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.
So hardly anybody in London are 'British!?' So what about Birmingham? Or Bristol? Or Manchester? What percentage of Britons do you think are actually British? I'm sorry but 'British' is simply not an ethnicity
So let's go back to basics. This is a simplistic but generally accurate summary of the genetic history of European nations, as we currently understand it: All human populations have a common origin in sub-Saharan Africa. Some human populations (i.e. all non sub-Saharan Africans) have a small percentage of Neanderthal admixture. Some out-of-Africa populations, notably Australasians, have Neanderthal admixture and admixture with another archaic hominid -- known as Denisova. This latter admixture seems to be absent (or extremely minimal) in Europeans, but seems to be present in East Asians, though at levels lower than in Australasians.
The early out-of-Africa population split fairly early (at least 24,000 years ago) into the ancestors of modern West Eurasians (Europeans, Near Easterners, Middle Easterners, and North Africans) and modern East Eurasians (East Asians, Australasians and South Indians). Within 'West Eurasia' there were two major genetic sub-populations: those related to the original hunter-gather populations of Europe, and, as we now know, Siberia (this European-like Siberian population was present, unmixed with East Asians, at least 17,000 years ago, and was present at lake Baikal 24,000 years ago). The other principal population ancestral to modern Europeans was the Neolithic farmer population, which was Near Eastern in immediate origin and physically 'Mediterranean' (modern Sardinians are almost pure descendants of this population). This farmer population worked its way through Europe, blending with the aboriginal Northern-European-like hunter gathers, and becoming ancestrally dominant in Southern Europe. Essentially, all Europeans are blends of these two populations, though in different proportions (with Lithuanians and Finns being the most hunter-gatherer-descended modern Europeans, and Sardinians, Cypriots and Greeks being the most farmer-descended).
So then, we have all Europeans being essentially descended from the same ancestors, but differing in their ratios of descent from these ancestral populations. Some populations are complicated a little by subsequent admixture (e.g. Russians and Finns have ~5-10% East Asian ancestry, Portuguese and Sicilians have ~3% sub-Saharan ancestry), but overall, Europeans are a very homogenous group in their relations with other global populations. Here's a PCA of the world:
Europeans are at the northern point, East Asians at the southern point (although Australasians and South Indians are also found in this direction), sub-Saharan Africans are at the western point. Mixed populations occupy intermediate positions (North Africans and East Africans are located between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans; S. Asians are between Europeans and 'purer' S. Indian populations etc.)
Now, within Europe, we see a similar thing: diversification of variation into relatively discrete clusters. These genetic clusters consist of individuals who are 1) genetically similar (i.e. descend from a common population or set of populations), and 2) share recent ancestry with one another. As you saw in the PCA of Europe I linked to a few posts ago, similar populations cluster near each other (e.g. Britons and Germans; Poles and Czechs etc.) and members of the same nationality (i.e. 'breeding population') are closer still. In some cases, nations have a fairly wide range of variation. This is usually because 1) members of that population generally have less shared ancestry than is the case in other populations and/or 2) members of that population have significant admixture that they don't share with other members of their own population. We see that while North Italians are very similar to other Northern Italians and Southern Italians are similar to other Southern Italians, Northern and Southern Italians are fairly distinct from one another. This is the result of several of the factors I mentioned above.
All people of the British Isles cluster pretty tightly together, with Irish being the most outlying, but hardly to a significant degree. This is because they 1) as NW Europeans, have very similar levels of Neolithic/Hunter-gather ancestry, 2) share close common descent prior to Celtic/Germanic ethnogenesis, 3) have no non-European ancestry, 4) owe a significant portion of their ancestry to an aboriginal British population, 5) when invaded, were invaded by genetically very similar populations (Gaels, Anglo-Saxons, Jutes, Vikings, Normans etc.), 6) had some invasions in common (Normans in England and Wales, Vikings in England, Scotland and Ireland, Anglo-Saxons in Southern Scotland etc., 7) have reasonably high genetic exchange with one another (English and Welsh in feudal Ireland -- with 'Walsh', meaning 'Welsh' being among the most common Irish surnames -- Scots in Ulster, 19th century Irish to England, and blurred ethnic boundaries around border regions -- for example, some of my ancestors lived in Shropshire, about a mile from the Welsh border for centuries, and their surnames were a mixture of English and Welsh, 8) have considerable isolation from outside populations in the last ~900 years or so, and finally 9) have an overwhelming tendency for any group that has a common founder and in some way preferences ethnic endogamy to become a genetically distinct group over a fairly small number of generations (e.g. Ashkenazi Jews).
