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.
It isn't that Americans are short, rather we have remained the same since about the 70's, while other developed countries (European ones) have grown much faster than we did. Many European nations who were shorter than us in times past not only caught up with us but bypassed us. To a lesser extent that has also happened to the British. At the beginning of the 20th century, Americans were well amongst the tallest nation, this has changed drastically in the 21th century. So it's not purely nutrition only, but healthy nutrition (enough of it).
Of course when I say nutrition I think about healthy food. And I repeat the ethnic origins are not important for the height average. Because the different antique and medieval peoples hadn't no big height's difference according to the archeologists. An other thing, according to the researches and the antique sources, I don't se all this physical differences between the Gallics, Helvetians, Noricum people, Britons and Lombards, Anglo-saxons, Goths, Frisians, Veneti, Bavari, Burgundi etc
White British have not changed much genetically, fact. Actually the POBI genetic map of Britain resembles very much so Britain of the 600 A.D. I was so astonished to find that out! With the the Germanic blood ( Anglo-Saxon) more frequent eastwards especially in England and Celtic or pre-Saxon era genes from the Brythonic and/ Pictish genes westwards maximizing in Scotland, Wales. So this is why blondism is most common eastwards and red hair is most common in the west. White British are most similar to North-West European Whites and their similarities decreases as one moves away southwards or eastwards. Ha!ha!ha! White English are not Blacks! I don't think there was a greater oppressor of Black people than the White English whether in the days of slavery or colonialism! In the Georgian period, some African or people of African descent came to work as serfs in Britain, there were some interracial unions, however racism was the rule in Britain. Sub-Saharan ancestry in the White English is a joke and of no importance. You will find more of it in Iberian and Italian populations who were less racialist societies, even there it's still insignificant. The toughest model of racialist segregation were made by White British colonialists and their descendants. I get your point where you're trying to sympathize with the people, you oppressed for so long. That's O.K., but stick to reality. "Mixed bunch", my foot! If they were so "mixed" as you say, why do White Britons as a whole are predominantly R1b-L21/R1b-U106 in their haplogroups and a substantial frequency of White English have the I1a Y-Dna as a many Scandinavians do? According to a BBC study in 2013, as many as 40% of British women use fake tanning products, this wouldn't be necessary if they were predominantly a mixed-race bunch, would it? All you should have said is that you were out of context. It's that simple, but don't come and lie to me that those pale English people are Black, nonsense! Yes I know that in Britain today, there are immigrants from all over the world but it's not much different from the Netherlands, Germany, France, etc... nothing special.
what nonsense - 2 to 3 MILLION WHITE British people are descendants of the black people living in Britain in Georgian times - a fact given to me by the BBC, think on that for one moment and then think on this - EVERY Britain can trace some ancestry back to Charlemagne, now think on how on earth exactly are we supposed to believe that there are 'Anglo Saxon' Englishmen with pur 'Anglo Saxon' blood? Just do the maths, its about term you accepted the fact that the English and all British people are an incredibly genetically mixed bunch of people. P.S. I haven't 'oppressed' anybody so your completely ridiculous statement is childish at best downright stupid at worst.
what nonsense - 2 to 3 MILLION WHITE British people are descendants of the black people living in Britain in Georgian times - a fact given to me by the BBC, think on that for one moment and then think on this - EVERY Britain can trace some ancestry back to Charlemagne, now think on how on earth exactly are we supposed to believe that there are 'Anglo Saxon' Englishmen with pur 'Anglo Saxon' blood? Just do the maths, its about term you accepted the fact that the English and all British people are an incredibly genetically mixed bunch of people. P.S. I haven't 'oppressed' anybody so your completely ridiculous statement is childish at best downright stupid at worst.
