Does Kelly have some exotic genes?

There are no Anglo-Saxon genes, here's the genetic composition of the average Brit:

50% North European
33% Mediterranean
17% Southwest Asian (which people call Middle Eastern)

The average "exotic" Middle Eastern person has the same composition but in different amounts. Some actually have more Mediterranean than Southwest Asian.

The only non Caucasian people from the ME are the ones that have a significant amount of Sub-Saharan DNA, such as Egyptians, or Iranies, that have a significant amount of East Asian ancestry.

Where have you got these figures from?

And why are some people so eager to establish that Kelly Brook isn't British?

Of course, most Brits if one goes back far enough, have mongrel blood, but if you go back far enough we're all descended from Africa, so the exercise seems meaningless.

I have ethnic immigrant blood because my mother is a foreigner, but as far as I'm aware Kelly Brook is 100% English. Just because she's got dark hair/eyes doesn't mean she's not Northern European. And most English people tan. It's only fair haired Celts that have a reputation for burning.

Oh, you English are so superior, aren't you?

Where have you got these figures from?

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/reference-populations/

but if you go back far enough we're all descended from Africa, so the exercise seems meaningless.

Genes mutate, that's how different races develop. Whether the first human appeared in Africa or somewhere else is irrelevant because all races have different genes that differenciate them one from another.

Where do you stand on the notion of race theory, and the idea that certain groups are seen as advantaged/privileged, including Northern Europeans, particularly those of English extraction? I ask because the fact that the average Brit has a high percentage of Southwest Asian and Mediterranean blood might put that notion in a tailspin.

Where do you stand on the notion of race theory, and the idea that certain groups are seen as advantaged/privileged, including Northern Europeans, particularly those of English extraction?

You're either mistaking me for someone else or getting my words out of context. I've NEVER ever claimed that some races are better than others.

I've also noticed that the following is not your signature but it was actually directed at me:
Oh, you English are so superior, aren't you?
I'm not English, never been to England or UK and never ever claimed that English were superior.

I'm not English, never been to England or UK and never ever claimed that English were superior.Sorry for the offence.

It was my old signature (you can check my posting history for posts that pre-date the last one if you're in doubt). I deleted my sig precisely because I didn't want to cause this type of offence. Few people seem to realise that it's from a movie.

You're either mistaking me for someone else or getting my words out of context. I've NEVER ever claimed that some races are better than others.No, I realise that, and that's a good thing.

But race theory is not about who's 'superior', which would be an offensive question, but the fact that certain races and ethnicities, including the race/ethnic group known as the 'Anglo-Saxons', have had historical social privileges/advantages compared to others. It's curious that the average English person may be comprised of Mediterranean and Asian bloodlines in view of these advantages.

Anyway I apologise for the inadvertent offence I may have caused.

That's ok, no problem.

Her genes make her jeans look good!