Check for new replies
How ethnically European (white) is Europe in 2024?
#1
I calculated the % of ethnic Europeans in each European country, including the main ethnic groups in each country:

The next step will be calculating the % of Europeans in the whole world, but I will open a new thread about it later.

Here is the data for Europe, feel free to comment, countries and territories (dependencies) are sorted alphabetically:

https://i.imgur.com/RKuXMdx.png

[Image: RKuXMdx.png]

"Line A" from this map was accepted by me as the border of Europe when determining which ethnicities are European:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c...d_Asia.png
Riverman, Andour, Diocles And 1 others like this post
Reply
#2
I think it's good anthropological and statistical practice to have an accurate demography for every country in the world, though the devil is in the details here. There are a lot of challenges in compiling a list like this and I'm sure you already know what some of them are. First, you'd need a cogent definition of what an ethnic European group is, which is going to be somewhat arbitrary because indigeneity to Europe is relative, as it is almost everywhere in the world. I maintain that my standard is the best one. There are two ways for an ethnic group to be considered native to a particular place:

1.) They've been there a long time. If an ethnic group has been continously rooted in a particular place since before the Modern Period, that ethnic group is native as far as I'm concerned. So yes, European Jews and Roma are native so long as they come from groups that have been in place since before 1500. Compare these groups to Kalmyks, which in my understanding have only been continuously settled in Kalmykia since the 1700s, so I don't consider Kalmyks native even if there have been dead-end precursor Kalmyk groups that came to Europe in antiquity and medieval times; those were dead-ends. Kalmyks these days came in the Early Modern period; consequently they are native to Asia.

The reason why the Modern Period is the best boundary is because a.) if we want to draw a line, we need a decently recent place to do it to be as inclusive to long-settled groups as possible and b.) we might as well draw it at the most transformative era for travel we've ever seen. The Modern Era unleashed the possibility of transcontinental diaspora and saw admixtures form in the Americas (and elsewhere) between divergent groups that had been separated for over ten thousand years. It totally changed the world.

2.) They are a new group, but their ethnogenesis happened on that particular place's soil in the Modern Period. In this sense, groups like Mexican Mestizos are native to the Americas. Are they as deeply-rooted in time in that area as the Native Americans? Obviously not, but their group still formed on American soil. Mestizo ethnogenesis happened right there in Mexico, not in Spain. Is there a qualitative difference in indigeneity between Modern Era Latin American groups and Amerinds? Of course, but if a group that clearly arose in a particular place isn't considered autochthonous to that place just because it isn't as old as groups that were there before, well-- I think we need to rethink some things. We can still make distinctions between the aboriginality of Native Americans of Mexico while still acknowledging the localness of the country's mestizo population.

----

Not trying to be overly critical or beat you up, Tomenable, but I've got lots of issues with this chart besides. To hyperfocus on Greeks for a second:

And people do this all the time, but I don't know why Cypriots are considered European just because they're Greek. Would anybody consider Cypriots European if they looked exactly the same as they do now but spoke Phoenician or Aramaic? I highly doubt it. We need to come to grips with the fact that Greeks are a transcontinental people and have been for thousands of years. They're not just Europeans. Cypriots are West Asian Greeks, as are Cappadocian Greeks, as are Pontic Greeks (which make up a sizeable chunk of northern Greece's population). If Pontics are "white Europeans" then so are Georgians, which I notice you rightly didn't include on the chart.

Which brings me to this old hobby horse: Phenotypic whiteness as a standard for Europeanness is also bizarre to me since phenotypic variation in the East Med is just as clinal as genetic variation. If it weren't for the High Medieval Turkish migration into Anatolia obscuring the East Med to Caucasus cline that used to be more readily obvious in the Byzantine Empire, I wonder how advocates of "white Europeans" versus "brown Middle Easterners" would try to make that silly schema work. It doesn't work now for anyone really paying attention but imagine how much more of a futile enterprise it would have been then.
Rodoorn, Andour, pelop And 1 others like this post
Reply
#3
I actually included European Jews as European but I excluded the Roma. The reason why I did so is because the Jews have been present in Europe since Roman times, while Gypsies only arrived in the 1300s to the Balkans and in the 1400s or later to other parts of Europe. So my boundary is slightly earlier than 1500. I also excluded Turkic groups in Europe (like Tatars in Tatarstan) because their ethnogenesis took place in Asia (the only Turkic group I counted as European are the Gagauz). For the same reason I excluded Turks (their ethnogenesis took place in Asia Minor), while including Greeks (their ethnogenesis took place in the Balkans). I know that there are exceptions such as Pontic Greeks and Greek Cypriots (who are genetically West Asian) or Balkan Turks (who are genetically Balkan), but in these cases my choice was motivated by culture and language - where did the culture and the language emerge? And the answer to this question is that the culture and the language of Pontic Greeks and Greek Cypriots emerged in Europe, while the culture and the language of Balkan Turks emerged in Asia Minor.

I understand your point about Greeks having been a transcontinental people for thousands of years, but the cradle of Greek culture and language was undoubtedly located in Europe.
Reply
#4
@Michalis : Great post !

