Georgia Salpa
Salpa in 2012, photo by PrPhotos
Place of Birth: Athens, Greece
Date of Birth: 14 May, 1985
Ethnicity:
*Greek (father)
*Irish (mother)
Georgia Salpa is an Irish model.
Georgia was born in Athens, Greece, to a Greek father, Nikos Salpa, and an Irish mother, Marie Butler. She moved to Dublin when she was four, and was raised in its suburb, Killiney.
Georgia is married to British hedge fund manager Joe Penna, with whom she has three children.
A picture of Georgia with her stepfather and mother can be seen here.
she looks indian
Scarlett Johansson as a brunette? Just saying.
if she is a typical greek.. then Greek are not white.
if you consider that white then so Arab Albanian Iranian Afghan should be consider white..
typical ones dont have fake lips and boobs. Dont u know Albania is in Europe? Jim Belushi not white?
You’re a sick person. Modern day Greeks are only about 10% mixed with turks. Same goes to Spaniards.
why do you have to include Spaniards in this particular topic? first of all spaniars don’t look nothing like greeks neither do they
of course greeks are white and so are Albanians and arabs, what have you been smoking?
I don´t consider south europeans as white people, but the majority of them are very light-skinned. Albanians and arabs don´t have nothing in common except for religion (even though there are plenty albanian orthodox christian and catholics), and Albania is known for it´s secularity. They don´t look the same at all, light hair and eyes are very common in Albania/Kosovo. There are very few Arabs that have light hair and eyes. In Europe there´s only turks who looks like arabs.
it doesn’t really matter who you class as white to be honest, anyone of a European bloodline is white regardless of their complexion because it’s always on the light side of the spectrum even if it’s a darker beige colour. Middle easterns are also white however there are many dark skinned arabs, so calling middle easterns white people can raise some debates. middle easterns and southern Europeans are anthropologically considered Caucasian and generally have skin on the lighter side of the spectrum plus they carry the same blonde haired blue eyed mutation that northern Europeans have (even though lighter hair and eyes might not be common amongst them). so saying they’re not white because they don’t fit the common misconceived stereotype of a white person is a very ignorant way of thinking. as for turks being the only Europeans who look like arabs, one could debate turkey even being apart of Europe as most of the land is considered asia and their language is Turkic which is a central Asian language tree.
Middle easterners are not white. What does it mean to be white? Since race is a construct anyways you can truly identify non-white peoples based on how others treat them and view them. Arabs and others of middle eastern descent face discrimination due to their origin. And where do you draw the line? If you assert that middle easterners are white It’s hard to argue that India is even non-white as they have similar features, and if you want to base it on skin tone then it makes no sense bc you’ll find people of olive/dark beige/light brown skin tones across Turkey, Greece, and Sicily, which are all in Europe. These areas fall along a different latitude than other Europeans, a large component of race, and also all feature admixture from neighboring non-European populations. Other non-white Europeans include Malta, Cyprus, certain areas of southern Spain and other pockets in the Balkans with Turkish ancestry in Albania Bulgaria etc.
If you want to bring up language then Hungarians and Finns aren’t white in the slightest lmao. The truth is that Eurasia is one continent and the distinctions between them are arbitrary. They’re obviously one land mass with a gradual racial transition from one end of the continent to the other just like any other continent, but people maintain an irrelevant divide that’s based on a mountain range ..
Base it on skin tone then it makes no sense to not include Turks/Greeks/Sicilians **
“they don’t fit the common misconceived stereotype of a white person” bc they aren’t white. Race is largely based on the overall appearance of an ethnic group as there is bound to be variations within each group, Race is not biological in any way so appearances do factor into how people are categorized.
Your views are interesting. You seem to have looked into the subject matter from different perspectives and taken into consideration various categorical studies, and even geopolitical motivated ethnocentric biases. But whether the word race or ethnicity, or any other term is used, there are differences in populations of humanity that go beyond skin color, and they are distinct and observable. Skeletal morphology, skull shape, teeth shape and even number, dental arches, frequency of certain pelvic shapes in females, differences in muscle composition, the twitch fibers, hair texture, skin tissue, gland production, organ capacities, blood cell production, are varied between groups, there’s probably more differences of which I’m unfamiliar.
