What race are the white British

Watch
This discussion is closed.
tehFrance
Badges: 17
#81
Report 10 years ago
#81
(Original post by hatemylife)
*Last person who spoke it and only spoke Cornish.
That is what I said the last one was not the 1800s hell there is moat likely Cornish language only people still alive in the more remote parts of Cornwall.
0
Right Foot Forward
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#82
Report 10 years ago
#82
The White British peoples are largely decendants of the indigenous peoples who where here even before the celts. This is seen in the strong presense of the R1b haplogroup.. However even though small, the Saxon/Celtic/Roman comings have seen a little effect. But this does not mean we are 'mongrels' as the liberals like to say as an excuse to destroy our race, as all of these groups are northern European and virtually the same genetically
0
I-Am-A-Tripod
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#83
Report 10 years ago
#83
(Original post by Right Foot Forward)
The White British peoples are largely decendants of the indigenous peoples who where here even before the celts. This is seen in the strong presense of the R1b haplogroup.. However even though small, the Saxon/Celtic/Roman comings have seen a little effect. But this does not mean we are 'mongrels' as the liberals like to say as an excuse to destroy our race, as all of these groups are northern European and virtually the same genetically
Read the thread :facepalm: its just been explained to you the indigineous peoples of Britain themselves came from southern spain.
0
I-Am-A-Tripod
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#84
Report 10 years ago
#84
(Original post by ajp100688)
English = a mixture of Anglo-Saxons, Scandanavians and Normans in that order. In essence 'Germanic', a point to note is that the Anglo-Saxons and Scandanavians are very closely related in terms of ethnicity.
Scottish = Lowlanders are pretty much the same as the English, Highlanders are Celtic.
Wales and Cornwall = Celtic, the remenants of the original Romano-British inhabitants of Britain.
Northern Irish = a mixed bag of Celtic Irish and English and Scottish immigrants.

The historical record, place names and the language we speak now all heavily suggest that the Anglo-Saxons emmigrated here en masse and displaced the native Britons and pushed them into Cornwall and Wales where they managed to cling on. Recent DNA surveys including one by Oxford University have largely backed up this idea.


There is the Oppenheimer theory that the people of Britain are largely unchanged since the Ice Age and descend from a Basque population but this is highly contested. It doesn't match the historio-social evidence we have nor the linguistic evidence. A number of DNA surveys have produced results rejecting it aswell. However there are some people that still believe it.

It isnt highly contested, it is pretty much agreed upon given that DNA mapping is many more times more accurate than "historio-social evidence " whatever that is. And the scientific findings dont say the basques were largely unchanged, it says they were the original people in these isles, and later their genetics have been altered in part by arrival of normans, saxons, romans, vikings, gauls, and all the various intermixing of central european and north african genes that they themselves would have brought over.
There will be no linguistic evidence of the Basques because there is no linguistic evidence in any part of the world of languages that go as far back as the Ice age :facepalm:
0
Gnobe
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#85
Report 10 years ago
#85
Britain is a multi-racial country and NOT a white nation.

We are becoming a mix race country full of all sorts of humans. The world is becoming mixed race and the day we have a one world government or larger autonomous states the better, the human race well serve better that way rather than with pointless nationalism.
0
calkin700
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#86
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#86
(Original post by Gnobe)
Britain is a multi-racial country and NOT a white nation.

We are becoming a mix race country full of all sorts of humans. The world is becoming mixed race and the day we have a one world government or larger autonomous states the better, the human race well serve better that way rather than with pointless nationalism.
tell that to the Tibetans,


britain is not multiracial

go to cornwall, norfolk, parts of wales. It is white.
0
Gnobe
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#87
Report 10 years ago
#87
(Original post by calkin700)
tell that to the Tibetans,


britain is not multiracial

go to cornwall, norfolk, parts of wales. It is white.
Well it shouldn't be. I agree with Emma Thompson who slammed Devon for being too white and needing to 'cracked open' a bit. It's time to spread the multiracialness out.
2
I-Am-A-Tripod
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#88
Report 10 years ago
#88
(Original post by calkin700)
tell that to the Tibetans,


britain is not multiracial

go to cornwall, norfolk, parts of wales. It is white.

