|
Post by Vimara on Mar 13, 2004 19:37:55 GMT -5
I found this interesting if anyone has any informantion please post. anyway here is what i found:
Michel Leiris, writer, Director of Research at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique and Staff Member of the Muse de l'Homme:
It is ... absurd to talk about an English "race" or even to regard the English as being of the "Nordic" race. In point of fact, history teaches that, like all the people of Europe, the English people has become what it is through successive contributions of different peoples. England is a Celtic country, partially colonized by successive waves of Saxons, Danes and Normans from France, with some addition of Roman stock from the age of Julius Caesar onwards. Moreover, while an Englishman can be identified by his way of dressing, or even by his behaviour, it is impossible to tell that he is an Englishman merely from his physical appearance. Among the English, as among other Europeans, there are both fair people and dark, tall men and short, dolichocephalics and brachycephalics. It may be claimed that an Englishman can be readily identified from certain external characteristics which give him a "look" of his own: restraint in gesture (unlike the conventional gesticulating southerner), gait and facial expression, all expressing what is usually included under the rather vague term of "phlegm". However, anyone who made this claim would be likely to be found at fault in many instances, for by no means all the English have these characteristics, and even if they are the characteristics of the "typical Englishman", the fact would still remain that these outward characteristics are not "physique" in the true sense: bodily attitudes and motions and expressions of the face all come under the heading of behaviour; and being habits determined by the subject's social background, are cultural, not "natural". Moreover, though loosely describable as "traits", they typify not a whole nation, but a particular social group within it and thus cannot be included among the distinctive marks of race.
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Apr 18, 2004 18:58:16 GMT -5
It seems that Michel Leiris takes a purposefully limited view on what constitutes race. The English do indeed have an element of various populace contributions, but it should be borne in mind that from the time England was founded, the culture and genetic makeup of the English have been overwhelmingly Germanic and unchanged. He refers to successive waves of peoples, but neglects to mention that (despite the Normans who were also Germanic & had little impact in racial terms), this was before England was even founded. The English derived from that time, and considering just how long the period of unchanging commonality was, it is no surprise that someone can be part of an English racial group. I've no idea what he's talking about when mentioning English being of the Nordic race. Who is making such claims? Not the English I know. It reeks of "straw man" - Fallacious reasoning, used to misrepresent a position & thus make it easy to discredit. Devices such as this have no place in a well reasoned piece. I believe the writer has revealed an intent to mislead, or ignorance of the subject at hand. I will freely admit that I am prejudiced in this matter, since I am part of the "English" under scrutiny, but that can only strengthen my assertions of race & identity of course. No, English people do not have a shared distinct physical characteristic such as having three heads, but English people do indeed look English! I spend a lot of time travelling for work & pleasure (~15 times a year), & can spot fellow English people pretty quickly - even without cultural tell-tale signs. It doesn't seem such a difficult matter to spot Italians or Spanish either for example. I would be surprised in all honesty if none of you readers can tell the difference! Whilst it's certainly true that English people might have light or dark hair etc etc, It would be incredibly remiss to claim that the English have absolutely no genetically transmitted physical characteristics. Even in the early days of England's history, mention is made of the English people as a race (as opposed to Britons or Celts). It seems crazy to suggest that despite over a thousand years of being a distinct group of people, that this is less the case rather than more. Indeed, the terms England (land of the angles) & English came into being by racial definition in the first place! I find it objectionable that Michel Leiris seems so eager to disinherit me from my racial identity. In spite of what he erroneously suggests, buying a walking cane & bowler hat does not an English person make. Outrage over :-) On the subject of links, I guess I'd better provide one now. After looking around, I found this one. Has some info about genetic characteristics www.geocities.com/gracefiles/weale_etal_mbe3.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on Apr 19, 2004 6:33:34 GMT -5
Last night there was a TV program about William Shakespeare and Christopher Marlowe. Both Englishmen born in the same year. Both looked un English by your definition and they certainly could fit in in Spain or any Southern European country. What about the English you don't pick out? I am sure you are often wrong. I can pick out Australians abroad too - accent, dress, gait,activities, food preferences - what they look like is secondary.
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Apr 19, 2004 10:27:57 GMT -5
I agree, looks are secondary. Looks are not what defines someone as being part of the English race. In terms of cause & effect, looks are an effect rather than a cause.
It is the common ancestry that constitute the group rather than looks & I'm sorry if I was not clear about it. I can still, however, see the difference between Southern Europeans & English beyond the factors you mention. Are there exceptions? Of course. Could I guess wrongly with regards to someone ? I surely have. Yet, I find it defies belief to suggest that differences amongst all europeans are only down to cultural reasons (I'm having to make an assumption as to the definition of Europeans he uses). Anyone who has dated a variety of foreign girlfriends will know this. Without clothing, without gesture, without gait, without any of the distractions - one can clearly see & appreciate the differences.
The burden of proof, is with people seeking to redefine the history & identity of the English who have felt & been English for so long. Michel Leiris attempts just that, without proof, unconstrained by logic or sensitivity, and only serves to provide material for racial hatred & political motivations. Even a cursory glance at websites bearing the above quote will show groups of people with destructive interests at heart.
"English" does not confer nationhood or any sinister meaning - it's simply a group of people with common ancestry. I am British as my nationality & share the nation with other groups of people found within. We all have cultural & racial backgrounds, & it's important these are recognized and accepted in a constructive fashion, rather than attempting to suppress or diminish them.
|
|
|
Post by Vitor on May 20, 2004 9:25:33 GMT -5
Yes the english had a little mix northern blood on them. But that is not enough to say they are nordic! They are not!
they fall in the R1b haplogroup wich is the most common in western europe, I know where this came from... yap Iberia!
diregarding skin and hair colour you are more like the traditional french and spanish than with the traditional sweden...
|
|
|
Post by Cerdic on May 28, 2004 6:16:37 GMT -5
What were the Angles and Saxons originally? A few boatloads of pirates on the make. They were very successful it has to be said, they imposed their language and customs on a much larger native population, though this population was hampered by a complete social, political and infrastructure breakdown in the wake of the ebbing of Roman authority.