There’s exceptions to every thing, but overall pathologists and anthropologists can find remains of a person, that didn’t have recent admixture in their family tree, and they can accurately surmise which of the, for lack of a better term, major 3-6 racial groups the individual belonged to, add a haplogroup test in there and you’d probably pinpoint where on the globe their ancestors were from.
You’re aware that distinction has gradient features, especially in the human populace. People will share physiological/phenotypic features and DNA with their neighbors, and the similarities decrease in individuals, as geographic distance increases. Scatter plot maps of human haplogroups literally can show the genetic drift of humanity’s origins and the drift coincides with phenotype, and they both fit with geography.
So whether you want to call it race, ethnicity, groups A, B, C etc, it doesn’t matter, distinction is observable and measurable. Trying to advocate for the invalidity of the notion of race doesn’t do much ultimately, the differences are still there, and people will always call things with differences, by separate terms.
Although admittedly there’s big monkey wrenches in the system in my opinion. To me many East Africans seem to have a heavy amount of West Asian and probably South Asian genetic influence, literally just by looks alone, not to mention the paternal haplogroups they share with those regions. So that’s a huge population that doesn’t fit the generalization of race. The same goes for South Asians that have significant Austronesian or Australo-Melanesian admixture.
Plus where do North Africans really fall? I’ve seen Berber tribes people that look very West Asian, and I’ve seen some Berbers that look like they originated south of the Sahara. Not to mention beyond the Berbers, the proximity alone of West Asian immigrants to that region’s original inhabitants would have undoubtedly resulted in admixture. Egyptians have a noticeable Sub-Saharan admixture, maybe that’s just due to their proximity to Nubia, but I surmise that across the North of Africa, the West Asians migrants probably inherited a large influx of DNA from the previously established populations.
So could all these deeply rooted admixed people be easily classified? Nope. You’d need a 3 fold inspection, X-rays, haplogroup tests, and admixture tests to pin point their origins.
Could I present a human skeletal remains of a person of East African descent, to an anthropologist and he/she be able to identify its geographical or racial origin without genetic testing? Not sure really.
When pathology students are given remains of admixed or recently admixed people, they usually cannot readily determine the race. Some features fit description, but other features do not. Are East Africans so distinct that mere visual inspection and some measuring would be enough to determine point of origin in such a case as I have presented? Or a Southern Indian, or a North African? Luckily morphology is no longer the sole signifier of distinction between groups, as it has been for so long. DNA studies and research now back up the older measurements.
There’s also ancient history to consider. Waves of migrants treked across the globe in volleys, back and forth. Out of Africa into Eurasia, and back again into Africa. Several times, millenia apart. It’s weird to think but even modern west SS-Africans do have around 6% of their genes rooted in the mid-east, carried down by ancestors that came to the region 3.5-4k years ago. Waves of mixing just didn’t effect Africa, but Europe as well. The original men and their progeny, that settled in what we call Iberian peninsula, were replaced by central European migrants 4000 years ago. Human history, and human genetics, and their subsequent flow is rich and varied and not so completely cut and dry. There are definite shades of grey.
So where does it leave the concept of race? I see it as sweeping generalized terms. Causacoids range from Europe to west Asia across the top of Africa into South Asia. Mongoloids are from the East Asia into mid Asia spreading to the Americas and a good portion of Pacific Islanders. Negroids are Sub-Saharan. Australoids/Austronesians/Polynesian-Melanesian are their own groups small populations very distinct groups.
