Foo - What is your race?

for the record Khuon - *I* voted for Kodos.

Same here but I still fully expect to be mining for materials to build that giant laser cannon.

I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords.

Get it straight people. Our race does not matter. The one that matters is the race that will come to our planet with a gigantic battlefleet, enslave us all and give us names ending with a "y" or "ie".



:D


But, but, but my name ALREADY ends in 'y'! :eek: ARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!

Yeah, I'm a mutt too. But a damn good lookin one! Irish, Welsh, German, Dutch. I usually just say I'm Irish. I look the part, red hair, fair skin, freckles, blue eyes. I was born in Honolulu, HI and I had bright red hair. They called me "fire baby"! Pretty cool.

It's just that Irish people mostly have black or dark brown hair, and generally look more like people from Romania or Turkey. Red hair only makes up around 4% of the population - about the same as for many other northern European nations.
I think you'll find that Holland and Germany have more redheads than Ireland, by the way.

I think it is "pure" BS. Even a smallish village in iceland (or anywhere on this planet actually) has at least 85% of all the genetic diversity in the human species, the country is closer to 95%, not even including first or second generation immigrants.
Anthropological and genetic fact.

Was she hot...? :D

Hey, we're trying to have a "serious" discussion here. But, yes.

i have to agree with alanbikehouston [and how ofthen does that happen?]. johnny monkey's list of races assumes that there is no intermarriage between the races, but how realistic is this? khuon is confident that his family is wholly and entirely chinese, but that could include [from johnny monkey's taxonomy], V/A, V/B, V/E and maybe even some V/D. it is possible that he is descended from mongols who passed through and ruled that part of china during the yuan dynasty.

would a hungarian be dinarid or tungid? after all, the region was settled by the huns in the 5th century who, by most accounts, were probably of mongolian/tartar descent.

it seems pointless to me to try to create a limited taxonomy for the infinite variations of "racial" descent and physical characteristics, [I]particularly given that the ethnic groups that it purports to classify are infinitely fluid both geographically and historically.

i just took come time to read the "racial compact" website that johnny monkey took his taxonomy from. i find a great deal of it disturbing/ i don't know who this richard mcculloch is, but he seems to be something of an apologist for the kind of racialist rhetoric i associate with white separtatists like the aryan nations.

this is from the article "the right to racial life:


Do Northern Europeans think their race and its unique traits and characteristics, its talent, spirit and beauty, its men, women and children, all that it is, has been and could be, are worth defending, worth protecting, worth saving, worth preserving? Would they be willing to strive against the seemingly all-powerful racial nihilist tide that is sweeping them away from their race, drowning them in the buffeting waves of different races, and pulling them under to genetic submergence? Do they still possess a meaningful sense of racial consciousness, of racial identity, of who and what they are, of what race made them and to what race they belong? Some do and some do not. Racial preservationists are those who do. They are those who care. They are those who love their race, who are loyal to its interests, who want it to live, and who consider it valuable and important enough to be worth their utmost efforts to save and preserve it.

this is from "separation: the preservationist imperative" [mcculoch identifies himself as a preservationist]:


Separation is the preservationist imperative. It is necessary for Nordish racial survival. This is the bottom line, the point where no retreat, appeasement or surrender is possible without surrendering the very existence of the Nordish race by perpetuating the multiracial conditions that are destroying it. Thus separation must be the clear goal of all our efforts. Anything less is simply not worth the effort. I realize that this goal will be difficult to achieve, but the truly amazing thing is that so far we have not really even begun to try. To date, no serious effort of any significance has been made by Nordish-Americans to promote and achieve the goal of racial preservation by political-geographic separation. To achieve this goal we will need to gain the support of the majority of Nordish-Americans, with the other Nordish nations hopefully then following our lead on the path of racial preservation as they are now following us on the path of racial destruction. This admittedly seems to be a daunting task, but it is one that must be undertaken. The future existence of the Nordish race depends upon it.