The most successful lineage of Anglo-Saxon leaders, the West-Saxon royal house, had a high level of British admixture. Its founder, my namesake, Cerdic had a British name, as did other kings, such as Ceawlin and Caedwalla.
|
|
|
Post by nordicyouth on May 30, 2004 5:38:59 GMT -5
But if you look at ancient Celtic Briton annals, you find that the Saxons and Angles had been occupying beachheads as Roman foederati for decades, and in fact after the Saxon Terror, no Celt was going to sit by and be overrun. The Germanic tribes in Britain and on the Continent were highly aggressive and forced the Celts to migrate, leaving little native population behind. This is how Germany was occupied, even Silesia had been Celtic, but was vacant after the Germans arrived. The Celts fled to Wales and Ireland and Scotland. Some remained for sure, but the English are in the majority Germanic.
Now they are mostly Jamaican and West African, but that's a recent development. *I can easily recognize English and discern them from Celtic British - although obviously there are on both sides people that can pass as the other...
*Culturally, soon King Arthur will be a Bangladeshi and William the Conqueror will be a West African duke. lol. ;D
In the end Wales, Scotland, and Ireland will have the last laugh after the English have been bred out of existence.
|
|
|
Post by Aria88 on May 30, 2004 13:51:26 GMT -5
The English are very much mixed.
1. Ancient Med Iberian. 2. Celtic (didn't all just pack up and leave. Sorry). 3. Small element of Roman veterans. 4. Somewhat smaller contingent of Sarmatian in Lancashire. 5. Anglo-Saxon-Jutish. 6. Danish & Norwegian Scandinavian Viking. 7. Francophone Norman Scandinavian. 8. Mucketymucks.
Someone please tell me if I missed something.
And why are English girls more often than not some of the least attractive of all Euro ethnic groups? Archetypal thin lips, among other features, give many of them a masculine appearance. I've seen some lovely Limey girls, but they are the exception, not the rule.
|
|
|
Post by galvez on Jun 18, 2004 13:56:30 GMT -5
As I recall Coon mentions that the English are predominantly Keltic Iron Age Nordic with Scandinavian ancestry. He also mentions that (Mediterranean) Neolithic elements have played a major role in the making of the British peoples, including Englishmen. There is of course mention of long-headed Eastern Mediterraneans, whose influence is evident to this day -- and Armenoids, and Dinarics.
While the greatest influence for the English has been Keltic Nordic (and not the later Germanic invasions), the English are clearly a mixture of many elements. Thus, one cannot say based on science that there is an English "race." This terminology is likely to be used by journalists or writers who aren't very familiar with physical anthropology.
Some generalizations can be made about the English, however: they are very fair-skinned, like the Irish; they are somewhat lighter-haired than the Irish (and darker than Scandinavians); they are mesocephalic; and they are relatively tall.
As an aside, many prominent Englishmen, as has been pointed out by Graeme, have deviated strongly from these generalizations.
|
|
|
Post by xxx on Jun 27, 2004 8:36:11 GMT -5
As I recall Coon mentions that the English are predominantly Keltic Iron Age Nordic with Scandinavian ancestry. He also mentions that (Mediterranean) Neolithic elements have played a major role in the making of the British peoples, including Englishmen. There is of course mention of long-headed Eastern Mediterraneans, whose influence is evident to this day -- and Armenoids, and Dinarics. Mediterranean Neolithic elements? If I'm not mistaken the Mediterranean element in the British Islands is Iberid and therefore not Neolithic but Paleolithic and Mesolithic. Speaking of ''elements'' sounds like an attempt to diminish the strength and extension of the Mediterranean gentical legacy around England. Not to speak of a region like Kernow/Cornwall, where it is most predominant.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Jun 27, 2004 9:01:02 GMT -5
There is significant maternal Neolithic ancestry in the British population. Enough to worry Anon of 'Refuting Racial Myths', who is determined to prove that those haplogroups are there due to 'environmental selection'.
|
|
|
Post by xxx on Jun 27, 2004 9:15:03 GMT -5
Like a genetic drift caused by 'environmental selection' ? And what, if something, defines that 'environmental selection?
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Jun 27, 2004 9:17:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by xxx on Jun 27, 2004 9:46:59 GMT -5
Funny how this anon highlights some parts in bold whereas leaving others without highlighting creating the effect of saying the contrary to what is being said (text non bolded by anon is here highlighted in red): This is cheap cheating. He mentions 'climatic selection', not 'environment selection'. Sorry for being picky with the term used, but I find it most interesting how these deceitful individuals constantly look for excuses in cold climate environments. First they blamed Mongolic traits due to Mongoloid admixture to 'climate adaptation' and now this. And just like many apologists of Negroids have been using for years the excuse of 'climate' for the lack of evolution among Negroes. What a precious asset climate is becoming!
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Jun 27, 2004 10:07:18 GMT -5
Well, he hasn't claimed it to be anything but a theory. You have to admit it's weird that J mtDNA is more common in Northern Europe than in Southern Europe. On the other hand, it's also weird that a haplogroup supposedly associated with cold climate is 1) Less common in NE Europe than in NW Europe 2) Originated in the Middle East ( 20.8% in Arabia! )
|
|