British people and race

[///M power]

since British people are mostly Anglo Saxon,and were invaded by other people with Germanic heritage(also by the Normans), why would they look different from lets say people in Germany? it doesn't make much sense to me. the Celtic influence probably faded over the years either by them being pushed aside/killed by Germanic invaders or had been assimilated long time ago. I don't know if to me they look that much different,but I heard many claims here about English people being very ugly and so on.. so what would be the reason for that and the fact that they have different looks?

[Winston]

I've travelled and I have not noticed people being any better looking in other countries than they are at home. Don't believe everything you read on here.
Compare different nationalities here:

http://racialreality.110mb.com/gallery.html

[Empress Cheesatine]

Ive met/seen Brits who are distinctly British looking. John Cleese is an example. Very distinctly British.

[Isra'il Yahya]

Think of it this way. The people in the UK are a mix of the following while remaining mostly Anglo-Celtic or Anglo-Saxon: Pict, Briton, Kelt, Danish, Welsh, Roman, Angle, Saxon, Jute, Norwegian, Irish, Scottish, French, and Norman. The Brits are mostly Anglo-Saxon, but there are other elements that sometimes manifest themselves as a result of historical mixture with other peoples. The native population has also had a large effect on the genetics of the UK as well. Even though there was a large influx of Anglo-Saxons in certain areas, they were halted in their conquest and the Anglicization of what we know call England started to occur through means other than warfare. When the other peoples invaded England through various avenues and directions, this further added to the gene pool of the peoples of the U.K. When the Danish invaded, they set up their own kingdom called the Danelaw. This did result in some Anglo-Saxons fleeing in a southward direction. Then the Anglo-Saxons retook the area for a time until the Normans launched a successful invasion in 1066. After 1066, history has never been the same.

Genetics studies do lead to the fact that many areas were not uniformly mixed as the foreigners tended to cluster to the areas they conquered. However, further migrations that happened throughout time helped to cement various genetics markers to point even if not creating only one concrete stabilized blend throughout the whole of the British Isles. It was the English culture that won through all with the addition of a heavy Norman influence on customs and tongue.

The British are a very diverse people unified by a common culture, common genetics even if to a minute degree in some percentages, and a common national spirit.

[KneeOfJustice]

The British are a mutt "race". Their genetic pool thinned down after their initial colonization until they became the Brits you know and love today. And by love, I mean despise. Well at least I despise their annoying accent. Don't trust that racialrelations site the poster 2 up wrote about. I went there and it's ridiculous. The site just made collages of all the ugliest people it could find from a country. It's clearly slanted as not of the Brits had a monocle!

:viking: :viking:

[MrAngry]

I've travelled and I have not noticed people being any better looking in other countries than they are at home. Don't believe everything you read on here.
Compare different nationalities here:

http://racialreality.110mb.com/gallery.html


50% of the Ivory coast team are the same person!

[AugustSledge]

Don't trust that racialrelations site the poster 2 up wrote about. I went there and it's ridiculous. The site just made collages of all the ugliest people it could find from a country. It's clearly slanted as not of the Brits had a monocle!

:viking: :viking:

:rofl:

I looked at the soccerteams and it's obvious that most of the photos are manipulated.

[Hakluyt]

http://racialreality.110mb.com/gallery.html

Got bored so I averaged the England team pictures on http://www.faceresearch.org

Hopefully this will provide no insight whatsoever on the topic of this thread:

http://www.faceresearch.org/tomcat/average/uploads/private/img1427802.jpg

[Isra'il Yahya]

1000 years of separation will do that to a people. If it only took 45 - 50,000 years for Europeans and Asians to evolve from Africans, it seems reasonable that in 1000 years a geographically isolated people could change appearance.

You could also put the Japanese and the Chinese into the same basket, the Japanese originally being Chinese but no one would deny they are not the same people now and have only had 2400 years of separation.

The Japanese are of an Altaic-Siberian origin speaking a language isolate. The original Japanese (Jomon) were Siberian with some genetic similarities to Koreans and Han Chinese. Later they would assimilate Polynesian admixture. Starting around 300 BC or so the Yayoi would invade bringing more Korean and Chinese genetic material. Following the Yayoi invasion, Japan would become close to China for a time until shutting itself out to all outside influence. The Japanese in isolation would start on the path to developing their own culture, language, and people once again like the process during the period of the Jomon culture. Japan would remain closed off to the outside world until Portuguese and Dutch traders arrived.