all of this is creepily reminiscent of "the fourteen words," the white supremacist slogan created by convicted neo-nazi terrorist david lane:

"We must secure the existence of our People and a future for White Children’s is my life’s mission."

the fourteen words are a kind of mantra of the white supremacist, neo-nazi movement. mcculoch seems to be providing its pseudo-intellectual, scientistic justification.

race is a construct, it does not exist until you decide that it should.

khuon is confident that his family is wholly and entirely chinese, but that could include [from johnny monkey's taxonomy], V/A, V/B, V/E and maybe even some V/D. it is possible that he is descended from mongols who passed through and ruled that part of china during the yuan dynasty. [i'm not trying to offend you, khuon, i'm just pointing out that populations are fluid.]

Hmmm... I think you're thinking of the wrong forum member. I'm actually fairly certain that my ancestry is not wholly Chinese. It's about 5% Chinese I believe but mainly it's 75% to 80% Cambodian and 15% caucasian (French). I guess I'd have to do more research to be certain.

Velocipedio, I got the same impression after reading through the text about the "Nordish race".

i'm german and irish but i picked other for the fun of it.

Hmmm... I think you're thinking of the wrong forum member.
it was forum*rider. the post where he made the comment was right before a post of yours, and i guess i got confused. so sorry.

it was forum*rider. the post where he made the comment was right before a post of yours, and i guess i got confused. so sorry.

No problem... and you made good and valid points.

i just took come time to read the "racial compact" website that johnny monkey took his taxonomy from. i find a great deal of it disturbing/ i don't know who this richard mcculloch is, but he seems to be something of an apologist for the kind of racialist rhetoric i associate with white separtatists like the aryan nations.

this is from the article "the right to racial life:



this is from "separation: the preservationist imperative" [mcculoch identifies himself as a preservationist]:



all of this is creepily reminiscent of "the fourteen words," the white supremacist slogan created by convicted neo-nazi terrorist david lane:

"We must secure the existence of our People and a future for White Children’s is my life’s mission."

the fourteen words are a kind of mantra of the white supremacist, neo-nazi movement. mcculoch seems to be providing its pseudo-intellectual, scientistic justification.

race is a construct, it does not exist until you decide that it should.

Race is partially a construct. I think in this case race is used as a term to unite peoples of different yet similar cultures, who happen to have similar physical features. I can identify myself with a worldwide western culture, mainly white, mainly northern european in descent. I don't see anything wrong with wanting to perserves ones culture. I think race is less important than culture, and focusing on race cheapens his message.

Also jumping to neo-nazi conclusions is a cheap shot. One should be able to talk frankly about these sorts of things without someone pulling the nazi card.

Race is partially a construct. I think in this case race is used as a term to unite peoples of different yet similar cultures, who happen to have similar physical features. I can identify myself with a worldwide western culture, mainly white, mainly northern european in descent. I don't see anything wrong with wanting to perserves ones culture. I think race is less important than culture, and focusing on race cheapens his message.

the point, javna, is that physical appearance and culture are completely different things. any attempt to equate the two is utterly spurious.

race is concerned with hereditary physical characteristics common to a given population. however, since populations are not, nor have they ever been [with one or two notable exceptions] completely sealed off from each other, any attempt to create a limited taxonomy of these characteristics is completely arbitrary.

...which leads into the next point.


Also jumping to neo-nazi conclusions is a cheap shot. One should be able to talk frankly about these sorts of things without someone pulling the nazi card.

despite the fact that race is entirely arbitrary, mcculloch argues for "preservation" through separation. the whole tone of his articles is identical to the kind of grabage promoted by david lane, william pierce and richard butler, though with admittedly less violent rhetoric.

i mean, ask yourself, if populations are fluid, variations of hereditary physical characteristics infinite and continuous, and race nothing more than an arbitrary construct, then why should the "nordish" race be preserved? why should any race be preserved? why should race be preserved?

for blood purity? the covenant, the sword and the arm of the lord and the order certainly think that.

