The Mediterranean race (sometimes Mediterranid race) is one of the sub-races into which the Caucasian race was categorized by most anthropologists in the late nineteenth to mid-twentieth centuries.
According to various definitions, it was said to be prevalent in Southern Europe and Southeast Europe, in Western Asia, in North Africa, in the Horn of Africa, in Central Asia, in Latin America (through Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, French and Lebanese ancestry), and in certain parts of the British Isles and Germany.
It is characterized by medium to tall stature, long (dolichocephalic) or moderate (mesocephalic) skull, a narrow and often slightly aquiline nose, prevalence of dark hair and eyes, and pink to reddish to light or dark brown skin tone; olive complexion being especially common.
It is totally idiotic for Nordics to consider the Mediterranean race (Including Greece, South Italy - Sicily, Lebanon, Egypt, Malta etc.) as racially inferior.
The Mediterranean races are with no doubt the creators of civilisation. The Ancient Greeks, The Ancient Egyptians, the Phoenicians, Cathrage, The Romans, Assyrians and even the Ethiopians were the ones that created culture, democracy and science including mathematics, astronomy, physics and medicine.
For the Greeks and Romans, Germanic and Celtic peoples were often stereotyped as wild red haired barbarians. While the Med. people were prosperous the Germanic and Celtic tribes were living in caves, later on they improved to savagely launch attacks on the great empires of the med. - The Roman and the Byzantine.
You may argue that the Greeks are considered aryans. This is wrong because: Firstly Aristotle argued that the Greeks were an ideal race because they possessed a medium skin-tone, in contrast to pale northerners and black Africans. Secondly your beloved Nazi "ideologists" and "intelectuals" considered the Greeks members of the mediterranean race, which they considered inferior to the Aryan - They were wrong ofcourse - Just compare the Greek Civilization with the Nordic "civilization" and make your own rational (please!) conclusions.
The fact that Mediterranean peoples were responsible for the most important of ancient civilisations was a problem for the promoters of Nordic superiority. Giuseppe Sergi's much-debated book The Mediterranean Race (1901) argued that the Mediterranean race had in fact originated in Africa, and that it also included a number of dark-skinned African peoples, such as Ethiopians. Sergi's studies claimed that the Mediterraneans, the Africans and the Nordics all originated from an original Eurafrican Race. According to Sergi the Mediterranean race, the "greatest race of the world", was responsible for the great civilisations of ancient times, including those of Egypt, Carthage, Greece and Rome. These Mediterranean peoples were quite distinct from the peoples of northern Europe. Sergi also argued that the Mediterranean race was closely related to a Hamitic African population, which included such groups as the Tutsi. To Sergi the Semites were a branch of the Eurafricans who were closely related to the Mediterraneans.
Let's imagine a world where whites (French, Germs, Scandi and Anglos) as a civilization would be without appropriating culture, technology and riches from other people's.
Which means:
No contact with the Roman Republic/Empire and China
No crusades
No Judeo-Christian religions
No discovery of the new world
No colonization of Africa
No establishments of chiefdom beyond Germania Magna (No Italian, French, Iberian and African dynasties).
Celts still populate most of Europe in this timeline
Also remember that whites before contact with Rome had no literature or construction capabilities beyond wowfzyqyoden buildings. They did have Bronze Age weapons, though. Starting year: 200 B.C (before first Roman interventions in Gaul because they wouldn't stop killing each other)