Inaccuracy in Names

your last one doesn't fit

>>2628854

Russians are the group most associated with "Slavs".

That's an interesting observation you've made.

>>2628897
It'd be great if someone enlightened could explain this.

>>2628962
>Largest country
>Biggest population
>Great power since early medieval period
Pretty easy to see why. Meanwhile, other Slavs were either cucked by the Ottomans or Germans.

>>2628972

So the fact that these are the most successful groups of their respected categories, means that they inevitably will be least pure/representative?

>>2628851

Because humanity in general is not concerned with accuracy

>>2628978
The examples OP put out are not "pure" in a genetic sense. But by label they're the most significant.

>>2629002
>But by label they're the most significant.

But the most inaccurate. I mean who came up with the idea to call label Mestizos "Latinos"? What a fucking retard.

>amerindian mexican be like: julius caesar? he aiin't Latino, he a white boy

>>2628868
The Rus you poop

>>2628851
>Germans - Least Germanic of all Germanic people
That would be the Bongs or Swiss.

In the case of """"""Latinos"""""""" it is just the fear of long words the Americans suffer.

Mestizos from the Americas who speak romance languages are called "Latino" as a short of "latinoamericano", a term that in fact has nothing to do with race actually.

It is the Italians from Lazio who should be called "Latino".

As a Spanish speaker from South America I cringe when I see Chicanos and Americans using "Latino" as synonym of "mestizo".

>>2628851
>Germans - Least Germanic of all Germanic people
Any source on this?
If by "germanic" you mean "norse" you're right. But if you mean germanic as a whole, I don't see why the distinction.
Even between germans and scandinavians I don't really see why there is a distinction.