Talk:Race Life of the Aryan Peoples

Information about Latin America is wrong
In the description of the photo about indo-european languages.

In Northeastern area don't have black people like Southern USA or Africa, have exists mestizos, some with so much black ancestry and most with a little of black ancestry.

In Southeastern and Middle-eastern areas don't have mulatto people, like Cuba, have exists "white people" (more white than East Indian or Middle Eastern peoples), most with amerindian and black ancestry. Circa 15~30% is completely european descent people and circa 10% is black people, "black" in Brazil is extremely miscigenated with amerindian, and majority with white people. No only portuguese is basis of european-descent population, exception for Northern and Northeastern Brazil, immigration to this country included italians (circa 25% of Brazilian population have italian ancestry), spaniards, germans, poles, russians, ucranians, serbians, swisses, and more rarely belarusians, belgians, lithuanians, frenches, scandinavians, greeks and rumanians. YEAH, REAL WHITE LATIN AMERICANS!

In Argentina, Chile and Southern Brazil is dimidiate between completely european descent people and "white people", most with amerindian ancestry. Circa 10~20% of Argentina and Southern Brazil people have SOME black ancestry.

Other Latin South American lands are really dominated by mestizos (Venezuela and Equador have a minority of "black" people or people with some black ancestry, I don't know exactly), obviously with minorities of white people and completely europeand descent people, and is unknow the number of Latin American (yeah, generalizated) people with jew, moor or arabian descent because influences in Iberian Peninsula history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.106.45.97 (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The 1944 map the information was taken from was published by the Rand McNally company in Chicago, Illinois, United States. They used the North American racial definitions, which are not quite as nuanced at the Brazilian racial definitions. Keraunos (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

brazil
recife = 50% whites/25% mestizos/20% mulatoes/5% blacks salvador = 50% mulatoes/25% blacks/20% whites/5% mestizos rio = 50% white/30% mulatoes/20% blacks (in rio amerindians and mestizos are very small in the numbers) center-west = mestizos (55%) and whites (40%) + others (5%) north : mestizos = 70%; whites = 20%; others = 10% south: whites = 80%; others = 20% southeast = minas and rio: whites and mulatoes; sp and es = whites and mestizos northeast = salvador, recife, são luis : mulatoes paraiba, ceara, rio grande do norte, sertão, etc = mestizos the all northeast not is "black" and all southeast not is "mulattoe"..only minas and rio are 50% mulatoes; sp and es not.. in northeast only eastern pernambuco, reconcavo baiano and northern maranhão are mulatoes in 50% and mestizos in 50% with very small number of whites.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.203.15 (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * this is false..in southeast, sao paulo and espirito santo are white states, minas and rio are 50% white/50% mulatoes; in northeast, only salvador, recife and sao luis have many mulatoes; paraiba, ceara, rio grande do norte, sertão, western bahia, etc are majority mestizos(mongoloid + caucasoid).. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.203.15 (talk) 10:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The information in the caption of the lower map has been corrected to reflect the fact that southeastern Brazil is mostly Caucasian. Keraunos (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

AfD result
@Generalrelative Alas, I was actually planning to make a redirect argument for this before you withdrew the AfD (I admit I was hoping someone else would beat me to it). The gist of it would have been this: just because something passes WP:NBOOK doesn't mean it by definition has to have a standalone article, and this is a very good example of the kind of article that should not. Basically, it's not very useful to anyone unless contextualized, and there don't appear to be any current academic works that do so for this particular book specifically, so this article is destined for either "mostly useless stubbish article, and a possible racist vandalism magnet" or "content fork". It could be summarized into Scientific racism maybe? Or some other candidate - you probably have a better idea of where it would fit best than I do. -- asilvering (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Ha, thanks for letting me know. It's good to know someone else shared my instinct on the matter. In any case, I'm grateful for your efforts in cutting out the forky material. A stub is better than a bizarre content fork. And I'll add it to my watchlist, which is already heavy with targets for racist vandalism. What's one more? Best, Generalrelative (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)