They may look white to you, but that wont tell you much about their genetic history.
Interstingly no one here has mentioned the black genes that have been floating around the uk for couple of thousand years either. Shows how much lack of knowledge the brits have of their own history. This may make the right wing occupants of TSR choke on their coco-pops but lots of romans were black and settled in this country - Emporer Septimus Severus - one of the past rulers of ancient briton was a black phonecian.
0
iwantcurlyhairtoo
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#89
Report 10 years ago
#89
(Original post by calkin700)
Are we Anglo Saxon ?
Roman ?
Celtic ?
Norman ?
Aryan/Nordic ?

Or is each race concentrated in different areas , like Cornwall , Norfolk etc who are different racially ?
Northern European

/thread
0
Locke54
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#90
Report 10 years ago
#90
(Original post by I-Am-A-Tripod)
It isnt highly contested, it is pretty much agreed upon given that DNA mapping is many more times more accurate than "historio-social evidence " whatever that is. And the scientific findings dont say the basques were largely unchanged, it says they were the original people in these isles, and later their genetics have been altered in part by arrival of normans, saxons, romans, vikings, gauls, and all the various intermixing of central european and north african genes that they themselves would have brought over.
There will be no linguistic evidence of the Basques because there is no linguistic evidence in any part of the world of languages that go as far back as the Ice age :facepalm:
Erm no, as I said both Oxford and UCL have undertaken genetic surveys that backs up the majority Germanic and Celtic on the fringes hypothesis. Combined with the historical and social evidence, this gives that theory a much stronger basis.

Oppenheimer isn't accepted by many people. It's an interesting theory but plenty of studies have found evidence which outright refutes what he says.
0
calkin700
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#91
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#91
(Original post by I-Am-A-Tripod)
They may look white to you, but that wont tell you much about their genetic history.
Interstingly no one here has mentioned the black genes that have been floating around the uk for couple of thousand years either. Shows how much lack of knowledge the brits have of their own history. This may make the right wing occupants of TSR choke on their coco-pops but lots of romans were black and settled in this country - Emporer Septimus Severus - one of the past rulers of ancient briton was a black phonecian.
yes there are black people who have been here for thousands of years

but majority rules,

and Britain is 92 white - 80 per cent white British,
0
I-Am-A-Tripod
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#92
Report 10 years ago
#92
(Original post by ajp100688)
Erm no, as I said both Oxford and UCL have undertaken genetic surveys that backs up the majority Germanic and Celtic on the fringes hypothesis. Combined with the historical and social evidence, this gives that theory a much stronger basis.

Oppenheimer isn't accepted by many people. It's an interesting theory but plenty of studies have found evidence which outright refutes what he says.
Again you are wrong - Steven Oppenheimers gentic mapping of British ancestry is regarded by most in his field as groundbreaking proof that disprove the theories regarding origins of the Celts and germanic tribes which were developed in the late victorian period. INCLUDING the University of London and Oxford Univeristy -



'A well-informed, original and challenging application of new genetic data to the early population history of Britain.... British prehistory will never look the same again' Professor Colin Renfrew, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research,
University of Cambridge


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


'Stephen Oppenheimer's challenging book contributes significantly to the growing body of genetic, linguistic, and historical evidence for an early Germanic presence in "Celtic" Britain.'
Dr. Peter Forster, Molecular Genetics Laboratory, University of Cambridge



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


'Oppenheimer calls his book "a genetic detective story". It is. Pre-Roman language in western Europe was a locked-room mystery - until someone looked for the key.'
Aubrey Burl, Archaeologist & author on megalithic monuments