Proximity typically blurs distinction between two larger groups. West Asians have SS African Admixture, South Indians with Austronesians. Southern Europeans/Mediterraneans definitely have at times varying degrees West Asian which in turn means they brought a touch of SSA. East SSAs have West and South Asian admixture. Then you have a huge admixed population in the Americas of Caucasian Europeans that blended with Mongoloid Siberian immigrants, I don’t like calling them Latin or Latino, I call them mestizos. Pretty muddled honestly.
tl;dr
There’s merit in the concept of race, although it still is an imperfect classification system. Even if the concept was abandoned, groups a, b, c and beyond or 1, 2, 3 would be adopted, and distinction would remain. Terms like white, black, or Asian or more specifically east Asian, or caucasoid, negroid, or mongoloid, are just terms responsible for blanketing populations rooted in geographic regions. Imperfect, but when you use them, most people understand what you mean.
You make some good points. To summarize a lot of what you said, racial distinctions are possible to a point, but human migration and the mixing of neighboring groups severely complicates the categorization process. Basically, it would only be possible to truly categorize races if human populations suddenly became static after forming ethnic groups. Obviously this is impossible.
I agree with your point that variation exists between different groups, e.g. Nigerians vs. Japanese. However, a lot of the differences you cited, such as skeletal morphology, were historically misused in attempts to classify people. While you are correct that cross-ethnic variation is present, it has been proven that there is actually more variation within ethnic groups than between them. Thus we can categorize people based on physical differences, such as eye color or bladder function or blood type etc., but at the end of the day we are all Homo sapiens.
Thus, I agree with you that distinction between different peoples is present. But when I say that race doesn’t exist, I mean it in the sense that you can’t truly categorize different ethnic groups into buckets like sorting types of fruit. Because if you were to get in a car in France and drive to China, at no point would you suddenly stop and say here is the divide between white and non-white. You would notice as you went along that people gradually appeared less and less white. In this way, it is truly hard to categorize people because there will always be exceptions. Despite this, it is certainly possible to try.
Your point about East Africans is fascinating. Ethiopia in particular fits your description, as far as sharing haplogroups/physical features with West & South Asian groups. I admit that I am ignorant so far as potential migrations from Asia into E. Africa, but I think a large part of the overlap between E. Africans and Asians come from the fact that E. Africa was the birthplace of all humans. In order for humans to exhibit traits, some degree of those traits had to exist in the original African population. Thus I see it as the opposite way around – W. & S. Asians exhibit some East African features, and those with identical haplogroups were likely part of a later exodus from Africa.
North Africans, on the other hand, are a good example of a modern biracial people. Similarly to E. Mediterraneans (primarily Greeks and Turks) & mestizos (I agree that this is a better term if we are referring strictly to ethnicity), North Africans are a product of indigenous and immigrants peoples. Other instances of mixed ethnic groups certainly exist but I don’t have the research to speak on them. Mestizos are very obviously mixed due to their recent admixture, but North Africans and East Mediterraneans are similarly mixed, albeit on a deeper level. In both cases, indigenous populations intermixed with intruding West Asians to form the modern populations of these countries. Thus both North Africans and East Mediterraneans are technically biracial – the former being Asian/African and the latter Asian/European.
I think there is merit in your classifications of Caucasoid/Mongoloid/Negroid/Australoid in a very general sense, but my issue with such an organization is that it marginalizes groups on the fringes. Where do Egyptians, Kazakhs, Indians, or Indonesians truly fall? Can you even put them in just one group confidently? I guess what I’m getting at is no matter how you try to classify humans, there will always be people that don’t fit the defined groups because humans truly are on a spectrum. Historical migration has just made it harder to identify.
Genetic variation or diversity differences being greater within an ethnic group/race than between separate races is actually not as accurate as you think. The study by Richard Lewontin, which is where the misconception was based on, used 17 genetic markers, who was in turn trying to prove Sewall Wright’s fixation index, what we base genetic drift upon. He proved the accuracy of the prediction sort of… If you use hundreds or thousands of markers, it’s actually proven inconsistent. Look at a map of human genetics, the maps are scattered and stretch, they don’t clump all the separate geographical populations in a big ball.