@Tomenable : Could you let us know where you got your figures from? Ethnic statistics are reputedly hard to get by here in France, mostly for (debatable) ideological reasons. Public services are extremely reluctant to disclose detailed demographic breakdowns, for fear they might fuel nationalist views. So I wonder what your figures make of third-generation non-European immigrants, most of them second-generation fully French from an administrative point of view, but still genetically unadmixed. I doubt any administrative structure would classify them according to their genes, rather than nationality. This may greatly affect the results, such as published above, though neither you nor your sources can be considered to be at fault.

Immi uiros rios toutias rias
Show Content
Reply
#5
(11-26-2024, 07:32 PM)Andour Wrote: @Tomenable : Could you let us know where you got your figures from? Ethnic statistics are reputedly hard to get by here in France, mostly for (debatable) ideological reasons. Public services are extremely reluctant to disclose detailed demographic breakdowns, for fear they might fuel nationalist views. So I wonder what your figures make of third-generation non-European immigrants, most of them second-generation fully French from an administrative point of view, but still genetically unadmixed. I doubt any administrative structure would classify them according to their genes, rather than nationality. This may greatly affect the results, such as published above, though neither you nor your sources can be considered to be at fault.

I found these statistics for France mainly in responses to this Quora post:

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Fr...population

I also asked ChatGPT about the percentage of Europeans/whites in France.

Back in 2004-2008 the percent of Europeans in France was estimated by several sources (including Institut Montaigne) as 85% European and 76% native French:

[Image: XzWzEV8.png]

Since that time the number of both all Europeans and native French declined, but I think that 80% is a reasonable estimate. However, one source suggests 75%:

https://www.berghahnjournals.com/downloa...390201.xml

My educated guess is that 70% can be seen as the percent of people who are predominantly French, not just the ones without even a single drop of foreign blood.
Andour likes this post
Reply
#6
(11-26-2024, 07:37 PM)Tomenable Wrote:
(11-26-2024, 07:32 PM)Andour Wrote: @Tomenable : Could you let us know where you got your figures from? Ethnic statistics are reputedly hard to get by here in France, mostly for (debatable) ideological reasons. Public services are extremely reluctant to disclose detailed demographic breakdowns, for fear they might fuel nationalist views. So I wonder what your figures make of third-generation non-European immigrants, most of them second-generation fully French from an administrative point of view, but still genetically unadmixed. I doubt any administrative structure would classify them according to their genes, rather than nationality. This may greatly affect the results, such as published above, though neither you nor your sources can be considered to be at fault.

I found these statistics for France mainly in responses to this Quora post:

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Fr...population

I also asked ChatGPT about the percentage of Europeans/whites in France.

Back in 2004-2008 the percent of Europeans in France was estimated by several sources (including Institut Montaigne) as 85% European and 76% native French:

[Image: XzWzEV8.png]

Since that time the number of both all Europeans and native French declined, but I think that 80% is a reasonable estimate. However, one source suggests 75%:

https://www.berghahnjournals.com/downloa...390201.xml

My educated guess is that 70% can be seen as the percent of people who are predominantly French, not just the ones without even a single drop of foreign blood.


Does the demography of France includes its overseas departments or only metropolitan  France is counted? Over 2,5 millions live in overseas territories which of at least 70% are prefominantly African genetically speaking. Are those living overthere classified as Native French, SS Africans or something else? What about their huge "diaspora" in Metropolitan France? 

Mixing is also very prevalent so I'd like to know if they basically followed the one drop rule(only native French if the 4 great-parents are) or if they started counting as native those with 3/4 French great-parents or even 2/4.
The screenshot below shows black-white intermarriage in 6 countries around the world(UK, US, SA, Cuba, France, Brazil ) and it's the highest in France by far (56% of Black men and 50% of Black women) so when it comes to France, it's not like mixed race individuals are  outliers and shouldn't be counted for. This didn't even includes other mixes (Arab, Asians...). 

Depending on how they did their classification, the percentage of fully Europeans in France could actually be lower or the percentage of at least half-Europeans and higher could increase.
pelop likes this post


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Reply
#7
How did you get to know the amount of european =?= white brazilians in Portugal? Even we here in Brazil dont know what that percentual is for our own country.
Reply
#8
(11-27-2024, 01:39 PM)Reues Wrote: How did you get to know the amount of european =?= white brazilians in Portugal?

I found the number of all Brazilians in Portugal, and then I assumed that 43.5% of them are whites (as this is the percentage of whites in Brazil).

Ronalawe Wrote:Does the demography of France include its overseas departments or only metropolitan France is counted?

I counted only metropolitan France because oversears departments are not located in Europe. But in case of Russia I counted the whole territory.
Ronalawe likes this post
Reply
#9
I consder as native Europeans:

1) Peoples who have been living within Europe since at least 1000 years.

2) Peoples whose ethnogenesis took place within geographical Europe.

3) In Latin America people who are at least 80% European genetically.

Updated image because there was a mistake in case of Albania (it should be 97% Albanian and 2% other European):

https://i.imgur.com/NB2fXuO.png

[Image: NB2fXuO.png]
Reply
#10
Here is French data back from 2004:

[Image: oCZCTFU.png]

And here 2011 estimates can be found:

https://journals.openedition.org/eps/6073
Andour likes this post
Reply

Check for new replies

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)