'Stephen Oppenhimer's exciting new book sets a whole new agenda for prehistoric archaeologists working in Britain...essential reading for everyone interested in the origins of the Britons...British prehistory will have to be radically re-thought.'
Barry Cunliffe, Professor of European Archaeology, University of Oxford




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


'Stephen Oppenheimer is the supreme genetic detective fishing for evidence in the gene-pools of history. Be prepared to have all your cherished notions of English history and Britishness swept away in this fascinating and superbly illustrated account of what makes up our national character.'
Professor Clive Gamble, Department of Geography,
Royal Holloway University of London




His research was further strengthend by the findings of Sykes ,Professor of Human Genetics at Oxford in 2006/7 which is what i was referring to, which confimed his theory by tracing dna samples of british populations overwhelmingly to Spain and portugal - In the regions of ireland and wales this link jumped to almost 88% and was far older than much less prevalent gentics of anglo saxon and nordic extraction which regsitered in the low teens.

There is no credible reaserch that dispoves his findings to date, if you know of some please provide the links
0
The Lyceum
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#93
Report 10 years ago
#93
(Original post by calkin700)
Are we Anglo Saxon ?
Roman ?
Celtic ?
Norman ?
Aryan/Nordic ?

Or is each race concentrated in different areas , like Cornwall , Norfolk etc who are different racially ?
Other than the fact I don't think you can really differentiate with "races" like that I'll bite as a historian...

The "Normans" would have been of "Nordic" stock. "Aryan" to describe Germanics is a malapropism due to shoddy 19th century scholarship and properly is applied to North Indians and Persians. Romans were noticeably mediterranean even before it became a civic status.

How about we just seperate it into English, Welsh and Scottish and be done with it? That way everyone is happy.

EDIT: Ok with the Oppenheimer study, people on TSR don't seem to understand how History works. We don't follow people like "prophets" and the study is very, very, flawed especially due to his insanely poor grasp of Indo-European linguistics. Seriously most beginning students would be shocked and appaled for some of his errors in that area i.e proposing a much earlier seperate of the Celtic branch and so on. Do stop now.
0
I-Am-A-Tripod
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#94
Report 10 years ago
#94
(Original post by calkin700)
yes there are black people who have been here for thousands of years

but majority rules,

and Britain is 92 white - 80 per cent white British,
es, you missed my point - 92% white doesnt mean gentically white caucasian- they just look white to you. Scientifcally most white britons have subtantial amount of genes from south spanish who were were effectively brown (who in turn probaly have some heritage from mediterranean and north africa). Plus they have smaller elements of nordic, arabic, black african, gallic, roman, scandanvian and asiatic genetic heritage. Europeans generally are the most genetically diverse peoples on the planet and britan especially seeing as it has been invaded so many times. But you would never know by looking at them - because gentically all humans whatever the race are almost identical

You can read about this white middle class accountant teacher in the USA whos family came from Cumbria had confirmed anestry traced back to Gengis khan

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereven...ced_to_cumbria
0
I-Am-A-Tripod
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#95
Report 10 years ago
#95
(Original post by The Lyceum)
Other than the fact I don't think you can really differentiate with "races" like that I'll bite as a historian...

The "Normans" would have been of "Nordic" stock. "Aryan" to describe Germanics is a malapropism due to shoddy 19th century scholarship and properly is applied to North Indians and Persians. Romans were noticeably mediterranean even before it became a civic status.

How about we just seperate it into English, Welsh and Scottish and be done with it? That way everyone is happy.

EDIT: Ok with the Oppenheimer study, people on TSR don't seem to understand how History works. We don't follow people like "prophets" and the study is very, very, flawed especially due to his insanely poor grasp of Indo-European linguistics. Seriously most beginning students would be shocked and appaled for some of his errors in that area i.e proposing a much earlier seperate of the Celtic branch and so on. Do stop now.