If what you said was accurate, the plot points would be clustered then, and then it would be like concentric rings. Like the three circles that make Mickey Mouse’s head, or more circles if you were trying to map more racial/ethnic groups. Big gaps in each circle, with the majority of the points on the outer rim, and then they’d touch the other groups/circles’ points on their outer rims, who would share that structure of having the interior being mostly separated and having their rims heavily populated by points.
It’s just not how it works. It’s what the data shows, distinct easily identified genetic markers across a pca scatter plot chart, stretching swaths of recognizable alleles and/or SNPS , coinciding with geographic locations. So that’s just some information on that subject.
I think 40% of the Ethiopian paternal haplogroups originated in North Africa/West Asia. As for maternal haplogroups 17% of their maternal haplogroups are M, and 31% are haplogroup N. The M haplogroups originated in South Asia. The N haplogroup may have originated in West Asia or South Asia. That’s 48% of the maternal lines having roots in foreign locations.
15% of Somalia’s paternal haplogroups come from Eurasia. Similar to Ethiopia, Somalia exhibits the maternal haplogroup M and is presented in 20% of the population. Those are the only things I know as fact when it comes to East African and their genetic exchange with MENA and South Asian populations. I’m not sure about the countries further south. Either way, there’s a definite outside influence on the phenotype of the Horn of Africa.
North Africans are admixed but I don’t know much about the frequencies. I know ancient Egyptians were practically not admixed at all, but since the several thousands since their kingdom fell, they’ve mixed with their neighbors and now a typical Egyptian may have about 8% of genetic input from Sub-Saharan Africa. Not sure about what happens as you move westward.
Central Asians like Kazakhs are difficult to classify if you take into account ancient history. They have so much East Asian influence, and the root of Turkic people may originally be from Northeast Asia, but they, Turkic people, definitely have had a huge influx of DNA from Caucasoids outside of Siberia.
If you look at the people of Turkey, and where they fall on autosomal scatter plots, they cluster with their neighbors. If you look at the haplogroups however, their origins, a sizable portion of them, are from the far east. But can someone tell through phenotype or morphology? Do they still have shoveled incisors? Or have almost all those distinct morphological traits, been watered down to resemble the host population? At what point do people get to be called a local inhabitant of a region? Is 1 thousand years enough? No? How about 10,000? In that time mostly likely, newly mutated haplogroups will emerge in that area, and they’ll be truly a new distinct ethnic group. Anyway.
India is actually a birthplace of many maternal and paternal haplogroups. But they’ve definitely been admixed with original African migrants that reached those areas tens of thousands of years ago, not to mention more recent migrations, and DNA exchange based off of trade routes. Whole swaths of people in India have influence from the original non-Caucasian inhabitants, more North you are in India you get more phenotypically Caucasian people, head south the phenotype becomes more ancient. I personally see that influence in Dravidians.
Anyway the remnants of the original Indian colonizing people can be found in the current tribes of the Andamanese Islands, down to Australia, up to Southeast Asia up, down, left, right, the Austronesians, the Negritos, Melanesian, Australoids. Australo-Melanesians or Austro-Melanesoid have been suggested as a racial designation. The Micronesians and Indonesians don’t seem very different from mainland Southeast Asians, I think there’s over 90% similarity upwards of 96%. Polynesians have upwards of 20% influence from Austro-Melanesians, but are mostly just Austronesian proper. Although they do have a twinge of Papua New Guinean/Australian Aborigine in their admixture.
If you break that part of the world down, as we do in other regions, it may not be so difficult to assess, as long as you try to stay clear of the languages which can definitely muddle understanding. The bulk of the population is basically related to South East Asians. Then you take into account the Negritos and Papau New Guineans/Australian Aborigines and call them in a very cursory way, black. Then you account for the Australo-Melanesians and Polynesians who are mostly a distinct subset by themselves, although they do have varying amounts of dna from Australoids.
If you go by pure population alone the population of the Sunda Islands are most akin to Southeast Asians. The “black” people from that part of the world are genetically distinct from true Africans, so designating them black in the traditional sense is very inaccurate, by genes, morphology, and phenotype, but maybe a quick fix for that is an added word.