The problem with "preserving one's culture" is that historically it has almost always been preserved with the sword (and yes, the oven). Also, "culture" has usually been defined with pseudo-scientific terms--as in the racial list quoted by johnny monkey. (And this list does sound like the classifications used by the Nazis, and could be used for similar purposes.) Or else culture has been defined along pseudo-mythic lines with terms like pure or white. The "mainly white" European culture is "worldwide" only because it was the most imperialistic culture during a period of rapid human expansion. Actually, 75% of the world's people would be surprised to learn that Europe is in any way the center of the world or that "mainly white" culture is in any way central to human history.

...I can identify myself with a worldwide western culture, mainly white, mainly northern european in descent. I don't see anything wrong with wanting to perserves ones culture. I think race is less important than culture, and focusing on race cheapens his message.


Sorry. You are seeking to "perserves" something that never existed. Many folks from Russia, Poland, Norway, Germany, and the United Kingdom have a superficial physical resemblance to others from those nations. But, those nations include many different languages (over 100 in Russia alone), different religions, different customs, and different histories. Adolf Hitler tried to create a "myth" of pure "Aryan" culture. No such culture ever existed existed outside of the the fevered imaginations of white anglo racists.

And, to "perserves" any culture over time is impossible. The "culture" of your nation of New Zealand is not the same as it was in 1905. And, the "culture" of 1905 is very different than that of 1805.

Your teens were not listening to "rap" music in 1965. And, hopefully, New Zealand's teenagers will stop listening to rap and hip-hop the moment that teens in North America, South America, Europe, and Asia come to their collective senses. But, for now, 18 year old guys in 100 nations are listening to Eminem and the Beastie Boys. Sad, I know.

So, the "myth" of "pure" cultures that do not evolve over time is as goofy as the notion that our one human race can be sub-divided into distinct and unchanging sub-populations based on physical appearance.

the point, javna, is that physical appearance and culture are completely different things. any attempt to equate the two is utterly spurious.

Physical appearance and culture are so often linked though. There's usually a link between them. It's not definite, but certainly a rough guideline.

And before people start jumping to conclusions, physical apperance can include clothes etc, as well as physical features.

i just took come time to read the "racial compact" website that johnny monkey took his taxonomy from. i find a great deal of it disturbing/ i don't know who this richard mcculloch is, but he seems to be something of an apologist for the kind of racialist rhetoric i associate with white separtatists like the aryan nations.

this is from the article "the right to racial life:



this is from "separation: the preservationist imperative" [mcculoch identifies himself as a preservationist]:



all of this is creepily reminiscent of "the fourteen words," the white supremacist slogan created by convicted neo-nazi terrorist david lane:

"We must secure the existence of our People and a future for White Children’s is my life’s mission."

the fourteen words are a kind of mantra of the white supremacist, neo-nazi movement. mcculoch seems to be providing its pseudo-intellectual, scientistic justification.

race is a construct, it does not exist until you decide that it should.


I googled that site and only looked at the table. The table seems to tie-in with my (meagre) understanding of human sub-species. I'll have to review it. No Nazi am I. Though talk like Yoda I can.

Oh dear, I knew this would happen...


Sorry. You are seeking to "perserves" something that never existed. Many folks from Russia, Poland, Norway, Germany, and the United Kingdom have a superficial physical resemblance. But, those nations include many different languages(over 100 in Russia alone), different religions, different customs, and different histories.

I am aware these cultures aren't the same, I'm not an imbicile. I'm just saying that, for example, Norwegian and British culture have more in common than Norwegian and Iraqi, or Norwegian and Nigerian, or Norwegian and Mongolian, and the phyisical differences of these cultures seem to ROUGHLY match their cultural differences.


Adolf Hitler tried to create a "myth" of pure "Aryan" culture. No such culture ever existed existed outside of the the fevered imaginations of white anglo racists.