We have already corrected the incorrect victorian classification of 'aryans' and celts. the Sykes study what was originally put forward not oppenhiemer - it is a far more accurate dna mapping study that has sampled britsh populations and tracked chromasonal matched with Basque gene maps back to the ice age. Linguistics dont even come into it.
0
crazycake93
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#96
Report 10 years ago
#96
I think by race they mean Caucasian
1
Locke54
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#97
Report 10 years ago
#97
(Original post by I-Am-A-Tripod)
x
Half of those quotes you just provided didn't say that the professors agreed with this thesis merely that it was interesting and contributed to knowledge of the subject, which is what everyone says. The scientific method is all about thesis and antithesis and reaching the truth via them. Anyways;

http://www.channel4.com/history/micr.../e-h/face.html -> DNA Survey by Channel 4, Oxford University and the Wellcome Trust. Provides evidence that England and Lowland Scotland is heavily Germanic with the fringes Celtic.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...600-years.html -> Directly quotes a UCL study and UCL Professor stating that his research has shown the Germanic links.


Like I said it's heavily disputed, there's two sides to the argument. However the linguistic evidence is overwhelming. There are very few instances of small populations of people imposing their language upon a majority before the Modern Day. The Modern day is different because we have things like standardised nationwide education systems, mass media etc, so it is easier to impose a language upon people. Back in Ancient times and Medieval times it was much harder.

Examples of this would be the Polish language surviving despite dominance by German and Russian, Catalan surviving in Catalunya despite Castillian attempts to stamp it out, the way that the languages France, Spain, Italy etc speak derive from the majority vulgar Latin and not the minority languages of the Germanic invaders that took over those lands when the Roman Empire fell. Even Norman French was overwhelmed by the majority English, and it's lexical contributions were in areas related to government and educated subjects as you would expect given the nobility and government were Norman. Thus historical evidence suggests that for Old English to have replaced Romano-British (or what we call Welsh now), the Anglo-Saxons had to have migrated in large numbers and a great catastrophe occured to the Romano-British in what is now England. Which is further backed up by the UCL/Oxford studies I've quoted. Majority populations do not just throw away their language, it doesn't happen in this time period. Full stop. Furthermore the remaining Celtic placenames in England tend to be in areas where the Celtic population lingered in, such as Devon and Cornwall, which further emphasises this theory.

Oppenheimer and his adherents are known as revisionists for a reason, especially when other DNA surveys have produced contrary opinion backing up the traditional view.
3
I-Am-A-Tripod
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#98
Report 10 years ago
#98
(Original post by ajp100688)
Half of those quotes you just provided didn't say that the professors agreed with this thesis merely that it was interesting and contributed to knowledge of the subject, which is what everyone says. The scientific method is all about thesis and antithesis and reaching the truth via them. Anyways;

http://www.channel4.com/history/micr.../e-h/face.html -> DNA Survey by Channel 4, Oxford University and the Wellcome Trust. Provides evidence that England and Lowland Scotland is heavily Germanic with the fringes Celtic.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...600-years.html -> Directly quotes a UCL study and UCL Professor stating that his research has shown the Germanic links.


Like I said it's heavily disputed, there's two sides to the argument. However the linguistic evidence is overwhelming. There are very few instances of small populations of people imposing their language upon a majority before the Modern Day. The Modern day is different because we have things like standardised nationwide education systems, mass media etc, so it is easier to impose a language upon people. Back in Ancient times and Medieval times it was much harder.

