Quote Originally Posted by Northman View Post
In my opinion, Europe has had so many population movements, conquests, border changes, that ethnic 'purity' is a myth. The only really homogeneous ethnicity is the Japanese. Europeans, by nature, are diverse, as evidenced by the variety we see in hair color, texture, skin tone, eye color.

You have general population groupings, influenced by various events in history, geographic realities, and many, many other things, including unfortunately rape.
It's a myth of Japanese purity, since they have something like two very different groups making their population: Asian Yayoi and African Jomon. It's ironic that anyone holds Japs on a pedestal for being the least like other Asians, when it means only their African forefathers colonised islands in Asia that might actually deserve to belong more to the Asians around them. China's been indebting Africa through overwhelming investments, but I'd think the eugenic thing to do is for the Jomon to repair to Africa and China finally secure the Yayoi Islands for their Korean kin. It would also be good if China could help the Malagasy protect their island nation from the Bantu, although perhaps the Maori activists might find it more similar to their interests.

Quote Originally Posted by Agramer View Post
In my oppinion, it's similar to multiculturality. For instance, multiculturality is positive phenomenom if it's really abouth different CULTURES. So in according to that, if Swedes immigrate to Germany and other way arround it really is a positive thing from wich boath will prosper. If however it consists of bringing alien "cultures" like for instance turkish/arab/negro ones to some European contry, than it's not multiculturality at all in my oppinion, scince they don't present a valid culture in our scence of culture. Same goes for heritige. I think it's good to be diverse, even if it's within one nation (for instance if you are German wich has boath Bavarian and Prussian and Austrian heritige) because you see other noble cultures and costumes and always have some family and relatives in different parts of Europe (or other white continents naturaly)

PS. I think that that there aren't much people who can say for sure that they're of "pure" ethnic blood of any nation nowdays... Maybee Japanesse, Eskimos and Albanians ...
Eskimos are blood brethren of Turco-Mongols, all being haplogroup C and not the same as Amerindians of haplogroup Q. Albanians of haplogroup E are African colonists in Europe, brothers of haplogroup D Japanese in Asia. There's very good reason why they haven't blended with their Eurasian hosts, but are a perpetual occupation like leeches or ticks that just won't go away.

Quote Originally Posted by Loyalist View Post
I am mixed, but that mixture is an amalgamation of roughly compatible (from a Colonial point of view), North-Western European, Germanic-Celtic groups. The vast majority of my ancestors were from the British Isles, chiefly Scotland, England, and Ireland (Ulster), with a few Welsh lines thrown in. The rest is comprised of German, Dutch, French, and Norwegian blood from Colonial times.

Now, culturally, the latter has long since vanished from my family's identity. With the exception of the German element, we were actually unaware of the rest until I did the research. The individuals in question all arrived in Canada during the American Revolution, married into families of Colonial English, Scottish, and Welsh origin, and have long since assimilated into the Anglo-Canadian fold. On the other hand, about half of my family is of recent British stock; we still have relatives in the UK, and I have spent a great deal of time over there. In terms of culture, I have had the greatest exposure to my English side, and I consequently feel more comfortable and "at home" in England than anywhere else overseas. My English blood, however, is barely a third of my background; my paternal grandmother is fully English, a native of Shropshire, and my maternal grandmother was of largely Colonial English descent.

In keeping with the Colonial notion of paternal supremacy in ethnic origin, I also consider my Scottish forbears key to my identity. My direct paternal ancestor was a Scot, a victim of the Highland Clearances, and the Scots in my other lines are about equal in number to my English element. To further confuse matters, my maternal grandfather was an Ulster-Scot of Lowland Scottish and English origin, but who identified as an Irishman (bear in mind his family left Ireland before the partition and the move by Protestants to establish a unique ethnic identity). I have only spent brief periods in Scotland and Ireland, however, and my relatives on these sides are either estranged or long since passed away. When contrasted to England, then, this part of my heritage is more alien, even if, strictly speaking, it is just as significant.

