> i have never heard anyone say tibetans and jomon are white. there is an entire infographic spread on this site that sets out to prove this. short answer it's wrong, they're not white but look white. > turks are white partially, from indo-iranian mixture they just also have alot of mongolian dna. turks' admixture dates back to the mix of nomadic ugric people with yamnaya in central asia. they have gotten increasingly more and more mixed as they migrated across eurasia. i would argue that turks are their own race at this point in history. just like how finnish and hungarian are distinct through mixing. turks' specific mixture defines them as something unique from the rest of mankind. not quite caucasoid but not quite anything else. some will point to specific turkish ruler's skeletal remains and "prove" that turks are caucasoid by the loosest of measurements but the fact is your average turk is a mongrel. > asians asians make up some of this demographic, but i'm pointing to outliers within societies of darker complexion in all honesty. we need further strict classification of humankind in biology. entire fields of research (e.g. archaeology, biology, medicine) are not progressing because they find it morally incorrect to classify humans as different subraces and the implications of such a proclamation.
United States