When did I ever use the words pure or Aryan? Jumping to ridiculous conclusions there.


And, to "perserves" any culture over time is impossible. The "culture" of your nation of New Zealand is not the same as it was in 1905. And, the "culture" of 1905 is very different than that of 1805.

Hmm, perhaps I should have made myself more clear. I do not wish for my culture to be assimilated (although I think there is little risk of this). That doesn't mean I want it to be unchanging.

Sorry. You are seeking to "perserves" something that never existed. Many folks from Russia, Poland, Norway, Germany, and the United Kingdom have a superficial physical resemblance to others from those nations. But, those nations include many different languages (over 100 in Russia alone), different religions, different customs, and different histories. Adolf Hitler tried to create a "myth" of pure "Aryan" culture. No such culture ever existed existed outside of the the fevered imaginations of white anglo racists.

And, to "perserves" any culture over time is impossible. The "culture" of your nation of New Zealand is not the same as it was in 1905. And, the "culture" of 1905 is very different than that of 1805.

Your teens were not listening to "rap" music in 1965. And, hopefully, New Zealand's teenagers will stop listening to rap and hip-hop the moment that teens in North America, South America, Europe, and Asia come to their collective senses. But, for now, 18 year old guys in 100 nations are listening to Eminem and the Beastie Boys. Sad, I know.

So, the "myth" of "pure" cultures that do not evolve over time is as goofy as the notion that our one human race can be sub-divided into distinct and unchanging sub-populations based on physical appearance.


I, for one, welcome our new American overlords.

Your teens were not listening to "rap" music in 1965. And, hopefully, New Zealand's teenagers will stop listening to rap and hip-hop the moment that teens in North America, South America, Europe, and Asia come to their collective senses. But, for now, 18 year old guys in 100 nations are listening to Eminem and the Beastie Boys. Sad, I know.

Okay... I couldn't care less about most rap and especially Eminem but how dare you diss on Beastie Boys? Tsk Tsk. :D

Beastie Boys? 18 year olds? Most people who listen to Beastie Boys are probably closer to 38 than to 18.

Come to think of it (Epiphany!) In the world today, age is a determinant of culture much more than race or even nationality! The Maoris and the Maoists and the Mauritanians (and possibly even the Martians) listen to Eminem if they are 18 and Mick Jagger if they are 48. Clothing styles, food preferences, political beliefs, technology preferences, dialect--all are determined by age and peer group more than ancestry or geography. So much for perseversing culture!

Beastie Boys? 18 year olds? Most people who listen to Beastie Boys are probably closer to 38 than to 18.

Come to think of it (Epiphany!) In the world today, age is a determinant of culture much more than race or even nationality! The Maoris and the Maoists and the Mauritanians (and possibly even the Martians) listen to Eminem if they are 18 and Mick Jagger if they are 48....So much for perseversing culture!

On the contrary: That's a perfect example of why we should!:lol:

let's not confuse race and culture. "race" is hereditary physical characteristics like eye and skin colour. culture is a broad matrix of shared values, language, culture and aesthetics. people of many races can share the same culture, and people can individually participate in and be part of many cultures at once.

physical characteristics are sometimes coterminous with cultures, but not always, and neighbouring cultures are often related, but not always.

javna wrote:

I'm just saying that, for example, Norwegian and British culture have more in common than Norwegian and Iraqi, or Norwegian and Nigerian, or Norwegian and Mongolian, and the phyisical differences of these cultures seem to ROUGHLY match their cultural differences.

and yet, the finns, who are neighbours of the norweigians and resemble them very closely, speak a language that has absolutely no relation to the languages of norway, sweden or even russia. it's language is most closely related to magyar, half a continent away. anthopologists typically see language as the principal determinant of culture, so how is it that you have these people who are "racially" similar, but culturally so different? [i'm not even going to mention the basques.]

culture means something, although the divisions between cultures are somewhat arbitrary [is british culture germanic? is american culture thus germanic? is welsh culture distinct from english culture? is there a canadian culture?], and cultures themselves are amazingly fluid. however, using language as a determinant, one can identify specific linguistic cultural groups.

race, on the other hand, is entirely arbitrary.