Sometimes in the US when someone says “oh he or she is Indian”, the second party usually asks what type of Indian in a particular fashion, because, like or not, the misnomer of Indian for indigenous Americans will be in the lexicon for decades to come. The quick response to the offered information that the person is Indian, is in a form of a question, “dot or feathers?”.
Incentive and/or inaccurate, but the response will give a person a mental image or internal definition that fits the core of the distinction, the person’s ancestral origins either lie in the Americas or in the subcontinent of India.
So a similar response and/or question, and formation of a distinction/designation can remedy confusion. He/she/they was/were black. Which black, African or Pacific? Clumsy and incentive, but to the point. Truth be told though, how often do people discuss Australian Aborigines, Papau New Guineans, and Negritos? Apologies for this tangent.
Everyone and every group can fall into a category, even if they fall into that grey area, all it takes is recognition of genetic drift. Egyptians, Caucasoid with SSA admixture. Kazakhs, Caucasoid with Mongoloid admixture. Indians can be Caucasoid or if you head south Caucasoid with Andamanese or Negritos admixture. Indonesians I’m comfortable calling them Mongoloid, they have Negrito admixture but, it’s nothing recent and the genetic fingerprint may be there, but I think they’re distinct enough from one enough to not even mention it, or just call them Pacific East Asians. Just takes a little consideration.
to balkanboy
you may not consider south europeans as white people, but you should know balkan people are nicknamed gypsies and considered inferior
Balkan people are far from being gypsies, maybe turks who are vastly mixed with turks, and albanians, who are also mixed with turks..the rest of them is 100% white european..Even bosnians, who are today muslim, are 100% white europeans, because back then, they embraced islam and remained intact, no one raped them and mixed with them
Not all of them. Serbians are vastly mixed with turks, bulgarians a bit less, just as Albania. There are still many normal looking albanians. Romania is just full of gypsyies, doesn’t mean Romanian ethnicity is gypsy. Bosnians are muslim but 100% white europeans, because they embraced islam when the ottomans conquered them, thus no one mixed with them. Croatians are pure, so are slovenians.
To Andrew
You must be very ignorant, i´m not saying that every one in the balkan area are pure, but to say that they are nicknamed gypsies shows that you clearly have never been there. When you visit balkan countries, you recognize immediately the difference between a gypsy and for example a bosnian – bosnians have very light eyes and hair and they look mostly like eastern europeans and gypsies looks like a bit lighter versions of indians (from India). I know this because i travel to the balkan area every summer and my family lives there.
to balkan boy
I have been to Croatia and Slovenia. Balkan ppl are just Europeans, gypsies is only a bad nickname as poms for the brits or frogs for the french
Some modern Greeks may be white due to admixture from Slavs, but most Greek ppl are not white. Remember that there is not one type of Greek person the same way there isn’t one way to represent Latino people, their ancestry is a spectrum. Greece historically is at the crossroads of Afro-Eurasia and as such had far more in common culturally and genetically with their Mediterranean neighbors such as Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt. For example, I’m half Hungarian half Greek but my ancestry test came back as 20-25% middle eastern bc my grandfather was of a haplogroup descended from the Mycenaean Greeks, who were ethnically a mix of mainland Greeks, Anatolians, Caucasians, and Iranians. Thus many Greeks have a mixed ancestry and it makes sense as to why the majority are not white or white-ish. Some Albanians may be non-white if they have Turkish ancestry but that is the minority. USA’s view on race is heavily flawed, Europe is not even a continent. In reality Eurasia is a spectrum and most Greeks (and some Italians) are not white and fall in with Arabs, North Africans, West Asians, and Latinos as not white but white passing at times. Whoever taught you that Arabs are white is blind to the discrimination felt by non white people.
Thank you so much for your feedback, Benji. In fact there is not a single person I know from this site who consider Greeks as white, except…maybe Bearboy?? lol
I’m a little confused how you say not a single person when J.J.’s comment is still on this thread?
lol
She isn’t even fully Greek. She’s half Irish.
She kinda looks like Kim k
Looks like a typical Greek girl.