I too thought ‘what a rediculous question’, until I had another think.
Samoans (who are admittedly from a very limited gene pool) most definitely exhibit two body types. Large with big bones or small with slight features (these are people still in Samoa).
I think of Italians as mostly dark featured and short, but this is apparently so because the Italians that immigrated to Australia were from South Italy, where these features are more noted. I once met a tall, blonde Italian and had a hard time believing where he was from.
My family are British for generations but my Dad is very tall and pure blonde and my mum is short with almost black hair (well not now). Our family are very tall for poms. I also remember Mum recalling her SIL coming to the South of England (where we lived at the time) and commenting on the huge number of tall blondes around - this was some 50 years ago now.
However, this doesn’t take into account immigrants since the 50s in Britain and the now much more mixed ethnicities - which Mangeorge should really know - I mean, surely everyone is aware of increased migration by the Chinese, Indians, West Indians and South Africans, to just name a few.
If it’s not perceived as an insult, then why all the perdonal attacks?
Igrorant, yes. I should ask a question I know the answer to? But surely not ridiculous. There are many societies in the world where there exist two (or more) distinct groups of people who show somewhat different physical characteristics from each other, usually with some degree blending. Look at Africa, and Mexico, and Peru. And the US. Look anywhere. Why would I assume England to be an exception?
There most definitely is. The people fall into two distinct categories and the differences are very much genetic.
The first type is taller, has a larger head, and generally leaner. They also have straighter eyebrows and a more angular face. The first type more often than not has a longer ring finger than index finger while the other group has a longer index finger. Scietific studies have also revealed differences in the brain. Finally there is a vast difference in reproductive capacity. There has however been a great deal of miscegenation in the past yet the differences in England persist to this day.
It is has been postulated that the first Briton to have landed on the shores of the British Isles is most likely of the first type.
Cite? Or am I being whooshed?
Because I get exasperated when I see someone asking such foolish questions in GQ. And, as Futile Gesture says, you didn’t help yourself by the nonsense about basing your question on “what you’ve seen in the movies.” If you’ve been watching movies or TV from the UK, it’s pretty obvious that there are more than two basic types there.
In any of the examples you cite, there are far more than just two physical types. Why would you think that England might be an exception?
Try this:
Google image searches of the phrases:
London crowd
Newcastle crowd
Manchester crowd
Plymouth crowd
Winchester crowd
Have a good look at the pictures.
(of course some of those place names exist more than once in the world, so you’ll need to filter the results a bit).
I can’t see any way of splitting even a quarter of the people in England into two consistent groups - any system of classification is going to be specific and exclude the vast majority of individuals, or be so vague and inclusive as to be meaningless.
Or looking at it another way:
Not exactly twins separated at birth, are they?
There may not have been marriage or socializing, but there most certainly was “mixing.”
I’m pretty sure that most everything that I’ve stated has been documented . I’m going from memory here but I’m definitely convinced that what I have presented is supportable. When I have a moment, I’ll try to look up a cite.
Should I have asked if there are two ethnic types in England, given that curiosity compelled me to ask the question regardless of the uncalled for derision of others?
I asked specifically of England, and not Britian, because I wanted to limit answers to the island and not far-flung possesions.
As an example, from here
That’s an example of what I’m asking. Peru has basically three ethnic groups, each with somewhat different physical characteristics. I tried, with no luck, to get the same info on England (the island, not the empire).
I hope I haven’t irritated any Peruvians.
I don’t agree with the thesis, but if taxonomists were to split the population of England, then surely everyone will nominate Grant Mitchell/Ross Kemp as the formal type specimen. (Of course, due to contractual reasons, ITV1 are trying to have him play half the people on British telly.)
Twins? No. But there are many similarities. I don’t know if Henman is tall, and he does have dark hair. Look at their features, though. Nose, chin, mouth, ears. They’re both long-boned and generally slender. If you claimed they were cousins, I’d have no reason to doubt it based only on appearance.
I do wonder why you are phrasing your questions in this thread with such wild unsupported assumptions.
-
As has been pointed out, Prince Charles is not especially ‘English’. Yet you think he is an example of one of two ‘types’.
-
I’m 75% ‘English’ and 25% ‘Scottish’. Do I figure in your ‘survey’?
-
Surely you know TV programs are not a sound scientific basis. (Otherwise I could tell you that all police lieutenants in the US are black: - based on Starsky + Hutch, Law + Order, NYPD Blue, Homicide - Life on the Streets…)
-
The Upper Class have been bonking us proletariat for centuries. They just don’t marry us. (Have a look at ‘droit de seigneur’ . Or Charles 1st and Nell Gwynn.)
-
Various foreign chappies have been landing in England for 2000 years. Italians (veni, vidi, vici), Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Normans.
We have people from the Caribbean, Africa, India, China, Russia etc. Let alone Wales, Ireland, Channel Islands…
Does any of this fit into your ‘theory’?
England is not an island. Great Britain is an island, of which England is a part.
I don’t see how an ethnic breakdown like that of Peru applies to the OP, because Tim Henman and Phil Collins would surely fall into the same category.
What theory?
- He is, as has been shown, English.
2, You figure in 100%, but there is no survey. Sorry. - That’s why I asked, which is clear in the OP.
- Bonking, yes. Claiming the offspring of that bonking? Not so good at that.
Peru has far more than three ethnic groups or physical types - there are a number of distinct European and Indian ethnic groups, as well as populations of African ancestry. And “mestizos” don’t really represent a distinct physical type either - they range from people who look nearly European to those who look pure Indian.
You’re seeing what you want to see, I suspect - subjectively seizing upon convenient similarities and not noticing inconvenient differences.
Let’s have a look at some more English faces (famous ones):
Jack Davenport
Ricky Gervais
Lee Evans
Jonathan Ross
Nick Hancock
Paul Merton
Rowan Atkinson
John Cleese
You could try to group these into two sets by some sort of arbitrary criteria, but that’s all it would be; Rowan Atkinson has a broad face, but is also tall and angular; Does Jack Davenport look more like Jonathan Ross than John Cleese? Joh Cleese is tall, but with a round face? Is he more like Prince Charles than Paul Merton, who is also tall with a round face?
He being Prince Charles, who Polycarp convincingly demonstrated as being “50% Anglo-German, 25% Scottish, and 25% Danish”. Well I guess that is as English as any of us! Me, for example, I’m 12 1/2% Irish for sure, the rest is English with dollops of Scottish, Welsh and a rumoured soupcon of French. Oh and I look like a “typical” “English rose”, though I’m not sure which of your two categories that is – mesomorph perhaps?
Sorry to join in the snarkiness but a little research along the lines of various suggestions here would have been advisable…
Let’s use a random sample. (That is, a group of English people selected at random. (That is, the group was selected at random, not the members of the group. (You see, the members of the group were not selected randomly but the group itself…)))
[Crowd]
Get on with it!
[/Crowd]
The tallish, thinnish sort:
Graham Chapman
John Cleese
Eric Idle
The shorter, stoutish sort:
Terry Jones
Michael Palin
The shorter, stoutish sort from the Wrong Country:
Terry Gilliam
The very nicely rounded sort, who look very good in lingerie, especially that captive milkmen sketch:
Carol Cleveland
The evidence is clear. We need more threads about Carol Cleveland. (With links to pictures of course.)
For some reason I read this list from the bottom up.
John Cleese - Check.
Rowan Atkinson - Check.
Paul Merton - Check.
Nick Hancock - Check.
Jonathan Ross - Check.
Lee Evans - Check.
Ricky Gervais - Check.
Jack Davenport - Who?
<click>
Oh Him.