----------
So, back to your original claim that there was no such thing as 'looking British', because you erroneously claimed that British people were just a random collection of European (or possibly even global) genes, with nothing more in common ancestrally/genetically with each other than with an Italian, or Egyptian, or Tibetan. I think I've sufficiently demonstrated, with scientific evidence, that the claim is false. Britons share very similar genes. Physical appearance, especially what you might term 'racial appearance', is genetic. If Britons share genes, then they share physical genes, and hence obviously must have 'a look'. If you go back to the PCAs I linked to, you can see this yourself. Populations that look similar, are, unsurprisingly, genetically similar. Britons are closer to Germans than they are to Greeks, and Britons 'coincidentally' look more similar to Germans than they do to Greeks. Britons look more like Italians than they look like Chinese, and Britons are closer to Italians than they are to the Chinese. Britons are more genetically similar to each other than they are to Germans, hence they in general look more similar to each other than they do to Germans. Yes, there may be exceptions. However, these exceptions are mostly in Asia, with East Asians and, say, Papuans looking completely different, yet having quite a strong ancient connection. But overall, it's not rocket science.
Quote:
you just can't claim that you have to have a certain ethnic DNA before you can call yourself 'proper British'
You don't seem to understand the distinction between nationality and ethnicity (and, yes, I know that 'nationality' used to mean what today we mean by 'ethnicity', but that's just academic).
Quote:
to suggest otherwise is incorrect and dare I say a little bit racist
Then feel free to write letters of complaint to all professors of modern population genetics.
So let's go back to basics. This is a simplistic but generally accurate summary of the genetic history of European nations, as we currently understand it: All human populations have a common origin in sub-Saharan Africa. Some human populations (i.e. all non sub-Saharan Africans) have a small percentage of Neanderthal admixture. Some out-of-Africa populations, notably Australasians, have Neanderthal admixture and admixture with another archaic hominid -- known as Denisova. This latter admixture seems to be absent (or extremely minimal) in Europeans, but seems to be present in East Asians, though at levels lower than in Australasians.
The early out-of-Africa population split fairly early (at least 24,000 years ago) into the ancestors of modern West Eurasians (Europeans, Near Easterners, Middle Easterners, and North Africans) and modern East Eurasians (East Asians, Australasians and South Indians). Within 'West Eurasia' there were two major genetic sub-populations: those related to the original hunter-gather populations of Europe, and, as we now know, Siberia (this European-like Siberian population was present, unmixed with East Asians, at least 17,000 years ago, and was present at lake Baikal 24,000 years ago). The other principal population ancestral to modern Europeans was the Neolithic farmer population, which was Near Eastern in immediate origin and physically 'Mediterranean' (modern Sardinians are almost pure descendants of this population). This farmer population worked its way through Europe, blending with the aboriginal Northern-European-like hunter gathers, and becoming ancestrally dominant in Southern Europe. Essentially, all Europeans are blends of these two populations, though in different proportions (with Lithuanians and Finns being the most hunter-gatherer-descended modern Europeans, and Sardinians, Cypriots and Greeks being the most farmer-descended).
So then, we have all Europeans being essentially descended from the same ancestors, but differing in their ratios of descent from these ancestral populations. Some populations are complicated a little by subsequent admixture (e.g. Russians and Finns have ~5-10% East Asian ancestry, Portuguese and Sicilians have ~3% sub-Saharan ancestry), but overall, Europeans are a very homogenous group in their relations with other global populations. Here's a PCA of the world:
Europeans are at the northern point, East Asians at the southern point (although Australasians and South Indians are also found in this direction), sub-Saharan Africans are at the western point. Mixed populations occupy intermediate positions (North Africans and East Africans are located between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans; S. Asians are between Europeans and 'purer' S. Indian populations etc.)
Now, within Europe, we see a similar thing: diversification of variation into relatively discrete clusters. These genetic clusters consist of individuals who are 1) genetically similar (i.e. descend from a common population or set of populations), and 2) share recent ancestry with one another. As you saw in the PCA of Europe I linked to a few posts ago, similar populations cluster near each other (e.g. Britons and Germans; Poles and Czechs etc.) and members of the same nationality (i.e. 'breeding population') are closer still. In some cases, nations have a fairly wide range of variation. This is usually because 1) members of that population generally have less shared ancestry than is the case in other populations and/or 2) members of that population have significant admixture that they don't share with other members of their own population. We see that while North Italians are very similar to other Northern Italians and Southern Italians are similar to other Southern Italians, Northern and Southern Italians are fairly distinct from one another. This is the result of several of the factors I mentioned above.
