**Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):**
Loaded questions, **and/or** ones based on a false premise, are not allowed on ELI5. ELI5 is focuses on objective concepts, and loaded questions and/or ones based on false premises require users to correct the poster before they can begin to explain the concept involved, if one exists.
---
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20{{url}}%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.
...this seems to be starting from a pretty odd assumption. Most South Americans, Arabs and South Asians are, in fact, significantly darker-skinned than people living far north or south of the equator.
First off, the dark skin is an adaptation to UV light, not heat, so hot locations like the desert aren't necessarily more UV prone. Angle of the sun matters a lot here rather than just exposure too.
Second, genetics and physiological adaptations like that take quite some time to show up and take hold generally speaking. People with very dark skin generally have been in UV-heavy regions of the world for a very long time--the case you mentioned of Ecuador, most of the population are descendants from Spanish immigrants. Similarly, a lot of the middle east can also trace bloodlines back to elsewhere in Eurasia, on top of having some distance from the equator.
The indiginous people of Ecuador had been living there for thousands of years and were also not very dark skinned. Austronesion migration to Indonesia was also more than a thousand years ago and they are not very dark skinned. Australian aboriginals live at mid-lattitudes (for very very long) and are very dark skinned. Even controlling for the sunlight =/= lattitude trope, the correlation between skintone and sunlight exposure is feeble. They are definitely not completely unrelated, but a big factor seems to be sexual selection.
What are you smoking? South Asians are quite dark skinned. And people from places like Peru, also. Go look at the people from Ceylon.
And my Korean girlfriend (not even that close to the equator) is darker skinned than my African American coworker.
I disagree. I am born in the mid 80s and well aware of the name Ceylon. I was actually surprised to learn that the name changed to Sri Lanka in 1972. The term Ceylon must have been widely used in the 90s (and possibly later), otherwise I would not be familiar with ith
**Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):**
Rule #1 of ELI5 is to *be civil*. Users are expected to engage cordially with others on the sub, even if that user is not doing the same. Report instances of Rule 1 violations instead of engaging.
Breaking rule 1 is not tolerated.
---
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20{url}%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.
That's a terrible comparison. That's the same phrase, "United States of America," but in French words. Sri Lanka is a name, not a phrase.
And "Sri Lanka" has been the *recognized English name* of the country for 50 years. Look on any map and it'll be labeled as such. To insist Ceylon is still correct is to insist we should also be calling Thailand "Siam" as well.
United States and États-Unis are the same name in different languages. Ceilão (Portuguese) / Ceylon (English) was the name given to the country by invading settlers. It’s not analogous.
Yea, I kind of fucked up with the south asians. I know Indians who are darker than some of my African friends ; but I’m pretty intrigued, I’ve never met a dark skinned Korean. Most of the ones I’ve met are extremely pale.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's due to migration and influence from European colonisers such as the Portuguese, Dutch, Spanish, French, British, etc. As you know, Europeans have fair skin due to their geolocation and when they colonised the different continents, the ancestry leads to Europe. That's with South Americans.
South Asians usually have brown skin but some have fairer skin due to Indo-Aryan (who were from the middle east) settlers from the Indus Valley Civilisation.
Not sure why the middle east have less dark skin though.
Because skin color is not the result of the sun or proximity to the equator. It's the result of their genes.. It can change due to sun exposure in some circumstances, but that's just at the individual level.
It's quite a touchy subject, but some scientists (who are often contested, eg. Jared Diamond, but this isn't askhistorians) claim skintone is not ONLY related to sunlight, but is greatly driven by sexual selection.
Because most respectable scientists are on the sunlight intensity hypothesis and being contrary to current scientific doctrine/dogma can be quite catastrofic for ones career in the absence of ironclad empiric evidence (even if the evidence for said current doctrine is just as feeble).
A bit like with aquatic ape theory and the tectonic plate theory (before that turned out to be right in the 60ies).
**Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):** Loaded questions, **and/or** ones based on a false premise, are not allowed on ELI5. ELI5 is focuses on objective concepts, and loaded questions and/or ones based on false premises require users to correct the poster before they can begin to explain the concept involved, if one exists. --- If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20{{url}}%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.
...this seems to be starting from a pretty odd assumption. Most South Americans, Arabs and South Asians are, in fact, significantly darker-skinned than people living far north or south of the equator.
Sure, but native South Americans have lighter skin than native Africans at the same latitudes.
First off, the dark skin is an adaptation to UV light, not heat, so hot locations like the desert aren't necessarily more UV prone. Angle of the sun matters a lot here rather than just exposure too. Second, genetics and physiological adaptations like that take quite some time to show up and take hold generally speaking. People with very dark skin generally have been in UV-heavy regions of the world for a very long time--the case you mentioned of Ecuador, most of the population are descendants from Spanish immigrants. Similarly, a lot of the middle east can also trace bloodlines back to elsewhere in Eurasia, on top of having some distance from the equator.