I am stating facts, unlike you. I am well aware, even more than you are, that every European group is obviously somehow interlinked with other Europeans. That doesn't change the fact that some groups are even more closely related like the Celtic or Germanic people, etc... You are not supposed to believe anything! The fact is that Anglo-Saxon genes had made the second strongest impact on the people (Whites) of Britain. Charlemagne was of Germanic descent (Frankish) anyway.
what nonsense - 2 to 3 MILLION WHITE British people are descendants of the black people living in Britain in Georgian times - a fact given to me by the BBC, think on that for one moment and then think on this - EVERY Britain can trace some ancestry back to Charlemagne, now think on how on earth exactly are we supposed to believe that there are 'Anglo Saxon' Englishmen with pur 'Anglo Saxon' blood? Just do the maths, its about term you accepted the fact that the English and all British people are an incredibly genetically mixed bunch of people. P.S. I haven't 'oppressed' anybody so your completely ridiculous statement is childish at best downright stupid at worst.
This wouldn't concern you, if you are of a mixed-racial background. Now genetical studies show that amongst (White) Europeans the level of North-African(Berber)/Sub-Saharan(Black) admixtures to be a very low levels. Even in areas of Europe closer to Africa and which had a longer contact with Africans such as the Iberia Peninsula (Especially Portugal, western and southern Spain), the admixture levels are still low. The vast majority of (White) Britons belong to the R1b Y-DNA haplogroup, O.K., others are R1a, I1a, and so forth. Haplogroups which are mostly common in European populations.
The (White) British are by a far a predominantly Caucasoid population not Africanoid. This is why they are light-pigmented.
Now this is the genomic make-up of various European populations by the National Geographic Genographic Project. The Sub-Saharan/Black genome is not of any importance in European populations.
BRITISH (UNITED KINGDOM)
Thus the dominant genomic element in the British population is the Northern European one. This is notable Northern European trait such as blue-eyed people are very common in the British population. The Mediterranean+Southwest Asian genetic elements came later with the introduction of farming and agriculture in Europe., though they are more dominant in Southern European and Middle-Eastern ones.
TUSCAN (ITALY)
SARDINIAN
The (White) British don't qualify as a mixed-raced bunch unfortunately.
Puerto-Rican people are a mixed-race people. You can clearly see that there are three racial genomes involved (European+Amerindian+African).
PUERTO RICAN
or Mexican folks too.
MEXICAN-AMERICAN
Last edited by saxonwold; 12-29-2016 at 10:13 PM..
This wouldn't concern you, if you are of a mixed-racial background. Now genetical studies show that amongst (White) Europeans the level of North-African(Berber)/Sub-Saharan(Black) admixtures to be a very low levels. Even in areas of Europe closer to Africa and which had a longer contact with Africans such as the Iberia Peninsula (Especially Portugal, western and southern Spain), the admixture levels are still low. The vast majority of (White) Britons belong to the R1b Y-DNA haplogroup, O.K., others are R1a, I1a, and so forth. Haplogroups which are mostly common in European populations.
The (White) British are by a far a predominantly Caucasoid population not Africanoid. This is why they are light-pigmented.
Now this is the genomic make-up of various European populations by the National Geographic Genographic Project. The Sub-Saharan/Black genome is not of any importance in European populations.
BRITISH (UNITED KINGDOM)
Thus the dominant genomic element in the British population is the Northern European one. This is notable Northern European trait such as blue-eyed people are very common in the British population. The Mediterranean+Southwest Asian genetic elements came later with the introduction of farming and agriculture in Europe., though they are more dominant in Southern European and Middle-Eastern ones.
TUSCAN (ITALY)
SARDINIAN
The (White) British don't qualify as a mixed-raced bunch unfortunately.
Puerto-Rican people are a mixed-race people. You can clearly see that there are three racial genomes involved (European+Amerindian+African).
PUERTO RICAN
or Mexican folks too.