All people of the British Isles cluster pretty tightly together, with Irish being the most outlying, but hardly to a significant degree. This is because they 1) as NW Europeans, have very similar levels of Neolithic/Hunter-gather ancestry, 2) share close common descent prior to Celtic/Germanic ethnogenesis, 3) have no non-European ancestry, 4) owe a significant portion of their ancestry to an aboriginal British population, 5) when invaded, were invaded by genetically very similar populations (Gaels, Anglo-Saxons, Jutes, Vikings, Normans etc.), 6) had some invasions in common (Normans in England and Wales, Vikings in England, Scotland and Ireland, Anglo-Saxons in Southern Scotland etc., 7) have reasonably high genetic exchange with one another (English and Welsh in feudal Ireland -- with 'Walsh', meaning 'Welsh' being among the most common Irish surnames -- Scots in Ulster, 19th century Irish to England, and blurred ethnic boundaries around border regions -- for example, some of my ancestors lived in Shropshire, about a mile from the Welsh border for centuries, and their surnames were a mixture of English and Welsh, 8) have considerable isolation from outside populations in the last ~900 years or so, and finally 9) have an overwhelming tendency for any group that has a common founder and in some way preferences ethnic endogamy to become a genetically distinct group over a fairly small number of generations (e.g. Ashkenazi Jews).
----------
So, back to your original claim that there was no such thing as 'looking British', because you erroneously claimed that British people were just a random collection of European (or possibly even global) genes, with nothing more in common ancestrally/genetically with each other than with an Italian, or Egyptian, or Tibetan. I think I've sufficiently demonstrated, with scientific evidence, that the claim is false. Britons share very similar genes. Physical appearance, especially what you might term 'racial appearance', is genetic. If Britons share genes, then they share physical genes, and hence obviously must have 'a look'. If you go back to the PCAs I linked to, you can see this yourself. Populations that look similar, are, unsurprisingly, genetically similar. Britons are closer to Germans than they are to Greeks, and Britons 'coincidentally' look more similar to Germans than they do to Greeks. Britons look more like Italians than they look like Chinese, and Britons are closer to Italians than they are to the Chinese. Britons are more genetically similar to each other than they are to Germans, hence they in general look more similar to each other than they do to Germans. Yes, there may be exceptions. However, these exceptions are mostly in Asia, with East Asians and, say, Papuans looking completely different, yet having quite a strong ancient connection. But overall, it's not rocket science.
You don't seem to understand the distinction between nationality and ethnicity (and, yes, I know that 'nationality' used to mean what today we mean by 'ethnicity', but that's just academic).
Then feel free to write letters of complaint to all professors of modern population genetics.
With respect, I believe you are the one that may be having trouble distinguishing 'ethnicity' with 'nationality' because you claim that there is a 'British look' and an ethnic identity to being 'British' when there isn't, there are Britons with EVERY single type of 'look' there is, British is not an ethnicity its a nationality - a nation of people with every type of 'genetic mix' that its possible to get. Yes there are more caucasions than 'black' people but it doesn't mean you have to be caucasion to be British, yes there are more brunettes than blondes but it doesn't mean you have to be 'brunette' to be British neither do you have to have green eyes, short arms, big noses or egg shaped heads - simply put there is NOT a type of 'genetic mix' that is British, I work in an office full of British people with different coloured skin, hair and eyes we are all different shapes and sizes too. I know the 'genetics' of Britons has changed, is changing and will change, why is 'Anglo-Saxon' considered by (some) people to be the true 'British' genetic type when they themselves immigrated from elsewhere. Perhaps the Druids at the time decided that they were the real 'genetic' Britons! going way back to the original question where somebody answered 'the British burn the most' is just not correct, red haired, pale skinned Britons are amongs the (worlds) population of red haired, pale skinned people that will burn the quickest of all people but its NOT because of their nationality, ie (some) Britons will be (amongst) the people on this planet that burn the easiest along with (some) Germans, (some) Americans, (some) Italians or (some) Spaniards.
With respect, I believe you are the one that may be having trouble distinguishing 'ethnicity' with 'nationality' because you claim that there is a 'British look' and an ethnic identity to being 'British' when there isn't, there are Britons with EVERY single type of 'look' there is, British is not an ethnicity its a nationality - a nation of people with every type of 'genetic mix' that its possible to get.
