We’re not discussing distinct population groups; we’re discussing the major, scientifically-accepted, anthropological racial classifications, which is what I posted, based upon that source.
Until you post something more modern and widely-accepted by the scientific community and world to document your faux chart, the rest of the world is still using those categories. You can say what you want; that doesn’t make it fact. Try again.
Again, what’s your source for that “idiotic chart”?
Please define “race” for me.
What you posted was old racist garbage someone posted on Wikipedia, the “rest of the world” is not basing their thinking on human populations on the simplistic thinking that there are only FIVE distinct racial categories - and that any other distinction is derived through ‘mongrelization’.
Instead we know how human populations grow distinct when in reproductive isolation, and we know that humans cannot easily be separated into five groups - and if you did they wouldn't be the five groups you outlined - if based upon actual DNA data.
Do you think the chart I posted based upon DNA data is in error? Do you have another chart based upon actual DNA data that you would prefer?
I am locating the source. But do you ACTUALLY think it is based upon erroneous data - or ‘any port in a storm’ when you are incapable of defending your archaic wiki-racist argument?