I never said my theory was exact. there'll be exceptions obviously. it's just a rough rule of thumb.

I never said my theory was exact. there'll be exceptions obviously. it's just a rough rule of thumb.
then it's not a theory. it's a surmise.

race is a product of culture. cultures invent the idea of race to justify themselves in biological terms.

then it's not a theory. it's a surmise.

race is a product of culture. cultures invent the idea of race to justify themselves in biological terms.
Precisely.

velocipedo--Language is not a foolproof definer of culture, either. For example, English is an official language in India, Pakistan, a couple African countries and Belize (I think) in South America. These were countries that were conquered by England. For that matter, so were Scotland, Ireland and Wales. Similar situations exist with Russian, Spanish, Arabic and Chinese. Warlike nations spread their languages, but not necessarily all aspects of their cultures, all over the world.

Maybe food is a better definer of culture? What do you eat for breakfast?

Roody, even Indo-European is believed to have spread with culture and farming practices from its point of origin, without migrating groups of people taking their language and culture with them.

Maybe food is a better definer of culture? What do you eat for breakfast?

That explains it! I normally skip breakfast. I'm obviously uncultured (nekulturney?). :D

then it's not a theory. it's a surmise.

race is a product of culture. cultures invent the idea of race to justify themselves in biological terms.

Incorrect. Humans are very visual people. Most of us (on some level) tend to associate with people who look similar to us. I am not too sure on some countries, but in most, people of different races tend to be quite seperate. At my old school, the europeans hung around the europeans, the maoris around the maoris, the chinese around the chinese. Not rigidly of course. It wasn't apartheid, noone was going to be shocked if they saw white and brown skins walking side by side. But people for the most part tend to stay with their own race. Of course, in todays society, this is becoming less common, and if a white person grows up in a black neighbourhood he's bound to have mainly black friends.

This would have been even more true as we go back into recent history.

Of course, an obvious exception would be brazil...can't explain that one!

Anyway, my point as, race can be an indication and a part of culture, if an imprecise indication and a small part.

Roody, even Indo-European is believed to have spread with culture and farming practices from its point of origin, without migrating groups of people taking their language and culture with them.
Yes language and culture also spread through peaceful contact with adjoining groups. In that case, perhaps the most efficient or economical practices are the ones that prevail. For example, if the neighboring tribe has a better method of keeping bees, my tribe is likely to observe and voluntariliy imitate it. But, often (not always) in the case of language, higher power or higher status groups impose their words on others.

One thing is absolutely certain - the future is light brown!

Within a small number of generations, most countries' populations will be highly mixed in terms of, what can be called, race.

With ever increasing internationalisation, and with that, travel, people will be less and less restricted by national boundaries, and a gradual mixing will take place.

Blue eyes and blond hair will probably be close to extinct within a few hundred years, since the alleles for dark hair and brown eyes generally are dominant.

That explains it! I normally skip breakfast. I'm obviously uncultured (nekulturney?). :D


They say breakfast is the most important meal of the day.

velocipedo--Language is not a foolproof definer of culture, either. For example, English is an official language in India, Pakistan, a couple African countries and Belize (I think) in South America. These were countries that were conquered by England. For that matter, so were Scotland, Ireland and Wales. Similar situations exist with Russian, Spanish, Arabic and Chinese. Warlike nations spread their languages, but not necessarily all aspects of their cultures, all over the world.

