What race are the 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/manchestereveningnews/news/s/214475_genghis_gene_pool_traced_to_cumbria

i reallly havent the energy to post all the reaserch, but you can take my word for it
, its been clarified by dna mapping about about 5 years ago i think

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23367572-ancient-britons-come-mainly-from-spain.do

he's right

I didn't know it either but after googling i found this

''the genetic record indicates the British and Irish broadly share a closest common ancestry with the Basque people who live in the Basque Country by the Pyrenees.

the majority of the people of the British Isles share genetic commonalities with the Basques, ranging from highs of 90% in Wales to lows of 66% in East Anglia. ''

So brits are basque ? wow

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.

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.

I bet it does. Just not as much on average as in Cornwall and Wales. What I mean is that it's almost a certainty that any given English person will have some ancestors from Wales or Cornwall.

It's all about averages. The population of Wales has on proportionally more "celtic" DNA than the population of England. But it's still totally possible someone from England, with no traceable Welsh ancestry, could have more "celtic" DNA than someone from Wales with no traceable English ancestry. Maybe the Anglo-Saxons did come and clear out the natives 1500 or so years ago. But since then the populations haven't remained entirely separate.

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.

Actually 100-200k, the 10k is obviously a typo even the Daily Mail isn't idiotic enough to quote such a random number as 10k-200k. Also you keep ignoring the Oxford University/Wellcome Trust survey as if it never happened. It produces very different results to what you're claiming are gospel truth.

I don't know why you keep mentioning North African genes aswell, their contribution to the English people is miniscule and limited to those North Africans who lived in Britain during the Roman Empire as soldiers or administrators. None of whom settled in large enough numbers to influence English genetics....especially when they were living alongside the Welsh and not the English who were still in Germania.

Oppenheimer's theory is highly contentious and other parts of his argument are heavily debated aswell such as the ideas that he put forth that English is actually native to England and didn't come with the Anglo-Saxons, despite it's obvious links with Frisian and German and the total lack of any linguistic evidence to prove this. It should be remembered that Oppenheimer is a hobbyist more than anything else, his expertise is paedatrics, unlike Walter Bodmer (who did the Oxford/Wellcome study).

Seeing as you didnt provide any details of this Oxford/Welcome research, yes because its so insignficant it seems hard to track down, But i did -

http://www.peopleofthebritishisles.org/

Youll see it was started back in 2005 and theefore has been superceeded by at least 2 years by Sykes Genetic mapping research and looked at a sample of about 3000 people compared to over 10000 in Sykes data. This probably why this reasearch isnt discussed internationally to the extent that Sykes is. Sykes was a head of Genetics at Oxford btw.

Im not sure why you keep bringing up Openheimer, some of his works may have been theoretical but Sykes most large scale and detailed genetic testing of british samples has effectivley proved him right. So whatever your own opinion of Openheimer his more highly regarded work by his peers than Bodmers who i hadnt even heard of till today.
So it is the out dated (late victorian ) theory that the british is majority anglo saxon that is the fringe and disputed theory currently.

That's strange considering it's still by far the dominant school of thought amongst historians (who I might add are multidisciplinary by their very nature, using science, economics, linguistics, literature blah blah blah to reach their conclusions, so they won't have ignored any scientific studies). The simple fact is that the 'British = not substantially changed since the Ice Age' theory is a new and still disputed theory that isn't backed up by any evidence other than disputed genetics, when Oppenheimer strays from genetics his argument becomes incredibly weak. At the same time alternative surveys exist which suggest a completely different outcome than Oppenheimer/Sykes which call into question the entire basis of their argument.

These surveys are expensive to do, expect another one to come out in a few years disputing Sykes/Oppenheimer and backing up the Bodmer/traditionalist view. DNA analysis is still a very new field which is why you can have one survey suggesting one side of the view and another suggesting another side.

When we have disputed genetic evidence, then the only thing we can look at is the other evidence. All of which suggests the traditional Anglo-Saxon replacing Britons over a slow period and steadily moving westward idea that has been around for a good while for good reason.

For reference, another UCL survey of English and Welsh market towns which supports the traditional view:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2076470.stm

A little excerpt from that: 'Genetic tests show clear differences between the Welsh and English' - strange concept if we're all just descended from a post ice age population that arrived from the Basque Country.

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 ?

The idea that modern humans can be divided into distinctive biological 'races' has long since lost favour, seeing as it is such a problematic, arbitrary and ultimately unscientific enterprise. The evidence of genetics has pretty much been the last nail in the coffin; there's only one 'race', the 'human race'.

When you talk of 'Anglo-Saxons', 'Romans', 'Celts' and so on you're actually making reference to past cultural or ethnic groups in Europe's history.

Actually, a race is a contested but currently accepted sub-divison of a species in taxonomy, but mainly entails cosmetic differences. Sub-species are more clearly defined and are more likely to split off into other species entirely than a race is.

There is one modern human species, but there are different races.

Human. Nationalities are not races, they are merely ethnicities.

Human is not a race. It is a species.

A race is a sub-division of a species, even more minute in detail than a sub-species.

Races are sub-Saharan African, Caucasian, Indigenous American, Polynesian, Melanesian, South Asian, etc. - they are groups of ethnicities based on cosmetic differences within the human species. It's stupid to say that they don't exist. The problem comes when idiots try to imply that there is any meaningful difference between them.

Human is not a race. It is a species.

A race is a sub-division of a species, even more minute in detail than a sub-species.

Races are sub-Saharan African, Caucasian, Indigenous American, Polynesian, Melanesian, South Asian, etc. - they are groups of ethnicities based on cosmetic differences within the human species. It's stupid to say that they don't exist. The problem comes when idiots try to imply that there is any meaningful difference between them.

Is the obvious answer not caucasian?

Edit: urban dictionary says not. I do like number 5 though.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=caucasian