Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This thread is ridiculous... You cannot lump everybody from one country into a neat little box! The UK has an extremely varied & multicultural population, so there is a real 'mix' now. Unless you go to a remote little village in highland Scotland you are not going to see these pasty skinned, red haired individuals you assume to be 'typically British'
I am British & I tan perfectly well, as do most people I know, yet my sister burns like mad. What does this tell you? That this thread is pointless...
Hey people don't be so sensitive about this subject. When genetic studies are done they try to get as indigenous a population as possible. This usually means Great Grandparents on both sides born in that locale. These population studies look at what the majority of the population exhibits. A country's population cluster together indicating shared genes and ancestry. Also countries close by share similar ancestry and genes.
Yes there are characteristics unique to a population. It is only in recent times that there has been such great population movements but in the recent past people did not mix that much. They were separated by things like language, religion and culture also seas and mountain ranges were a barrier to dna flow from other areas. The British Isles for example did not get invaded by a lot of different groups of people but by neighbouring populations who were not that greatly different than the population there already. Countries were more isolated. If anyone gets a dna test they can tell quite accurately where your ancestry comes from.
There is a real mix in a lot of countries now but dna studies on populations don't use people that have recent ancestry from outside the country they are looking at; dna studies look at people indigenous to that country. People that have long term ancestry in countries are like larger family groups and like a family have characteristics in common.
This thread is another ridiculous example of nothing but stereotyping!!! Look I am British, I am white British, My Grandmother on my fathers side was Scottish, my hair is dark brown (my sisters hair is practically black), I am not pasty white, I tan rather well, I tend not to burn - if all British are ginger haired, freckled, pale skinned individuals that just 'frazzle' in direct sunlight then please kindly explain why that is not the case both for me and everybody in my family!!!!!!!??????? (and I am British as they come).
I'm more typical of people from the British Isles in that I have very fair skin that burns in 10 minutes in the sun. My father was different and tanned really well. All that was said in the previous posts was that a certain amount of people had Type 1 skin, then Type 2 skin etc. There are people with darker complexions in Britain / Ireland but they are in the minority. So you are one of the people that tan better than the majority of people that have long term ancestry in the British Isles.
This thread is ridiculous... You cannot lump everybody from one country into a neat little box! The UK has an extremely varied & multicultural population, so there is a real 'mix' now. Unless you go to a remote little village in highland Scotland you are not going to see these pasty skinned, red haired individuals you assume to be 'typically British'
I am British & I tan perfectly well, as do most people I know, yet my sister burns like mad. What does this tell you? That this thread is pointless...
Somebody speaking sense!! (somebody who I believe is British too and has seen the reality perhaps?) :-)
I'm more typical of people from the British Isles in that I have very fair skin that burns in 10 minutes in the sun. My father was different and tanned really well. All that was said in the previous posts was that a certain amount of people had Type 1 skin, then Type 2 skin etc. There are people with darker complexions in Britain / Ireland but they are in the minority. So you are one of the people that tan better than the majority of people that have long term ancestry in the British Isles.
But what we are saying is that its not 'typical' - most people I know (and most are British) DO NOT have very fair skin - of course SOME do but believe me most do not.
But what we are saying is that its not 'typical' - most people I know (and most are British) DO NOT have very fair skin - of course SOME do but believe me most do not.
OK then. I'm not British but Irish and I would have thought British weren't that much different? I know a lot of British people and they appear fair skinned in the majority to me.
Anyway studies on British populations do not agree that the majority of British don't have fair skin. As I said my father tanned well but he wasn't like the majority of Irish who are known for having very white skin.
I would say British people tend to be quite fair skinned at least compared to the rest of Europe.
Yes that seems to be what studies say. Britain afterall isn't known for a sunny climate so why would people have a need to be able to tan when white skin would be much more beneficial in that sort of climate? The countries with the least amount of sunlight in Europe are places like Ireland, Britain, Norway and parts of Northern Russia.
If you got fair skin, the sensible thing is to generally to stay out of the sun or wear high factor sun block rather than trying to get a tan. Sun damage can cause all kinds of problems including skin cancer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.