Maybe food is a better definer of culture? What do you eat for breakfast?
i never said it was foolproof. what i said is that anthropologists [and historians, of which i am one] tend to see language as the principal determinant of culture. specifically, the mother tongue. while english is the lingua franca of commonwealth countries like india, discrete cultures can be identified by first language. india is an interesting example, since there are relatively few native english speakers in india. it is, however, a convenient common language allowing a billion people who speak hindi, urdu, tamil, etc. to communicate with each other. culture is largely, though not entirely, intangible, and it is transmitted through language, which is why language is so important.

i had yogurt and blackberries with granola today... what does that say about me? :)


Incorrect. Humans are very visual people. Most of us (on some level) tend to associate with people who look similar to us. I am not too sure on some countries, but in most, people of different races tend to be quite seperate.
sorry. that doesn't wash. race, as we understand the word today, was very much a creation of 19th century romantic nationalism. the nationalist revolutionaries of 1848 promoted the idea of blood ties and the transcendental race-nation. certainly, there was a conception of race long before than, which provided the foundation for american slavery [among others] in the 18th and 19th century, but this was not quite the same, highly-refined taxonomy that we see in richard mccullough.

in fact, the farther back you go in western history [i apologize here, since i'm not very well read in non-western history], the less the idea of race, as we understand it today, has any importance. in the middle ages, for example, europeans did not typically identify themselves, when they identified themselves as europeans at all, in racial terms, but in religious terms. they were christians and members of christendom. the crusades were not wars between europeans and arabs, but between christians and non-christians. significantly, moslems had an even less racial-informed view; during the middle ages, they divided the world into dar al-islam [the world of islam] and dar al-harb [everything else]. by embracing islam, one became a member of dar al-islam regardless of your skin colour or even your first language. north african [and non-arabic] moors were considered simply to be other moslems.

the roman empire is another example. in the middle-to-late empire, one could be a roman if you were a gaul, a goth or even a hun [though the latter proved problematic]. as the foederati won citizenship, they were generally treated as full members of the roman community. the romans had little trouble assimilating people of other "races" into the roman state and culture. the emperor trajan was probably ethnically iberian, but also a full roman; i've seen a bust of at least one late-roman emperor [i can't remember which one now, it's been a while since i've studied roman history] with clearly african features. one of the riddles of late roman history is whether st, augustine of hippo was black. the reason why it's a riddle is that no one -- not even the philosopher himself -- considered his "racial" appearance to be important enough to comment on.

the point is that, while "race" seems very important to a 21st century american, and some of them prefer to associate only with other people with the same features, this has not always been the case with all peoples at all times. that is because race is a cultural construct; important in some cultures at some points in history, and unimportant in others.

The things you learn on this forum! Thanks very much for the fascinating posts, velocipedia. It is kind of you to share so much time and thought.

wow... I voted "other", since I'm half japanese and half scottish/irish/welsh/english/danish.

Talkaboudda mutt.

My dad's from north dakota/montana, descended from laborers. My mom's from japan, and has a strong family line, so to speak. I was born in Japan, moved to hawaii when I was going on 7 years old. In hawaii, it's pretty damn ethnically diverse. It's a place where white people are the minority... quite different from the rest of the states (I live in oregon now... I went through minor/subtle culture shock, but I was expecting it :B).

It was kinda cool... growing up in hawaii was like an in between point between asia and america... even though my dad's ancestors come from europe.

Thought I'd share :P

Good story SIMP. Thanks. Amazing that 2 people from so far apart came together and made you and any other little poopers there may be. My parents were from the same little hick town in Michigan, but my dad went all the way to Japan before he knew for sure that he really belonged back in Michigan with my mom, where they made me and my sister pooper. If I had to put a race, I would put Michigander!

I say I'm mixed when everyone asks why I've got "Such a beautiful tan" and "Those darling green eyes."
I think pretty soon I'll just start saying "I don't know, really. I was adopted out of a crack house orphanage."
But I'm black, white, hatian, injun, and er, that's it. I say American.

Velocipedio, you're not quite right there.
People have probably always had a relatively cool attitude towards people who don't look like themselves.
I know for a fact that truly racist attitudes were normal in Europe from the late middle ages to modern times. Why would anyone think it was any different before that?