The current Britain is one of nationality as the county had a massive influx of immigrants in the past 50-60 years. However those who are 100% of the British Isles are ethnic, like me. And we are the vast majority.
Of all the people in the world, overall the British burn in the sun more easier than others.
I will try and simplify my argument a bit. Some people on here are using terms like 'ethnically British' - there is no such thing, the Nazis believed that 'true' Germans were blond haired and blue eyed, they called them the 'Arian' race but luckily enough in this day and age the British government dont believe that you have to have certain genetic make-up before you are allowed to be 'British'. (Some) people are telling me that my girlfriend is not 'ethnically' British however like Ive said before 'British' is NOT an ethnicity, my girlfriend was born, bred and has lived in Britain her whole life, she has a passport - a British one, she is British so therefore whatever her genetic make-up is whether Anglo-Saxon, Norman, Scandinavian, Jamaican, German, all of the above or any 'mix' of the above she has a British genetic make-up.
You argue like a child. I'm surprised you don't pepper your posts with capitalised sentences and multiple exclamation marks. If you did, you'd be a pure stereotype. Yes, Hitler existed, therefore -- what? Therefore, Spaniards aren't an ethnic group? Therefore, Ainu Japanese aren't an ethnic group? Han Chinese aren't an ethnic group? Hitler existed, therefore two Han Chinese people are as likely to be more related to a sub-Saharan Yoruban than to each other. I see. Good points all.
Quote:
Were Britons 'genetics' different 200 years ago to what they are now, yes
Or to be more insightful, my genetics aren't different from those of people living on the same patch of land 200 years ago (although, the patch of land where I live probably wasn't actually inhabited, but whatever). 'Surprisingly', I also look like those same people, and therefore I share 'a look' with them that is lacking in people who don't have my genetic background.
Quote:
were they different again 1000 years ago, yes
Actually, not all that much.
Quote:
were they different yet again 5000 years ago, yes
Yes, the Neolithic population likely shook things up a bit.
Quote:
but it doesn't mean that at any one particular time the 'genetics' on the island were the only 'true' British ones.
Who used the word 'true'? The only genetic population that currently corresponds to the British Isles uniquely is that which is commonly known as 'white British'. Indian immigrants have genetics that correspond to India (or a region thereof), not to Britain. Polish immigrants, likewise. If a unique genetic signature begins to evolve in, let's say, black Britons, which they all or mostly share, and this population is not replicated elsewhere, and moreover, isn't a simple result of admixture with the native population (thereby merely partaking of the uniqueness of another population), then absolutely they can be considered a 'British ethnic group', however, obviously not one related to the earlier, 'white British' population. In fact, many nations have multiple ethnicities within them. Ainu Japanese and mainland Japanese. Han Chinese, Manchurian Chinese etc. They are both 'Japanese' or 'Chinese' populations respectively, but only a dimwit would consider them to be the same population on that account.
Quote:
I know my girlfriend is bi-racial but you do not have to be caucasion to be British, you do not have to have certain xyz genes to be British, you do not have to have blond hair, red hair, brown hair, blue or brown eyes to be British and you NEVER have.
Finally, after 50 or so posts, you finally said something that is correct. I knew you had it in you. I believed in you. You are absolutely right: at no point in the history of Britain has anyone been rejected as a Briton for not having brown hair. (Actually, you're probably still slightly wrong, because there must've been one person somewhere, sometime who genuinely thought no one without brown hair could be a Briton. In fact, I'm going to think it now, just to keep your record sheet of being right completely blank.)
Quote:
I wonder who the first black Briton was? I can tell you that it was certainly somebody born an awfully long time before my girlfriend.
Again, a Neanderthal once walked in China. Therefore, there are no Han (or any other type of) Chinese.
You argue like a child. I'm surprised you don't pepper your posts with capitalised sentences and multiple exclamation marks. If you did, you'd be a pure stereotype. Yes, Hitler existed, therefore -- what? Therefore, Spaniards aren't an ethnic group? Therefore, Ainu Japanese aren't an ethnic group? Han Chinese aren't an ethnic group? Hitler existed, therefore two Han Chinese people are as likely to be more related to a sub-Saharan Yoruban than to each other. I see. Good points all.
Or to be more insightful, my genetics aren't different from those of people living on the same patch of land 200 years ago (although, the patch of land where I live probably wasn't actually inhabited, but whatever). 'Surprisingly', I also look like those same people, and therefore I share 'a look' with them that is lacking in people who don't have my genetic background.
