large yea
diverse, lol, you guys are a step up from Asians
You know Caucasian isn't just "white people", right bruh?
well thats where things get screwed up
caucasian at one point wasnt used to describe all white people, it was a more specific term, i remember my world history teacher in hs telling me (hes white) that most white people are actually not caucasian, i vaguely remember what he told me, but i believe theres actually a mountian range named the caucas moutains, and thats closer to asia, and most of those people dont look like what we consider white people
so youre right, caucasians probably have as much variation as negroids (but is dude caucasian?) but if you want to just say white people (which is what i meant) then nah, theyre just a step up from east asian people
techincally yes, caucasian refers to a broader spectrum of people than 'white' folk (which like 'black' is a generic catch all term, of course) but colloquially when caucasian is used there isn't typically any confusion as to what people are being referred to...as i mentioned earlier in this thread, there is actually more genetic diversity among/in africans/africa than any other peoples/place(this may not be true for any given specific gene like eye-color or lactose tolerance, but it is generally true), so it is generally true that as a species we (humans) aren't that diverse. a quick trip to google will break it down basically to caucasiods (middle east, northern africa, europe), mongoloids (east asia, polynesia, alaska, native americans), negroids (sub-saharan africa, native australians & new zealanders) & maybe 1 or 2 smaller groups which may overlap or be distinct in their own right.
as a #sidebar to this subject, this technicality always irked my when i'd hear/read/talk with people who would note moors, egyptians, berbers, etc. as african, while that is geographically true and there was 'mixing' going on, from a genetic perspective & even culturally, those are distinct peoples from what we typically think of as 'black africans' and therefore a separate from any history we as black people should be trying to claim (we were the 1st peoples, technically everyone is african)...just always struck me as a thirsty (yes there are reasons for this, but still) argument...like the history sub-saharan africans isn't good enough to claim, it'd be like canadians claiming credit for american accomplishments (which may not be that much of a reach?) #forcedanalogies
similarly the depiction of jesus as a fair skinned always bothered me as well, while i wouldn't go as far as to say he was black as some are wont to do, he probably (that is if you believe that he was a real person, and wanted to be historically accurate!) wasn't fair of skin, but likely a caucasoid so in that sense it could be seen as a generically accurate representation?