[Jimbo Gomez]

They (the english) are related to Germans, but because centuries of bad nutrition mutated the british race into something separate and hideous, they are a lot uglier than their German relatives.

I won't even mention the welsh, they are little better than the sheep their celtic ancestors used to bugger.

[007]

Think of it this way. The people in the UK are a mix of the following while remaining mostly Anglo-Celtic or Anglo-Saxon: Pict, Briton, Kelt, Danish, Welsh, Roman, Angle, Saxon, Jute, Norwegian, Irish, Scottish, French, and Norman.

Actually the British are not a very diverse people at all. Angles, Saxon, Jutes Norwegians, Danes and Normans are all Nordic tribes from the same area. We know from the skeletal evidence that the Kelts are a very similar Nordic type, and they include the Britons. The dark Welsh and Irish types provide a dash of seasoning, perhaps, but are similar types, just more likely to be brunette. The Romans left only a miniscule contribution to the British gene pool. Not sure why Ukkonen lists the Scottish separately. They are descended from the same mix of tribes as the English.
Most important of all, of course, is the fact that we aren't phlegmish.

[Isra'il Yahya]

Actually the British are not a very diverse people at all. Angles, Saxon, Jutes, Norwegians, Danes and Normans are all Nordic tribes from the same area. We know from the skeletal evidence that the Kelts are a very similar Nordic type, and they include the Britons. The dark Welsh and Irish types provide a dash of seasoning, perhaps, but are similar types, just more likely to be brunette. The Romans left only a miniscule contribution to the British gene pool. Not sure why Ukkonen lists the Scottish separately. They are descended from the same mix of tribes as the English.

Most important of all, of course, is the fact that we aren't phlegmish.

Cultural and lniguistic differences for the Scots. Even if the mix of tribes that has become the British were not so genetically, culturally, or linguistically different does not mean that they were not different peoples to begin with. At the time each of those peoples considered themselves to be a unique people with an identity all their own.

I assumed by British we meant people of mixed ancestry in the British isles that are mostly Anglo-Saxon but not completely.

Yes, they are all Nordish types, but not purely Nordic. Danes and Norwegians have ancestry from the native pre-Germanic peoples of the north that is based in cro-magnon survivors. They are hybrids.

Normans are a hybrid of the following: Nordic, UP, Med, and probably Alpine as well.

[Dan Dare]

Much of the distinction between ‘Nordics’, ‘Kelts’ and ‘Germanics’ is due to 18th and 19th century romanticism, and such distinctions are not borne out by the genetic evidence found in present European populations.

It seems quite clear now that Europeans are descended from two main waves of migration. The first wave occurred in the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic periods, and consisted of people who had survived the last Ice Age in the refugia of Franco-Iberia, Northern Italy/Balkans, and the Western Ukraine. As the climate improved, these groups diffused outwards from the refugia, slowly (re-)colonising the surrounding regions. We can see the evidence for this in the Y-DNA Haplotype distribution for Europe:


http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/1781/eurohaplopa2.th.jpg (http://img359.imageshack.us/my.php?image=eurohaplopa2.jpg)


This chart shows the Y-DNA haplotypes for present-day Europeans, and represents their deep paternal ancestry. The prevalence of haplotype R1b in western Europe shows the areas that were re-colonised from the Franco-Iberian refugium, R1a the Italo-Balkan, and I the Western Ukraine. As can be seen, the areas from which the principal later migrations into the British Isles occurred (the Low Countries, Denmark, Germany, and southern Norway) all share the same genetic footprint, in that R1b is the dominant haplotype. This being the case, there seems little point in maintaing the distinction between ‘Celts’, ‘Vikings’ and ‘Anglo-Saxons’ since they are all descended from the same autochthonous hunter-gatherers who migrated north from the Franc-Iberian refugium after the LGM.

The second wave of colonisation occurred during the Neolithic, and consisted of (probably) pastoralists from Asia minor, as represented by the haplotype E3b. It is usually claimed that it was these people who introduced farming into western Europe. However the influence of this later migration is on a cline, being at a maximum in the south-east and tending to zero in the north-west.