When making a comment, you might want to start with something which isn't obviously a product of your own stereotypical bias. As we know from ABBA, Swedish people do not all have "blond straight(ish) hair".

From my personal experience visiting Sweden, there are many brunettes in the country ... and many bottle-blondes.

I noticed you switched from "Swedish people" to "Italians". Some Italians, like those in South Tyrol, speak German as their native language. Quoting Wikipedia, "Twelve historical minority languages are legally recognised: Albanian, Catalan, German, Greek, Slovene, Croatian, French, Franco-Provençal, Friulian, Ladin, Occitan and Sardinian"

The concept of "Italians" is also rather new, being a creation of the 1800s. There are still large differences between the different regions, and discrimination between Italians based on region. Eg, "Mussolini also played upon long-standing racist attitudes against Sicilians, enacting a number of laws and measures directed at anyone born in Sicily/of Sicilian descent" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Italy .

And you say "Italians have dark skin" while http://www.usaonrace.com/sticky-wicket-questions/2313/why-ar... says "Northern Italians tend to look upon Sicilians as people of color" and http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-... points out "The very few Northern Italians that immigrated [to the US] perpetuated the myth that Southern Italians and Greeks were of a different race than them in order to save their own asses."

So Italy doesn't have this stereotypical homogeneity that you stated.

You wrote "I'm not saying that India isn't diverse, just that Europe is not just a homogenous mass." You didn't seem to realize that my point is that Asia is more diverse than Europe. Therefore, if you use the argument "Europeans are a huge mixed bag" as a justification for why it is not reasonable to stereotype "racist Europeans", you must also agree that a concept like "Asian food" or "Asian people" is not meaningful.

"The contents are quite different. The protestant and Catholics have a long history of religious wars. And yes, they are completely different in many important ways"

And the Judean People's Front is completely different than the People's Front of Judea.

Or the old joke asking if someone is religious or atheist; Christian or Jewish; Catholic or Protestant; Episcopalian or Baptist; Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord; Original Baptist Church of God, or Reformed Baptist Church of God; Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915? When the final answer is wrong, "Die, heretic scum!" - http://www.ahajokes.com/reg38.html .

Your argument is exactly what I would expect from someone who doesn't understand the cross-race effect.

You have selected certain properties which you have determined are important. These include skin and hair color, as well as specific religious beliefs. However, you have chosen them because the Eurocentric culture you are from found them important in being able to distinguish between people.

If you had been born and raised in India, or China, or Indonesia, or elsewhere in Asia, you would have learned a rather different set of "important" features. You would care more about the important differences between the different types of Buddhism, or the differences in the caste system, etc. You would use different facial features to distinguish between people from different religions, and find it difficult to distinguish between Europeans.

And you would have difficulty remembering the distinction between the different Christian churches just like I struggle to remember the distinction between Shia, Sunni, and Sufi, much less all of the different branches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_schools_and_branches .

"Why wouldn't you count the Russian colony?"

Because it wasn't organized or condoned by the Russian state. "The Russian Government disavowed Achimov, accusing him of disobedience to the Czar and acts of piracy. Participants were arrested and deported back to Odessa" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagallo .

Take Bir Tawil for a modern example. No recognized government has made a land claim on it. However, several people have done so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bir_Tawil lists a couple.

Just because Jeremiah Heaton, a US citizen, claimed the land, that doesn't make it new American colony.

"The point is that Europeans have stopped doing that"

Well, first, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Equatorial_Guinea_coup_d%... was a thing. "The 2004 Equatorial Guinea coup d'état attempt, also known as the Wonga coup,[1] failed to replace President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo with exiled opposition politician Severo Moto. Mercenaries organised by mainly British financiers were arrested in Zimbabwe on 7 March 2004 before they could carry out the plot."

And it's not like I know much about what's going on in Africa. There's almost certainly more of that going on.

Second, NW Europe is still part of neocolonism in Africa. Quoting now from https://www.pambazuka.org/human-security/africa-21st-century... :

> In the second half of the 20th century, Africa’s division of labor and national institutions – everything from military to banking and foreign trade - was largely determined by the core countries - US and northwest Europe - with the considerable assistance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and its affiliates, African Development Bank and a number of United Nations agencies, and of course, the explosion of NGOs some of which are fully funded by governments trying to peddle political and economic influence. In short, the external mechanisms of Africa’s dependence became stronger and more solidified in the last six decades than they were during the era of colonial rule. ...

> Largely because of China as a major new player in the region’s trade, there was a rise after the recession of the early 1990s, but this too was limited to the primary sector of production. The China factor did not help the continent lift its GDP amounting to under $300 billion in 1997 while the debt was $315 billion. This allowed the IMF to impose austerity and neoliberal measures of privatization, corporate tax reductions, and trade barrier removals that further weakened the national economies. The austerity measures not only prevented upward socioeconomic mobility, but actually drove more people into lower living standards.

Third, your original point was your (IMO fake) surprise at how someone could make a continent-wide stereotype. This new point is rather tangential, and comes across as something like "look, they are also being mean so stop blaming me for being mean."

leyth (the person you responded to) said nothing about Chinese in that area of Africa. The implication is that they will be equally welcoming to racist Chinese and racist Americans.

> why is setting up colonies racist?

Um, did you not understand what I meant by "British people convinced of the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon race"? One of the arguments for their imperialism was that they are, by race, the people best suited to rule the world.

It's like you don't even care to inspect or improve your own understanding of the world, so I'll make it easier and quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Rhodes :

> One of Rhodes's primary motivators in politics and business was his professed belief that the Anglo-Saxon race was, to quote his will, "the first race in the world".[3] Under the reasoning that "the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race",[3] he advocated vigorous settler colonialism and ultimately a reformation of the British Empire so that each component would be self-governing and represented in a single parliament in London. Ambitions such as these, juxtaposed with his policies regarding indigenous Africans in the Cape Colony—describing the country's black population as largely "in a state of barbarism",[4] he advocated their governance as a "subject race"[4] and was at the centre of moves to marginalise them politically—have led recent critics to characterise him as a white supremacist and "an architect of apartheid."

Of your three criteria ("overwhelming population pressure", "need raw materials for industry", "need to get rid of undersirables"), I guess that's the third - get rid of all the non-Anglo-Saxons in the world. Which is incredibly racist. But it really feels like it's an entirely new reason you didn't think about. Which means you know even less than I about this topic.

"if other countries are setting up colonies, there's a huge land grab ..."

Ahh, apologetics for imperialism. I suppose next you'll argue that if other countries are entering the slave trade then your country should as well, "or else you get left behind in money and industry." The British and America made a lot of money from slavery. Europeans made a lot of money from their African colonies. That doesn't justify colonization. Or slavery.

> one of the most vicious incidents in African consist

And now we are well removed from anything to do with the topic. This is relevant because ... just exactly why?