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.
Are you incapable of understanding English? Why do you keep going on about 'black' people! I will repeat my post, read it again and try and understand it.
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
Do you understand now! If not try reading again, more slowly, is English not your first language? Did you do the maths I told you to do? Can you do maths? I will ask again - go back just 20 generations and tell me how many direct ancestors you have. Please answer this question first then we will do some more maths. Incidentally it was not me but THE BBC that tells us how many white Britons have black ancestors from Georgian times, now I am pretty sure that the BBC has better knowledge than you when it comes to British history no?
Sub-Saharan or Black ancestry in European population. I already watched that video a while ago, is negligible and quite low. The vast majority of (White) Britons are of Celtic(Brythonic and Gaelic) and Germanic(Anglo-Saxons, Vikings) ancestry, this is why they are White in the first place and not Sub-Saharan . My statement doesn't concern those who are of mixed-racial background or Black, Asian, etc... If Sub-Saharan ancestry was so predominant, they would not be White. It was 10,000-15,000 Black people who lived in Georgian Britain, most were just mere slaves and servants, not all of them intermingled with Whites either.
Good grief, do you not see the point being made, do I REALLY need to post the same again. I know perhaps I shall only post a part of it:-
I am only using this as an EXAMPLE of how quickly (over a few generations) that 'foreign' genes become part of a population
Yet all you keep harping on about is black people! Incidentally 2-3 million WHITE people, I repeat WHITE people, again WHITE people have black Georgian Britons as ancestors, that's 2-3 million WHITE people, that's WHITE people, people that are WHITE, not people that look mixed race but WHITE people, most of which don't even realise there are black people in their ancestry. See the BBC program 'The history of black Britain' if you don't believe me. Has this sunk in or are you going to start harping on about mixed races again? Now why did I mention that 2-3 million WHITE people have the Georgian black population as ancestors? Was it to make some kind of 'racial' point NO!! but rather to highlight the following:-
I am only using this as an EXAMPLE of how quickly (over a few generations) that 'foreign' genes become part of a population
Now do you understand? 2-3 million Britons are related to the same 15 thousand or so people living only a couple of hundred years ago, that is the point, their colour is IRRELEVANT. So instead of replying with a load of gibberish about black and white people please comment on the point being made. Before you do think about how many direct ancestors EVERY single one of the 60 million or so Britons have, to do this do the maths, how many direct ancestors does each and every one of us have if you go back just 20 generations - do the maths then get back to me.
Yes a whole Italians have grown much taller than before, but historically they were known to be typically not so tall, rather medium in stature, dark/black-haired, brown-eyed with a dark/swarthy complexion( olive). Perhaps that's why the stereotype of being "short" was attached to them. Though one of my closest friends is Italian-American(100%) and he's above average (6 feet 3 inches), so I know that Italian-Americans vary too.
Maybe in USA but in Italy you find in every decade blond/red hair with blue/green eyes and very light complexion so such in north and south (because in the south, they have mainly Italic, Greek and Norman origins. All people with pale skin). I have light hair and blue eyes for example.
All the things that are said here about Italians are stereoptypes. Italians are taller than the Americans not only since today but at least since the early 2000. So for some persons : please inform you before to say wrong and unfounded things, thank you.
All the things that are said here about Italians are stereoptypes. Italians are taller than the Americans not only since today but at least since the early 2000. So for some persons : please inform you before to say wrong and unfounded things, thank you.
Not sure if it is the same if you compare with white Americans.
All the things that are said here about Italians are stereoptypes. Italians are taller than the Americans not only since today but at least since the early 2000. So for some persons : please inform you before to say wrong and unfounded things, thank you.
It hasn't been that long. Probably that's why the stereotype still held.
Maybe in USA but in Italy you find in every decade blond/red hair with blue/green eyes and very light complexion so such in north and south (because in the south, they have mainly Italic, Greek and Norman origins. All people with pale skin). I have light hair and blue eyes for example.
You are confused. Remember, historically America was settled by a majority of Whites who were of Northern and Western European descent. Thus Italians who are Southern Europeans were on average of darker pigmentation in comparison to them, that's where the "dark" or "swarthy" Italian stereotype comes in. This doesn't mean there weren't Italians who were red/blond/light-haired, blue-eyed, etc...! John Travolta is of Italian but also Irish descent I believe, not a good example.
What was perceived as the typical Italian are like;
Alessandro Nesta
Luca Argentero
Bernado Corradi
Maybe in USA but in Italy you find in every decade blond/red hair with blue/green eyes and very light complexion so such in north and south (because in the south, they have mainly Italic, Greek and Norman origins. All people with pale skin). I have light hair and blue eyes for example.
The Italian "dark stereotype" is not an American invention either.
Scientific proof by the 2012 GWAS study on pigmentation in four European populations (Irish, Italian, Polish, Portuguese) when comparing averages for skin, hair and eye colours:
* Skin colour (lightest to darkest):
Irish
Polish
Portuguese
Italian
*Hair colour:
Irish
Polish
Portuguese
Italian
*Eye colour
Irish
Polish
Italian
Portuguese
So overall the Northern Europeans (Irish, Polish) were on average lighter than Southern Europeans (Italian, Portuguese). This doesn't mean that Italians or Portuguese who are lighter-pigmented weren't present. Thus let's not blame it on Americans, just for the sake of it.
You are confused. Remember, historically America was settled by a majority of Whites who were of Northern and Western European descent. Thus Italians who are Southern Europeans were on average of darker pigmentation in comparison to them, that's where the "dark" or "swarthy" Italian stereotype comes in. This doesn't mean there weren't Italians who were red/blond/light-haired, blue-eyed, etc...! John Travolta is of Italian but also Irish descent I believe, not a good example.
What was perceived as the typical Italian are like;
Alessandro Nesta
Luca Argentero
Bernado Corradi
According what Travolta we see about him (frequently in Italy, show himself with a t-shirt of Italy team) I think he maybe consider himself close to Italy. It's only an opinion nothing to have with blood of course.
Swarthy is a thing, "deep" is another one. But there aren't for your stereotypes. Nesta (in passing world champion) and Corradi are almost 1.90 m. But ok for this two and that's proves that Italians have a lot of origins.
Argentero is approximately 1.85 m. Personally I don't see Argentero like a swarthy maybe you say just because his mother is Sicilian.
Ginger is 1.20 m. He descends from dwarf Irish from Japan.
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.