MEXICAN-AMERICAN
As I said 2 to 3 MILLION white Britons are descended from the 200,000 black Britons living in Britain in the Georgian period (see the BBC series 'The history of black Britain' for this information), I am only using this as an EXAMPLE of how quickly (over a few generations) that 'foreign' genes become part of a population, there have been dozens of waves of immigration into Britain over the century's and EVERY Briton alive today whether he/she is white, black, brown or blue has a VERY mixed gene 'pool', this is why the British come in EVERY shade, size and look its possible to have on this planet. The British are NOT Celts, Saxons, Iberian, Romans, Asian or black but rather a mix of ALL of these, trying to argue that we belong to one group or that only one group can be considered as the 'true' British is a pointless exercise because the Saxons are not 'more British' than the Romans, the Celts, the Vikings, the Muslim, Christian, Catholic, black, brown or blond haired Britons are.
I don't think being tall is necessarily a good, or necessarily attractive.
For a man being between 174-178cm that's perfect size. For women 162-166. So for me, I think Italian men are the perfect height on average. The dutch and swedes for example are too big and bulky.
Additionally, to be height and weight proportional is more important than being tall.
I don't think being tall is necessarily a good, or necessarily attractive.
For a man being between 174-178cm that's perfect size. For women 162-166. So for me, I think Italian men are the perfect height on average. The dutch and swedes for example are too big and bulky.
Additionally, to be height and weight proportional is more important than being tall.
I agree with you although I would extend height limit to the 1,83 in men.-
More height only seems good for little more than playing baskeball.
Neither It seems that is best perhaps be very height, for the flexibility physical balance, and reflexes -
There is a new sciencie, the Auxology that deals with the reasons that condition of the stature of the man that says that genetics influences 60%, the feeding a 30% and environmental factors the 10%.Although these environmental factors are studied today because perhaps can influence more because has verified that the dutch who is the man more high today en Europe years ago were among the less high-
I don't think being tall is necessarily a good, or necessarily attractive.
For a man being between 174-178cm that's perfect size. For women 162-166. So for me, I think Italian men are the perfect height on average. The dutch and swedes for example are too big and bulky.
Additionally, to be height and weight proportional is more important than being tall.
As I said 2 to 3 MILLION white Britons are descended from the 200,000 black Britons living in Britain in the Georgian period (see the BBC series 'The history of black Britain' for this information), I am only using this as an EXAMPLE of how quickly (over a few generations) that 'foreign' genes become part of a population, there have been dozens of waves of immigration into Britain over the century's and EVERY Briton alive today whether he/she is white, black, brown or blue has a VERY mixed gene 'pool', this is why the British come in EVERY shade, size and look its possible to have on this planet. The British are NOT Celts, Saxons, Iberian, Romans, Asian or black but rather a mix of ALL of these, trying to argue that we belong to one group or that only one group can be considered as the 'true' British is a pointless exercise because the Saxons are not 'more British' than the Romans, the Celts, the Vikings, the Muslim, Christian, Catholic, black, brown or blond haired Britons are.
In the (White) British population, Sub-Saharan or Black blood is of no importance. Something that you are dreaming of. Not all those Black people in Britain during the Georgian period intermixed with White Britons either. It was not 200,000 rather between 10,000-15,000 Blacks due to the fact that Great Britain played a major role in the Trans-Atlantic Slave-trade. There is no scientific proof or biological proof that 2-3 million of White Britons are descended from African, rather if all those Black people intermixed with White people that could have been the result. There were Black people who were proud of who they were, even in those days of slavery which were a terrible time for people of African descent and refrained from intermixing with Whites.
However Dna studies show that Sub-Saharan ancestry in the (White) British population is nowhere close as important as you make it to be. Yes, there are some (White) British who might have distant African or Black ancestry, you might be one of them. However that doesn' t account the vast majority of (White) British who are for the most part just ordinary Europeans. Even Southern Europeans who have been in contact with Black or African people way before the British still have very little and insignificant African ancestry. Iberians (White Spaniards and Portuguese have the highest amount of Sub-Saharan mtDNA in Europe.)
And for blue eyes to be the most common eye colour in Ireland and Britain, shows that the (White) British are still pretty much Northern European. It is the only region in the world where blue eyes predominate. In non-European and mainly mixed-race countries, brown eyes hold sway by far! http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...EmVF3M3-CYasCg
Last edited by saxonwold; 01-05-2017 at 03:27 PM..
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.
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.