I will concede that I sometimes wish to hail from a more homogeneous ethnic background, and look on those who do with envy. However, I also take great pride in my ancestry, whether it is the British Islanders who are core to my identity today, the Germans after them, or the single Norwegian tobacco planter giving me that slight Nordic connection. Nor am I forgetting the handful of Dutchmen and Frenchmen. All of those people converged on these shores and, building isolated colonies into some of the greatest nations on Earth, proved that the European and Germanic race is supreme even when transplanted far from its native soil.
The typical British Islesman is descended in the majority from all the nations not only making up the Union of England, Scotland and Ireland, but in the minority also from all the nations held jointly with them, at least the pre-Columbian realms. For instance, in just focusing on England's Continental contributions, whether through lords or commons, one can find inalienable descent from Denmark, Norway and Sweden before 1042, afterwards Spain, Sicily, Naples and Jerusalem before 1558, the Netherlands before 1702, France before 1801 and Hanover before 1837. Nevertheless, those elements are not equal in scope or importance, partly due to ethnic differences and duration of concordance, so the basic pre-1066 ethnic nature of England with Scandinavia remains fundamental, as the fleeting bipolar Spanish and Dutch, or more considerable French and German establishments canceled each other out in the long run.

All of those were absorbed in various degrees before 1783 in the cases of Virginia and New England, when Americans reformulated the 1649-60 Commonwealth and Protectorate in the West Indies, with truly Honourary Aryan Amerindians. The modern East Indies contribution until 1948 is no more or less controversial, but still Indo-Aryan and yet it will be some time before that is fully assimilated, the same as Britishness transforming into unique Dominion nationalities of Ireland, Newfoundland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Rhodesia in the same time frame. These two natures of English demography concerning Americans/Britons beyond the seas and West/East Indian inclusion unfold extant in parallel conditions. In the Empire of yesterday and Commonwealth of today, it is of the utmost import to sublimate variously mentioned South/West European and West/East Indian aspirations within the Anglo-Scandinavian and Scots-Irish framework at the heartland of the British Isles.

Quote Originally Posted by Rodskarl Dubhgall View Post
There are different meanings of purity and admixture. For Great Britain and Northern Ireland, I'm hardly representative of the whole Union, but could be a good candidate for England with perhaps Cornwall and/or the Welsh Marches in mind, even if not so much as the Principality on the whole. The pre-1536 establishment of England without Wales, especially in the previous time when Lothian belonged to Northumbria and not Scotland, perhaps would be the conditions in which I've got my ethnic heritage. Furthermore, the only way in which I'm mixed at all, is as how an Englishman's regional interests differ from other Germanic folk, as they are otherwise influenced by their own conditions. There's no neutral Germanic standard of deviation by which to judge.
I will go further, since I have lately discovered that the old folks in my family rightly passed down a tradition of our provenance being from Scotland. Now, Scotland was once merely Argyll and didn't yet exist like it does now, as sundry realms existed there before the one Stewart clan ruled it all. I received DNA intelligence that the most prolific branch of my clan is long landed in Ayrshire near Largs, the Cumbrae, Arran and Bute, which I trace to the sacking of Dumbarton Rock and whilst most of the surnames matching me in DNA are of Norse (few English) etymology, none including my particular surname have been so numerous in comparison to what we can all agree is our Norwegian clan from the Norn Isles, from whence we disseminated throughout Galwegian settlements before 1066 as the Domesday Book recalls. Due to the history of Anglo-Scottish animosity on the Borders, along with modern hostility to do with Devolution, one may forgive the egg on my face about Scots, as my in-laws come from the same region of Scotland, if only Wigtownshire instead. It's just that vacillation is only natural with an artificial boundary like Hadrian's Wall, such as Berwick not including Berwickshire despite the inanity of that partition. If the Antonine Wall were used, nobody in old Strathclyde would be divided, the same if the Isles between Orkney and Mann were reunited as one body--not merely reconnecting York through Bamburgh and Edinburgh. If I were to be a Norn nationalist, Mann is not enough autonomy and neither should surrounding polities feature on the Royal Arms and the Union Jack without Manx representation. English, Scottish and Irish nationalism are all rather besides the point for my purposes.