Examples of this would be the Polish language surviving despite dominance by German and Russian, Catalan surviving in Catalunya despite Castillian attempts to stamp it out, the way that the languages France, Spain, Italy etc speak derive from the majority vulgar Latin and not the minority languages of the Germanic invaders that took over those lands when the Roman Empire fell. Even Norman French was overwhelmed by the majority English, and it's lexical contributions were in areas related to government and educated subjects as you would expect given the nobility and government were Norman. Thus historical evidence suggests that for Old English to have replaced Romano-British (or what we call Welsh now), the Anglo-Saxons had to have migrated in large numbers and a great catastrophe occured to the Romano-British in what is now England. Which is further backed up by the UCL/Oxford studies I've quoted. Majority populations do not just throw away their language, it doesn't happen in this time period. Full stop. Furthermore the remaining Celtic placenames in England tend to be in areas where the Celtic population lingered in, such as Devon and Cornwall, which further emphasises this theory.

Oppenheimer and his adherents are known as revisionists for a reason, especially when other DNA surveys have produced contrary opinion backing up the traditional view.

The channel 4 made for TV audience prgram tells us nothing apart from looking at some anglo saxon skulls. There are hardly any remants of british ice-age man held to make any comparasive study

There may be those oppossed to the oppheimer study and have differring opinions but then there are people are oppossed ti the theory of evolution.His is the most widely accepted study in this field.

Re the Daily Mail report - i dont know when its study was relaesed but i hadnt heard of it and doubt it has any level of recognition. Certainly since 2007 i have heard of no studies disproving the the Sykes DNA mapping of uk populations and there links to the Iberian coast. In fact looking up the cpmaprtives i can see that the sykes study superceed the earlier data used by the UCL study and a wide sample of genetic data taken from british sample populations as oppossed to using ealrier data borrowed from ealier reaserch gripus as inthe the case of Mrk Thomas' UCL study. This is probably the reason why the sykes research is currently widely accepted internationally and there is little or no refernce to the daily mail online form 2006 report currently.

again the article reads as an un-scintifc diatribe - a story of the anglo saxon invasion and a genocide of the indigenous British peoples. But isee no scientifc evidence of this - simply a 'computer simulation' to explain how 10k of germans could have wiped out the genetic remains of 2 million britons.

Sykes reasearch is back by actual Genetic mapping to identical chromasones in Basque populations, same science which is used prove our understanding of evolution etc - its about as accurate as you will get in any sort of historical investigation.


It is thought between 10,000 and 200,000 Anglo-Saxons migrated from modern-day Germany, Holland and Denmark into what is now England between the fifth and seventh centuries AD. At this time there were more than two million native Britons living in the country.
But within just 15 generations, the British genes were on the way out, while the Germanic ones were flourishing.
Until now geneticists and archaeologists have been unable to reconcile how a relatively small number of invaders so successfully took over the UK gene pool. Now scientists have used computer analysis to work out how this could have been achieved within just a few hundred years.





Everything else you quote regarding linguistics, culture etc is irrellevant because thui gets altered on a regualr basis with each new foreign invasion - romans, anglo saxons. vikings, normans etc etc.

The indigenous britons language and culture was so ancient ( ice age and beyond) that it probably died out thousand or so years ago. But the genetic link will remain till the end of time.
0
Locke54
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#99
Report 10 years ago
#99
(Original post by I-Am-A-Tripod)
The channel 4 made for TV audience prgram tells us nothing apart from looking at some anglo saxon skulls. There are hardly any remants of british ice-age man held to make any comparasive study

There may be those oppossed to the oppheimer study and have differring opinions but then there are people are oppossed ti the theory of evolution.His is the most widely accepted study in this field.
What no it's not. The TV program was based upon an academic study by Oxford University/The Wellcome Trust which did an extensive DNA survey of people all across the United Kingdom. Yes it was turned into a TV program but that doesn't change the fact that it was based upon an academic study lead by one of the leading experts in the field. They didn't even look at Anglo-Saxon skulls in the program, it's all genetic based. The facial stuff was reconstructing the 'average' Celtic inhabitant and 'Germanic' inhabitant of the UK based upon living people in those areas and showing how they differed because various facial features are prominent in various regions, which is true.