Actually, not all that much.
Yes, the Neolithic population likely shook things up a bit.
Who used the word 'true'? The only genetic population that currently corresponds to the British Isles uniquely is that which is commonly known as 'white British'. Indian immigrants have genetics that correspond to India (or a region thereof), not to Britain. Polish immigrants, likewise. If a unique genetic signature begins to evolve in, let's say, black Britons, which they all or mostly share, and this population is not replicated elsewhere, and moreover, isn't a simple result of admixture with the native population (thereby merely partaking of the uniqueness of another population), then absolutely they can be considered a 'British ethnic group', however, obviously not one related to the earlier, 'white British' population. In fact, many nations have multiple ethnicities within them. Ainu Japanese and mainland Japanese. Han Chinese, Manchurian Chinese etc. They are both 'Japanese' or 'Chinese' populations respectively, but only a dimwit would consider them to be the same population on that account.
Finally, after 50 or so posts, you finally said something that is correct. I knew you had it in you. I believed in you. You are absolutely right: at no point in the history of Britain has anyone been rejected as a Briton for not having brown hair. (Actually, you're probably still slightly wrong, because there must've been one person somewhere, sometime who genuinely thought no one without brown hair could be a Briton. In fact, I'm going to think it now, just to keep your record sheet of being right completely blank.)
Again, a Neanderthal once walked in China. Therefore, there are no Han (or any other type of) Chinese.
There is no need to insult me just because of my opinions so please don't. I haven't said anything new here, you seem to be agreeing with me on much of what I have said, I simply point out that there is no one particular type of 'British ethnicity' even what you describe as 'white Britons' have ancestory from all over the place, I have cousins that are white, theyre British and they have a Spanish father and I am sure there are millions of Britons if not nearly all that at some point have an ancestor or more from somewhere other than these islands, yet it seems to me there are still (some) people living on this island that think of themselves as (more) or pure British because they are white and their grandparents both came from Sunderland, you are simply NOT more British because you have a certain type of genetic make-up.
There is no need to insult me just because of my opinions so please don't.
It's obvious to me that you're not even trying to understand my points. I've had plenty of debates with creationists and New Age 'philosophers' and flat Earthers etc., who, while having no leg to stand on logically, continue to assert their numbskullery despite any and all refutation. At some point in the discussion, they all eventually start typing entire sentences in block capitals and punctuating each block-capital sentence with a minimum of seventeen exclamation marks, which I always translate in my head to: "Will someone please think about the children!!!"
Quote:
I haven't said anything new here, you seem to be agreeing with me on much of what I have said
If it seems that way to you, it can only be through a lack of comprehension.
Quote:
I simply point out that there is no one particular type of 'British ethnicity'
You could argue that English, Scottish, Welsh, Manx, Ulster, Irish etc. are separate ethnicities. There's some genetic justification for that view (albeit not much, as I've touched on before), and, of course, 'ethnicity' to some degree involves a cultural element.
Quote:
even what you describe as 'white Britons' have ancestory from all over the place
Well, obviously people have bacterial ancestry at some point in their evolutionary history. You really need to specify a time-frame for 'location of one's ancestors' to be particularly meaningful. I've already shown you evidence that white Britons are one of the least exotically admixed populations in Europe (and the world).
Quote:
I have cousins that are white, theyre British and they have a Spanish father
And? That's not even really an exotic mix by London standards. But they're obviously Anglo-Spanish, or Ibero-British. Whatever you want to call them, they're not ethnically British and not ethnically Spanish, but 50% of each. Having a British passport isn't going to make them plot anywhere but intermediately between the British and Spanish clusters in European genetic PCAs.
Quote:
and I am sure there are millions of Britons if not nearly all that at some point have an ancestor or more from somewhere other than these islands
Again, this is meaningless without specifying a time-frame. If we're talking about the post-Norman period, then not really. I've seen a lot of British people's family trees, and the most 'exotic' thing in the vast majority of them is Irish (and the majority lack even this). Occasionally, someone might be 1/256 German, or even Northern Italian. Obviously a drop in the ocean considering the small % and relative similarity of the admixing populations. For the record, I have no post-Norman ancestry outside of the British Isles, but I do have ancestry from every British Isles nation (though the Scottish in me is minuscule).
Quote:
yet it seems to me there are still (some) people living on this island that think of themselves as (more) or pure British because they are white and their grandparents both came from Sunderland, you are simply NOT more British because you have a certain type of genetic make-up.
People have four grandparents, not two.
