Guiscard wrote:btownmeggy wrote:Who here supposes that they're not a mix of at least two or more of the poll options?
And I don't mean... way back... but within the past 1000 years or so since these definitions have had ANY anthropological meaning whatsoever.
Even just one filament of my lineage, that of my ancestors who undoubtedly considered themselves pure Spaniards, includes those categories which Norse calls Caucasian, Black, Arabic, Jewish, and Native North America.
Actually I can't see that I am in any meaningful way whatsoever... I've gone back to about 1400 and before that both branches of the family were pretty much working in the same village in agriculture, as they would have been most likely for hundreds of years. Before that? I'd warrant a guess at Saxon due to the part of the country.
I'd put a fiver on you being a mix Guiscard .. we live in a mongrel nation....
Even with the most scrutinous genealogy you can never allow for 'family secrets'
Women have always rogered the handsome tall dark fella who's traveling through and married the village idiot; telling him the baby was 8 months premature and that they had taken to eating extra turnips for a few months before the birth.
It makes sense for the betterment of the gene pool.