Re the Daily Mail report - i dont know when its study was relaesed but i hadnt heard of it and doubt it has any level of recognition. Certainly since 2007 i have heard of no studies disproving the the Sykes DNA mapping of uk populations and there links to the Iberian coast.

again the article reads as an un-scintifc diatribe - a story of the anglo saxon invasion and a genocide of the indigenous British peoples. But isee no scientifc evidence of this - simply a 'computer simulation' to explain how 10k of germans could have wiped out the genetic remains of 2 million britons.

Sykes reasearch is back by actual Genetic mapping to identical chromasones in Basque populations, same science which is used prove our understanding of evolution etc - its about as accurate as you will get in any sort of historical investigation.
Of course it reads like an unscientific diatribe, it's in the Daily Mail. You're missing the point, the article in all it's Daily Maily finery isn't whats important. It's the study that it's based upon and the quotes from the academic.
Everything else you quote regarding linguistics, culture etc is irrellevant because thui gets altered on a regualr basis with each new foreign invasion - romans, anglo saxons. vikings, normans etc etc.
It's like you barely read my post. Languages don't just die out for no reason. British as a language survived the Roman occupation and outlived Latin in the British Isles, English survived the Norman-French influx, English survived the Scandanavian invasion of the North-East only taking onboard certain words. The one event that doesn't fit this pattern:

Old English entirely obliterating the British language from existence in England leaving it clinging on in Cornwall and Wales where Anglo-Saxon influence never spread very strongly.

There has to be a reason for this and every other linguistic pattern in England's history points against the population just adopting it wholesale. Something had to have happened to replace the native Britons with Anglo-Saxons, be it widespread massacre and fleeing into Wales and Cornwall, be it a strain of Justinian's Plague, be it the apartheid system suggested in the Daily Mail article. No one knows quite what it was but it happened, the linguistic evidence shows it, there are genetic surveys that show it (in contrast to Oppenheimer's) and the historical record backs up this theory aswell.

The indigenous britons language and culture was so ancient ( ice age and beyond) that it probably died out thousand or so years ago. But the genetic link will remain till the end of time.
The genetic link still exists in the Cornish and Welsh, it doesn't in ethnic English. It's been entirely submerged by Germanic genes aside from in a few places such as Devon which have some lingering Celtic markers thanks to Devon being conquered relatively late by the Anglo-Saxon invaders. Remember this was a process that took hundreds of years, from around 400AD to about 900AD, it wasn't like the Anglo-Saxons just came over the seas in one mass wave, killed or chased away all the Britons in a year and that was that. It's a very poorly understand period of time by the public. Many people don't even know how England was formed via Wessex conquering Mercia or about the heptarchy.
0
I-Am-A-Tripod
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#100
Report 10 years ago
#100
(Original post by ajp100688)


. Remember this was a process that took hundreds of years, from around 400AD to about 900AD, it wasn't like the Anglo-Saxons just came over the seas in one mass wave, killed or chased away all the Britons in a year and that was that. It's a very poorly understand period of time by the public.

The article you just posted jsut claimed 10-20 k of anglo saxons wiped out the remnants of 2 million indigenous britons over the course of about 15 generations.

With what evidence? A computer simulation. What rubbish. Yes the period is poorly understood due to the limitations of records, acheology etc - hence why genetic mapping has been such a boon in the last 10 or so years.
And the largest genetic mapping excercise conducted in Britain has shown that the Basque and Iberian genes are most prevalent in the white british populations here and anglo saxons are a much smaller fraction as well as various other central european , north africa heritage. And this is not refuted by any current recognised research that anyone knows of. Of course there will be people that dont want to agree , but who cares. This is exactly what you would expect given that the original britons had been in the country for maybe 20 times longer than anglo saxons.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling now you've started university?

I'm loving it! (46)
13.37%
I'm enjoying it but I'm still settling in (93)
27.03%
I'm a bit unsure (60)
17.44%
I'm finding things difficult (115)
33.43%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (30)
8.72%

Watched Threads

View All