Why is Europe the land of bizarre mutant freaks?

Look at most everyone else in the world: brown skin, straight black hair, black eyes. Then you get to Europe and there is an explosion of phenotypes, blue, green, brown and black eyes, skin shades from pasty white to light brown and the existence of freckles, hair that is curly, wavy, straight and hair colors like blond, brown, auburn and red also all Europeans can grow beards which is a somewhat rare trait elsewhere in the world, the facial structures of different European populations also vary wildly than those of other ethnic groups.

So WTF is up with whitey? Why is there such huge variety in European features? Is it something in the water? Maybe unusually high amounts of radiation? I can’t see how most any of them are helpful adaptations.

A large part of this is probably your own unfamiliarity with how populations in the rest of the world actually vary. There is enormous variation in skin tones as well as in hair types in Africa and Asia, probably over just as great a range of variation as in Europe. You just don’t perceive it. The greatest range of human genetic variation is found in sub-Saharan Africa, not Europe.

New World populations are more homogeneous, but this is probably due to them being descended from a relatively small number of original colonists. But they still vary considerably in facial characteristics and body-types.

But they don’t have the greatest variation of physical features.

Yes, I do recognize that there is still great variety in other ethnic groups, but none of it (and I am talking about that before large scale modern racial mixing) approaches that of Europe.

I know that there are a lot of people on these boards who disagree with Guns, Germs and Steel. Diamond brings it up though and illustrates it perfectly with portrait photos of Africans that show as wide a variety as you see in Europeans.
One thing to think about (no I don’t have an answer) is that blue eyes seem to come not only from Europeans, but nordic types. Now check out the eyes of the siberian huskey. There’s something going on with developing for up north and having blue eyes.
I have them, and it’s almost painful to walk outside on a bright summer day, without sunglasses.

Even this is misleading. There is an enormous variation in phenotypes among natives of Africa that are divided into at least three different racial families: australoid, pygmoid and bushmanoid, the first of which is what we generally think of as negroid. There is a wide range of skin color, from relatively light brown to a clay red to a dark purplish-black, variations of hair texture and style (curly, knappy, wavy), and the widest variation of height and average body mass of any human phenotypical groups. And dude, “facial structure”? They don’t all look alike.

Asia also has an enormous amount of variation, from the stereotypical “Oriental” Han-type Chinaman (“Also, dude, chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please.”) to the Ainu to the peoples of the Subcontinent. One can readily tell an Indian from a Nipponese, and with exposure, one can distinguish an ethnic Korean from an Okinawan, or a Hmong from a Bamar.

I have to agree with Colibri; your assertion that Europeans have the widest variation in phenotypes is special pleading based upon familiarity with the variations that are characteristic to Europeans rather than variations in general. Some of those variations may be more pronounced–blue eyes and blond and especially red hair do stand out–but this doesn’t mean that the genes are any more scrambled than any other population. Some peculiarities of the European climate–the short, dark days, relative sparsity of fruits, et cetera–combined with geographical barriers with attendant inbreeding has led to the expression of many phenotypes that would be recessive or only partially dominant in the global population, but it doesn’t mean that there is more variation in any technical sense.

Stranger

Cecil hath spoken.

It not only approaches it, it exceeds it. Read what Cecil has to say on the matter. . “Caucasians don’t show the widest variation in all traits, just certain superficial ones–hair color and texture and eye color… along with skin color… When it comes to something like height, on the other hand, Caucasians lose out to Africans, whose average stature ranges from 4’8" for adult male pygmies to 5’10" for adult male Batutsis. Similarly, other races show greater variation in nose configuration, distribution of body fat, and so on.”
As Colibri said, it seems like this perception stems mainly form your unfamiliarity with other populations. Let’s look at your opening post and consider the specific examples.

That isn’t even close to being the truth. Skin colour amongst the rest of the world runs the gamut from the deep ebony black of some Equatorial Africans to the Yellow-Pinks of Central and Eastern Asia through the chocolate Browns of Micronesia and Australia. By far the most distinctive skin colour is the Honey Brown skin of the San and related “Negrito” groups of Africa. All other people in the world, including Caucasians, have skin with dispersed melanocytes. These people have skin with clustered melanocytes of the type found in most other mammals.

So yeah, there are some brown skinned people in the rest of the world, but by no means all of them. And of course there’s no legitimacy in saying that San brown, Mongolian brown, Australian brown and Japanese brown are all ‘just’ brown while claiming that the Europeans pale brown that we commonly call white is somehow different.

That is also not even close to being true. Many people elsewhere in the world do indeed have black hair, but red hair for example also exists in North Africa. Polynesia and Tropical Australia. Brown hair is even more widespread.

And the idea that most people in the world have straight hair has even less basis in fact. Straight hair is rare over two entire continents: Australia and Africa. And of course curly hair is found throughout SE Asia, Polynesia, Micronesia, the Middle East, Central Asia and the Subcontinent. So no, most people outside Europe do not have straight hair. In fact I’m willing to bet that both more people and a greater proportion of people have curly hair outside Europe than within Europe.

