch, I will not deny to that district also the possibility of being the cradle of the human species which has had so large a part in the destinies of the world." -- Also, I'd suggest to put some images of horners/East africans as examples of a non european "mediterranean" look. Thank you for your time. Kleistinos (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Physical traits
I removed the statement based on Beals and Hoijer for various reasons: It is in the wrong section. It doesn't represent the source correctly. The detail about the "Armenoid race" is not important for this article, but for Caucasoid race, where I inserted a corrected version of the statement. If you still think that it is important here, feel free to add it to the correct section and in the correct way. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Portrait from Fischer Lexikon.png