And, again, I can only baffle at your ongoing inability to differentiate passport nationality and ethnic heritage. Passport nationality is qualitative, not quantitative, so everyone who is nationally British is equally so. Genealogy is quantitative, not qualitative, so not everyone in Britain is equally genealogically British.
-----------------
And since, I'm doing 90% of the talking (and 100% of the correct-being), I want to ask you this: Which ethnicities do you acknowledge to exist?
It's obvious to me that you're not even trying to understand my points. I've had plenty of debates with creationists and New Age 'philosophers' and flat Earthers etc., who, while having no leg to stand on logically, continue to assert their numbskullery despite any and all refutation. At some point in the discussion, they all eventually start typing entire sentences in block capitals and punctuating each block-capital sentence with a minimum of seventeen exclamation marks, which I always translate in my head to: "Will someone please think about the children!!!"
If it seems that way to you, it can only be through a lack of comprehension.
You could argue that English, Scottish, Welsh, Manx, Ulster, Irish etc. are separate ethnicities. There's some genetic justification for that view (albeit not much, as I've touched on before), and, of course, 'ethnicity' to some degree involves a cultural element.
Well, obviously people have bacterial ancestry at some point in their evolutionary history. You really need to specify a time-frame for 'location of one's ancestors' to be particularly meaningful. I've already shown you evidence that white Britons are one of the least exotically admixed populations in Europe (and the world).
And? That's not even really an exotic mix by London standards. But they're obviously Anglo-Spanish, or Ibero-British. Whatever you want to call them, they're not ethnically British and not ethnically Spanish, but 50% of each. Having a British passport isn't going to make them plot anywhere but intermediately between the British and Spanish clusters in European genetic PCAs.
Again, this is meaningless without specifying a time-frame. If we're talking about the post-Norman period, then not really. I've seen a lot of British people's family trees, and the most 'exotic' thing in the vast majority of them is Irish (and the majority lack even this). Occasionally, someone might be 1/256 German, or even Northern Italian. Obviously a drop in the ocean considering the small % and relative similarity of the admixing populations. For the record, I have no post-Norman ancestry outside of the British Isles, but I do have ancestry from every British Isles nation (though the Scottish in me is minuscule).
People have four grandparents, not two.
And, again, I can only baffle at your ongoing inability to differentiate passport nationality and ethnic heritage. Passport nationality is qualitative, not quantitative, so everyone who is nationally British is equally so. Genealogy is quantitative, not qualitative, so not everyone in Britain is equally genealogically British.
-----------------
And since, I'm doing 90% of the talking (and 100% of the correct-being), I want to ask you this: Which ethnicities do you acknowledge to exist?
They ARE British so therefore WHATEVER their 'ethnic make-up' is it is a BRITISH ethnic make-up, if they were born in Spain to the same parents and their passport was Spanish they would be Spanish and their self / same 'ethnic make-up' would be a SPANISH ethnic make-up! Despite what the Nazis thought nationality has absolutely nothing to do with somebodies ethnicity, nothing, being British is not dependant on your DNA its a 'man-made' identity and the identity is decided on where you were born and not on what you look like.
This is turning into one of my all-time classic debates. I've dealt with people who literally believed in the existence of elves, literally believed they were the humanly-embodied soul of a wolf, literally believed that shape-shifting lizards pull all the strings behind world government, literally believed that 'innocent until proven guilty' was a 'hyper-liberal piece of insanity', literally believed that seeing two birds of prey in one day meant that 'the gods' were trying to communicate something to them...and none of them were as unable to digest the points I made to them than you have been so far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by easthome
They ARE British so therefore WHATEVER their 'ethnic make-up' is it is a BRITISH ethnic make-up
An inane piece of sophistry. So I'll put it another way: All of those groups could have 'British' in their ethnic description (Black-British, Asian-British, Spanish-British etc.). However, the only group that can simply call itself 'British' or 'British-British' is the one people are referring to when they're talking about 'British skin-types', which is what's relevant in assessing propensity to sunburn. I won't explain this point anymore, since I've already done so about 17 times, and if it continues to elude you at this point, then you will never get it.
Quote:
Despite what the Nazis thought nationality has absolutely nothing to do with somebodies ethnicity, nothing, being British is not dependant on your DNA its a 'man-made' identity and the identity is decided on where you were born and not on what you look like.
WILL SOMEONE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE OH GOD PLEASE PLEASE THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Also, you didn't answer my question: If Britons aren't an ethnicity, can you name some examples of groups that are ethnicities?
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.