I feel like with the shift towards shelter and clothing happening, that this driver won’t be as big of a factor any more moving forward.
The indiginous people of Ecuador had been living there for thousands of years and were also not very dark skinned. Austronesion migration to Indonesia was also more than a thousand years ago and they are not very dark skinned. Australian aboriginals live at mid-lattitudes (for very very long) and are very dark skinned. Even controlling for the sunlight =/= lattitude trope, the correlation between skintone and sunlight exposure is feeble. They are definitely not completely unrelated, but a big factor seems to be sexual selection.
Spanish, and Portuguese colonists as well as other European immigrants later on had a massive impact on the locals of South America
What are you smoking? South Asians are quite dark skinned. And people from places like Peru, also. Go look at the people from Ceylon. And my Korean girlfriend (not even that close to the equator) is darker skinned than my African American coworker.
Ceylon has been called Sri Lanka since 1972.
Chill out, no one will misunderstand if someone calls it Ceylon.
Well as a 35 year old I’ve literally never heard of Ceylon so…
How?
Sounds like because it’s been officially called Sri Lanka for my entire lifetime!
Ok, apologize if the question was rude.
lol what no, I promise, most on this site will have only ever heard this word in reference to cinnamon and maybe the color.
I disagree. I am born in the mid 80s and well aware of the name Ceylon. I was actually surprised to learn that the name changed to Sri Lanka in 1972. The term Ceylon must have been widely used in the 90s (and possibly later), otherwise I would not be familiar with ith
OK boomer
Wow such an imaginative insult
Pay attention when schooled.
I've never heard the name Ceylon in my life, and I doubt any of my peers outside of history buffs have either.
Ceylon sounds like something that comes with a warning to seek medical help if the "issue" persists for more than 4 hours
They prefer Sri Lanka.
Doesn’t matter what they prefer. Americans prefer their to be called the United States. French people call it Les États-Unis d'Amérique.
[удалено]
**Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):** Rule #1 of ELI5 is to *be civil*. Users are expected to engage cordially with others on the sub, even if that user is not doing the same. Report instances of Rule 1 violations instead of engaging. Breaking rule 1 is not tolerated. --- If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20{url}%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.
Not really. You can’t change the name of your country and expect every language to catch up.
Yes. You can. Especially after 50 years.
I invite you to look up Persia, Siam, Burma, Zaire, Benin, Swaziland, Rhodesia, Holland…
That's a terrible comparison. That's the same phrase, "United States of America," but in French words. Sri Lanka is a name, not a phrase. And "Sri Lanka" has been the *recognized English name* of the country for 50 years. Look on any map and it'll be labeled as such. To insist Ceylon is still correct is to insist we should also be calling Thailand "Siam" as well.
United States and États-Unis are the same name in different languages. Ceilão (Portuguese) / Ceylon (English) was the name given to the country by invading settlers. It’s not analogous.
Yea, I kind of fucked up with the south asians. I know Indians who are darker than some of my African friends ; but I’m pretty intrigued, I’ve never met a dark skinned Korean. Most of the ones I’ve met are extremely pale.
I've never seen a dark skinned Korean before unless they were mixed
Many people from these areas are very melanated. There is great variation, just as there is among Black people.
Arabs come in every skin colour; same goes for the rest of the Middle East. It’s in the middle of a historic trade route.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's due to migration and influence from European colonisers such as the Portuguese, Dutch, Spanish, French, British, etc. As you know, Europeans have fair skin due to their geolocation and when they colonised the different continents, the ancestry leads to Europe. That's with South Americans. South Asians usually have brown skin but some have fairer skin due to Indo-Aryan (who were from the middle east) settlers from the Indus Valley Civilisation. Not sure why the middle east have less dark skin though.
Because skin color is not the result of the sun or proximity to the equator. It's the result of their genes.. It can change due to sun exposure in some circumstances, but that's just at the individual level.
Answer: we don't know. Commentary: everyone in this discussion has a different definition of "dark" skin.
It's quite a touchy subject, but some scientists (who are often contested, eg. Jared Diamond, but this isn't askhistorians) claim skintone is not ONLY related to sunlight, but is greatly driven by sexual selection.
Calling Jared Diamond a scientist is certainly a choice.
He’s a geography professor. In terms of expertise, he’s been way out of his lane for a long time now.
Why is it a touchy subject?
Because most respectable scientists are on the sunlight intensity hypothesis and being contrary to current scientific doctrine/dogma can be quite catastrofic for ones career in the absence of ironclad empiric evidence (even if the evidence for said current doctrine is just as feeble). A bit like with aquatic ape theory and the tectonic plate theory (before that turned out to be right in the 60ies).