Is this true?
Is this true?
>ukraine
>moldova
>more diverse than france
wrong
Not really. Somalia for example is very homogenous by ethnicity but by tribe its extremely diverse. Tribes have even genocided in the modern day so if you think a tribe is an ethnicity then yea it is, but the lines are blurred so its hard to say. Africa in this map for example is counted as if we took every italian dialect and said they were their own nation within the italian construct. While italy has tons of different dialects it can be a stretch to call some langauges while others within the country like sicilian are clearly languages. Its fuzzy
>homotugal
Ukraine is a shitload Russian
Bolivia and Chile are wrong, Bolivia is pretty homogenous and Chile is pretty diverse.
>united states
>homogeneous
i guess it is if you consider mutts to be a single race.
>Russia
>Homogenous
Russia is very diverse, such a dumb map. And waht about Australia? It is literally a migrant country.
The map is like that on purpose. You'll notice that Europe is represented as homogenous because (((they))) want diverse African negroids to (((enrich))) us. This is especially true for places like Sweden.
most euro immigrants assimilate into the anglo ethnic base really quickly and theres not much regional diversity then its 10-15% Asians/poos/muslims but thats still nothing compared to countries which are accually ethnically split not because of immigration
So we are homogeneous?
>Rwanda
>India
>homogeneous
This, who made this?
India is homogeous?
Canada is more diverse than the US?
It's from WaPo, so you know what agenda is being pushed.
>saudi
>homogenous
I don't believe it. Unless they're not counting immigrant workers.
Ukraine = Russia
we wuz diversity n shit?
>Norway and Denmark same colour as France
>France, Russia, India, China, UK, Sweden, Italy, USA, Germany, Netherlands
>Homogenous
>somalia
>ethnically diverse
whoever made this is a retard
>Russia
>More homogenous
It is a terrible map indeed.
> Non-Somali ethnic minority groups make up about 15% of the nation's population. They include Bantus, Bajunis, Eyle, Ethiopians, Indians, Pakistanis, Persians, Italians and Britons. Somalia has been described as the most ethnically homogenous nation in Sub-Saharan Africa, ahead of Botswana, which is four-fifths Tswana
>sweden more homogenous than estonia
>russia homogenous
>UK, France
>Pakistan more diverse than India
TOP KEK
everyone besides italians and ethopians (habesha not oromo) are respected everyone is treated like shit, bantus were literal slaves up until recently. Britons up north are treated good but normal somalis despise the anglo thanks to Italian propaganda.
You brainlets realize this is measured by the probability that any two given people from a country will be of a different ethnic background from each other right?
So a country that is 50% ethnicity A and 50% ethnicity B is more diverse by this measure than a country which is 80% ethnicity A and 20% ethnicity B, C, D, E, etc. Which is why Estonia and Pakistan are highly diverse while Australia and Russia are considered homogenous. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a map based on legitimate data.
The ratio of Canadians of French heritage to Canadians of British heritage is significant enough to make Canada more diverse than the US. Also to all the people repeating Jow Forums memes about Western Europe, the amount of immigrants in these countries is actually really tiny when you compare to countries outside of Europe. Saudi Arabia is 1/3 foreign born and it still doesn't register as diverse, so why would France, which has less than 10% immigrants be considered diverse?
Ukraine and Moldova both have a lot of ethnic minorities (Tatars, Russians, Albanians, Roma, etc).
I don't really see the fault in pointing out that they're more diverse than France
Ethnically diverse = amount of brown people
Lmao, Australia has more Chinese people than Japan and Vietnam.
No, utter nonsense.
Ukrainians and Russians are the same people.
Australia is pretty diverse. What the fuck, man?
wtf is wrong with colors, I can't distinct them
lol
I've been thinking of making making a 'Shit maps of Jow Forums' folder and this looks like a perfect first entry.
>1.26 billion
Christ that's a lot of people.
Imagine if Australia had even a quarter of those numbers. I mean, the other day we cracked 25 million or something and China probably has areas the size of Greater Sydney with more people than our entire population.
Wew.
This is retarded
They basically asked people where they're from
Africans aren't even sure of their own names
>that methodology
Wew lad.
That's not even all of China, only the Han which are the ethnic majority. The total population is actually 1.379 billion.
this so fucking retarded
>SA is diverse
>France is homogenous
>Imagine if Australia had even a quarter of those numbers
it's called the USA
Map is just another nig-ometer
that's true though. SA has several official languages, French people are basically all the same
>Mongolia
what they call "diverse" is having multiple variety of niggers in you country, nut in the end of the day it doesn't matter.
at the end of the day, SA or any other sub-saharan african country is way less diverse than France with it's 10/15% non-whites.
also, even if France has only one official language, there is some obvious differences betwwen it's people (germanic in the north, matin in the south, celtic in the west).
So yeah, it's retarded.
test
>black people are all the same no diversity at all
>white people are unique and diverse
Really makes you :think:
>at the end of the day, SA or any other sub-saharan african country is way less diverse than France with it's 10/15% non-whites.
lol, but SA being 10/15% non-black doesn't count for some reason? South African is home to the Khoisan people who are more genetically distant from other Africans than Africans are from Europeans. It is objectively a more genetically, ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse country than France. All the non-whites in France speak French and lose the culture of their ancestors very quickly, while Indian, Malay, Dutch, etc. influences in South Africa are still present after generations.
>SA has different kind of blacks and 10% of whites
>France has different kind of whites ad 15% of blacks and arabs
>SA is diverse
>France is homogenous
the differences between African groups in South Africa are much greater than the tiny differences among whites in France. there are more minorities in SA than just whites, they have the largest Indian diaspora outside of India. there are a lot of people of Malaysian and Chinese descent there as well
depends on what you'd consider an ethnicity and what you wonldn't
You're forgetting the colored people (half white and half black) and the Asians. SA is only 80.2% "black" and even then that black majority is split between khois bantus and zulus. No one ethnic group makes up more than 40 percent of the country. Unlike France where French people make up the absolute majority overall and the majority of "white people". And that's not even getting into language or culture. SA is more diverse than France. Deal with it.
>France
>Homogenous