Was Europe never a racially homogeneous continent?
142552
neither africa nor asia are racially homogenous.  look at the vast differences between indians, arabs, and chinese in asia and pygmys, berbers, and black africans in africa.  there is huge variation.\n\nrace is not genetically significant.  people from the same race often show more genetic differences amongst themselves than they do with other races.  its just that we see skin and hair color predominantly and make the false assumption that these must be important indicators of genetics.  i don't know what caused differing hair and eye colors to evolve, but i am certain that these are very superficial traits which actually would have virtually nothing to do with whether the people are racially or genetically homogenous.
309746
First, race does not exist.  It is a made-up term, originating as pseudo-science in the early 1900's as an excuse to keep the European/American upper class white people in control of most governments.  Studied far closer after WWII, race has been found to be non-existent - the only biological differences between 'colors' are the levels of melanin present in the skin.  Otherwise, there are no biological differences at all.  Our ethnicities and religious beliefs are really what seperates us, the "us" and "them".  Now, there are certain genes that frequent different geographical areas:  for example, sickle-cell anemia gene is far more prevalent within Africans, but as a heterozygote (that is, one parent gives the gene FOR and one 'not FOR') these Africans are protected from malaria!  Amazing what the human body will do, what it will adapt to!
412079
No, not even close-even considering that there are a handful of million black people that are native to EU countries, especially the UK, there are still well under 20 million blacks in Europe.  In the US, in a population of nearly 300 million, blacks make up about 17%, or approximately 50 million.  All that being said, genetically it is very difficult to distinguish people based on what we have historically known as "race", and most geneticists dont consider it a meaningful term-"Black" people such as Ethiopeans and Somalians are more genetically related to European "white" people than to other "black" African populations.  Skin color is only one of thousands of characteristics of a person that are genetically passed-it just happens to be one that is visible.  If you look at blood type, for example, then you see as much variation in the European population as you do between Europeans and Africans, and that holds true for most genetic traits. So, Black and White, genetically, dont mean very much.
1057342
Social Darwinism, one of the primary racist philosophies, basically says that races have the right to do to each other whatever they wish.  Therefore, according to many racists, Europeans deserved America because they had superior technology and easily disposed of the Native Americans.  White Supremacists would probably say Native Americans weren't using the land anyways.
338240
Europe and latin America are not two homogenous blocs.\nEurope is also divided in a northern Germanic and protestant land and a southern latin and catholic land in the mediterranean lands.\n\nSo latin America has huges differences with northern Europe (economic, religious, racial, linguistically), but much less with southern Europe (same religion, similar languages and partly same ethnic composition) (but still differences of economic level and amerindian/african influences in Lat Am)
5402
The European nations didn’t just go to Africa to conquer it.  The nations of North Africa and Europe knew each other with explorers and conquers going both ways and all of this going back pre-Roman.  Central and Southern Africa was largely unknown.  What was know was seen as primarily wild and without unifying nations.  \n\nAs raw resources came into the awareness of various country, expansion began into these wild territories.  Through the years this continued and grew.  As the cultures involved came into increasing contact, abrasive relationships grew which as often as not led to hostilities.\n\nWhile today we can look back from what we consider a higher moral ground, that certainly was not the controlling policies of the day.
889172
Yes. Indians, for the most part, along with other West and South Asian groups such as Iranians (Persians), Pakistanis, Iraqis, Turks, etc., are definitely Caucasoid peoples. Most North Africans are also considered Caucasian.\nWhile race is largely a social construct, it does have a firm foundation in physical anthropology. It should be noted that skin color really has nothing much, if anything at all, to do with race. Unfortunately, far too many people take the term "white" much too literally and this narrow thinking no doubt contributes to the very erroneous notion  that only Anglo-Saxons or Scandnavians are white. (I've even seen a few postings here on YA from people who actually seem to believe that even Italians, Greeks, Spaniards or Portuguese aren't white! That, of course, is wrong.) There are several subdivisions within the "white" or Caucasoid  race. In addition, many, if not most, Hispanics ("Latinos") are actually Caucasian. Also, Gypsies (originally from the area around India and Persia) are Caucasian as well. \n(An interesting sidenote: Back in the 1930's, Ethiopians were considered, in some anthropological circles, to be Caucasoid because they lacked the profound Negroid features found in most sub-Saharan black Africans.) \nSo, in short, Indians, Arabs and Middle Eastern people are Caucasoid Asians, as opposed to Mongoloid Asians such as the Chinese,  Koreans, Japanese, Vietnamese, Filipinos, etc.   \nAmerindians are also a Mongoloid people who crossed the Bering land bridge from Asia to the Americas some 30,000 years ago.
310399
The entire European continent or a particular region of it?  Could you be more specific, please?
441187
Geographically no, the continent consists of North and South American, so in that sense (and if you also lump Europeans, Arabs, Indians, Chinese etc. together as Eurasians) they are all American.\n\nCulturally, politically and as inhabitants of a country that calls itself 'America the free', whatever its correct title then of course they are...by definition.\n\nGenetically or even biologically if you regard Homo sapiens as having sub-species, most Americans are in fact European or African etc. The only true Americans in historical times are full-blood native Indians.
283622
Most European nations were over run by the Nazis in WW2 and the French were at the front line on Hitler's plans to invade England. Some nations stayed nuetral, however Hitler was intent on not only conquering these nations, but plundering them as well.
982578
At that time Hispanics were considered white.  The only separate divisions were black or Japanese (served in Europe only).\n\nDon't bother looking any more because you won't find an answer.  The lack of an Answer IS your answer....
375927
That's a bunch of hooey...history has and is recorded by all races from all prospectives.  Egypt and the great records of the Pharaohs are not from a white perspective.  Persia and the the records Alexander are not from the white perspective. Too often people look at a few decades and say WOW this is how it's always been...BUNK..Wake up and smell the coffee history is and always will be recorded by the world at large not one segment. Good Luck
854980
The Eurpeans wouldnt have liked to undergo hardships in tropical parts of arfica. They are from milder climates, and they can not bear to work hard in trpoics. So they didnt conquer entire africa. If they had managed to do so, the entire world would be full of whites and yellows. And perhaps all the natives of africa would be working all over the word.
856720
Funny, I thought about that too. Not only are there people of European descent in Africa but most north Africans (Berbers and Arabs) are classified as 'white' too. I wish we could get rid of all the racial labels and just be HUMAN. Also, some East Indian and Native Americans are as dark as or darker than 'black' people. Racial labels are stupid.
252640
I'm also a white African and I also don't understand that. I have more African roots than most of the black African Americans, my family tree goes back 400 years. When I meet black people that's European they never call themselves African Europeans, so why do they do that in the USA. Personally I think it's causes division between different races. I thought we were trying to stop race separation, because it causes racism.
1166808
You already have the answer: geographically they are clearly one continent. So you can't receive a geographical answer unless you were wrong. But you refuse to receive any answer that is social or political. So you won't find the answer.\nJust in case: in many countries it is called "the Eurasian continent".
375838
There was no original race.\nThen there was Abraham and he was the FIRST jew.