[quote]
black eyes
[/quote

Are black eyes common anywhere in the world? Most people, in Europe and else where, have brown eyes. But it’s fair enough to say that eye colours other than brown are rare outside Europe.

Not all Europeans can grow beards. A great many Europeans can only grow sparse ratty beards.

Being able to grow a beard is in no way a rare trait outside Europe.

“Mongolid” and San ‘races’ are about the only two groups that can’t grow “beards.” Even amongst those groups beard growth is only impossible in the sense that the beard growth is ratty. here is a photograph of a SE Asian Moslem who has never shaved in his life. As you can see he can indeed grow a ratty beard. But then a great many Europeans have the same extent of beard growth. So either we concede that not all Europeans can grow beards, or we concede that pretty much everyone can grow a beard, depending on how we define “beard”.

In contrast most Africans can grow full beards. All Australians can grow full beards.

So there is simply no truth in the idea that all Europeans can grow beards, or that beard growth is rare outside Europe.

If you want to call out Cecil then show us your reference that contradicts his claim. Because Cecil says that facial structures like nose shape vary more wildly outside of

When exactly would that have been? Would it have been prior to Scandinavian Vandals invading North Africa? Or prior to Malaysian Mongoloids living in Australia? Or prior to European Greeks colonising North Africa? It’s not really possible to discuss this until you can define what you mean by “modern” racial mixing.

Given that there is no scientific basis for the concept of race to begin with, and given that genetic (and hence phenotypic) diversity predates migration from Africa, and given that there is no evidence that races have ever existed as discrete non-mixing populations it’s kind of hard to discuss what conditions were like before those things existed.

I would note that that article is from 1982, when there was much greater acceptance of the conventional racial groupings than there is today. I doubt very much that Cecil would have written it in quite the same way today - there would be much more recognition of the continuity between the classical “races” rather than their distinctiveness, for one thing.

If you visit the south pacific you’ll see as wide, if not wider variation in melanesians than in Europe. In Papua New Guinea alone, coastal people look nothing like highlanders or people from Bougainville, or people from Kerema, etc etc. It’s really easy to pick where someone’s from just based on what they look like and it’s not at all subtle.

Wavy-haired, light-skinned, blue-eyed people, just as in the conventional description of European countries, are in Asian countries too. Mainly in Afghanistan and Kashmir and nearby areas.

You see, that’s the trouble with that type of nomenclature. “Asian-American” might well be suitable for an Asian person living in America, but what do you folks call a Chinese person living in - and never having set foot outside - China?

Isn’t this just a slightly more wordy way of stating (the falsehood) that all Chinamen look alike?

So, Hu Jintao and Chen Shui-bian are “Asian-Americans”? :smiley:

I believe that the word you were seeking was Chinese. It is true that Chinaman is not considered a polite usage, but I don’t think we need to apply the “Nelson Mandela is a great African-American” model to the western rim of the Pacific.

Dude, it’s a quote from The Big Lebowski; a total non-sequitur to be certain, but I have an affinity for that sort of thing.

You’re right, though; the tendancy, particularly of Americans, to refer to racial and ethnic distinctions by the use of socially-adopted hyphenated terms is both silly and often wrong. When one hears the bubblehead commentators on the televisor refer to someone who is negro featured but of French citizenship as “African-American” one wonders exactly what it is that they teach in journalism school.

In any case, trying to make definitive distinctions between “racial groups” is a fools errand; genetically it is almost impossible to distinguish one from another, aside from a few markers that are predominate, but not exclusive, in people who descend from a particular region. The variation in shape, size, mental and physical abilities of humanity is far less than that of canis lupus domesticus, and no one is arguing that they should be subspeciated.

“That rug really tied the room together.”

Stranger

One hears such observations frequently. I’ve never seen an actual example of reporters making such a comment.

I didn’t get the reference but I did knew you didn’t mean it seriously because of your skilful use of quotation marks. And the quote neatly makes the point that, surprisingly, not everyone in the world is a hypenated-American.

Naw, they’re Asian-American-Asians. Y’know as opposed to African-American-Asians. Y’ever notice how there are so many African-American-Asian Sumo Wrestlers? What’s up with that?

I specifically recall an interview with French figure skater Surya Bonaly back during the 1994 Winter Olympics in which some morning program bubble brain–Katie Curic, I believe–repeatedly kept asking her about her experience about being a “French African-American,” and despite protests that she was not an American, not really grasping the point.

It has to be hard being in front of a camera and coming up with the right thing to say without stumbling, but I can’t help but think that it is so much harder when you are rock-stupid and have a mountain of ignorance as impenetrable as Gibraltar.

Stranger

Cecil did an follow-up to the 1982 column just a couple of years ago.