Is this accurate?

Is this accurate?

...

What is it supposed to represent though?

>most of the south is black when the majority black areas are a thin series of counties and not blobs
>whites in south africa even though they are not a majority anywhere outside of small settlements
>southern europeans or atleast mestizos arent in the southwest
>borders are from the 1930s(?)
interesting map though

I could also critique northern canada, northern alaska, and northern quebec as being white when most of it is natives

lmao nice try

Races of the world

I've never seen purple Indians tbqh

Posting the real one.

Actual Europe:

>Austria
>white

Why is Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia differently shaded from everyone around them?

Fixed

what is this a map of?

Paint all of Brazil black and yes it is.

Autism

fixd

what is it supposed to represent? predominant races?

anyway, brazil is way off, coastal areas are much darker, lots of mulattoes. the countryside is more triracial-leaning and the places close to colombia, venezuela and peru have lots of amerindian-looking people.

They have mostly Slovene blood.

To me looks accurate as fuck. Same colours as southern Moroccans and Lybians.

Lot of amerindian look my ass.

>Zimbabwe
Pretty sure there's more whites in countries like Botswana/Namibia/Kenya than Zimbabwe.

Brazil is pretty accurate. Average pardos are basically dark Lybians and another dark maghrebis too.

yes everyone is a nigger
fuck off

>To me looks accurate as fuck.

do you really think half of bahia is lighter than acre and roraima?

They are both brown.

>florida
>white

What the fuck is up with the Uyghurs

That place where the Brazilian germans are is wrong. It should be kinda sprinkled all over the south instead of a single spot.

Also Santiago could be Southern European maybe?