Velocipedio, you're not quite right there.
People have probably always had a relatively cool attitude towards people who don't look like themselves.
I know for a fact that truly racist attitudes were normal in Europe from the late middle ages to modern times. Why would anyone think it was any different before that?
yet moslems and jews -- who were not ethnically european -- were typically accepted as european if they converted to christianity. what defined them was religious faith, not hereditary physical chracteristics.

i'm sure a farmer's daughter in 9th century ireland noticed that the vikings who had sacked her village noticed that they were a foot taller and blond or red-haired rather than dark haired, but it wasn't their appearance that defined them as heathens [barbarians]. when the vikings' descendents converted to christianity in the 11th century and stopped sacking and pillaging, they were accepted as just another christian peoples.

it's interesting that the english chronicles don't refer to harald hardrada or william the conqueror as heathens or even norsemen.

the word "race" has been around for quite a while, but the meaning it has today -- of a taxonomic group representing an inbreeding population -- is relatively vrecent in western history. in the past "race" meant anything from a family to a different community in the next valley.

not to open the subject of historical semiotics, but even though we use the same words, it's important not to anachronisitcall apply modern meanings to the past.

it's interesting that the english chronicles don't refer to harald hardrada or william the conqueror as heathens or even norsemen.


William the Conqueror wasn't a heathen.

He wasn't a Norseman either. However he was a Norman and they were descended from the Norsemen hence the name.

The visual cues that define a "Race" make up less than 1% of one genes. How is that a "race"? Skin color is one of the fastest evelutionary changes that humans make, taking only about 20,000 years to make a full, black to white or white to black, shift. We all have the same number of melatonen glands, just some peoples' are turned on more than others, one gene turns the dimmer switch out of the 3 million in our genome.

Why so fast? Because melatonen is the dark substance and it block UV rays. To much UV and the vitamen thiamen is destroyed leading to many severe birth defects in one's offspring, to little UV and the body won't make enough vitamen D which would lead to fragile bones and teeth due to a lack of calcium(which, to be absorbed, needs D). Either way, those not adapted to the local UV level quickly fall by the wayside.

William the Conqueror wasn't a heathen.
neither was harald hardrada. that's because he was a christian. what defined culture or "race" to an englishman in 1066 was religion. if you were a norwegian pagan, you were different; if you were a norwegian christian, you were the same.

For that matter, so were Scotland, Ireland and Wales.

:roflmao: English is spoke in Scotland, oh man thats rich.

You ever been to Scotland? They don't normally speak English, they speak Scotch, and some celtic here and there. ;)

neither was harald hardrada. that's because he was a christian. what defined culture or "race" to an englishman in 1066 was religion. if you were a norwegian pagan, you were different; if you were a norwegian christian, you were the same.
And before that: If you were a deer, you were food; if you were a human you were the same.; If you were a martian in a flying machine, you were the basis of human religion.

The visual cues that define a "Race" make up less than 1% of one genes. How is that a "race"? Skin color is one of the fastest evelutionary changes that humans make, taking only about 20,000 years to make a full, black to white or white to black, shift. We all have the same number of melatonen glands, just some peoples' are turned on more than others, one gene turns the dimmer switch out of the 3 million in our genome.

Why so fast? Because melatonen is the dark substance and it block UV rays. To much UV and the vitamen thiamen is destroyed leading to many severe birth defects in one's offspring, to little UV and the body won't make enough vitamen D which would lead to fragile bones and teeth due to a lack of calcium(which, to be absorbed, needs D). Either way, those not adapted to the local UV level quickly fall by the wayside.
Then why are the Innuit so dark? And my cousin in Florida is a blonde.

Then why are the Innuit so dark? And my cousin in Florida is a blonde.

Snow reflects much UV, ask any skier. [edit:add] they also spend more time outside than europeans, it's a tan man.:)

Is your cousin in florida the result of 1000 generations of Floridians? Or even 50? Florida was mostly, densely forested untill resently anyway which would have a moderating effect on UV at ground level.