WE ARE NOT MONGRELS – ONE ETHNIC TYPE!
One of the commonest objections advanced against British Israel teaching is that the British cannot possibly be Israelites, because they are a very mixed race, composed of Britons, Celts, Picts, Scots, Angles, Jutes, Danes and Normans.
Although this mixed race theory has long prevailed, ethnologists declare that the various peoples who settled in the British Isles were branches of a common stock. Thus Professor Gunther, in The Racial Elements of European History (pages 228-229), remarks:
‘The racial composition of England is worthy of special mention, for the common and wrong opinion exists about the English people that it owes its capacity to much racial admixture. . .Whatever peoples, whatever individual Viking bands may have trodden English ground – Celts, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, Norwegian and Icelandic Vikings, Normans – they were always predominantly Nordic peoples. English history is rich in movements of peoples; in movements of races it has little to show.’
ONE OF THE BEST TESTS OF RACE
 In The Races of Europe, Professor W.Z. Ripley points out that ‘the shape of the head is now held to be one of the best available tests of race known’ (page 37), and he adds later:
‘The most remarkable trait of the population of the British Isles is its headform; and especially the uniformity in this respect which is everywhere manifested’ (page 303).
Professor Sir Arthur Keith, in his Robert Boyle Lecture  on  Nationality  and  Race   from   an Anthropologist’ s Point of View (pages 22-26), states:
‘It is often said that we British are a mixed and mongrel collection of types and breeds; the truth is that, as regards physical type, the inabitants of the British Isles are the most uniform of all the large nationalities of Europe. . . . . . As regards the shape of the skull or form of bones, I do not think a practised craniologist could distinguish the skulls and bones found in an ancient Saxon cemetery in Surrey from the remains of a Celtic grave in Connemara, so much are the Celtic and Saxon types alike. Were we to dress one group of fishermen from the coast of Norfolk and another from the shores of Connaught in the same garb, I do not think there is an anthropologist in Europe who by mere inspection could tell the Irish from the English group. From a physical point of view the Celt and Saxon are one: whatever be the source of their mutual antagonism, it does not lie in a difference of race.’
UNIFORMITY OF THE BRITISH
In an article which appeared in the Daily Mail on 26th February 1931, the same learned authority asserts:
‘The British Isles are supposed to be inhabited by a mongrel people – the most mixed in Europe. We are the descendants of Celts, Saxons, Angles, Jutes, Danes, Normans, Flemings and Huguenots. As dressed up in a Lord Mayor ‘s Show we recognise each of these faces without difficulty. But suppose we return to the crowd which deploys into the city every morning – can we recognise Celt from Saxon, Angle, from Dane, Irishman from Scot? I confess that I cannot.’
“Of course you cannot”, my critic replies, “because in these centuries all our original races have become mixed up by intermarriage and migration.” The mixture is older than the critics suppose. We know many burial places where early Saxon settlers laid their dead; we know English cemeteries in which Celts were buried. We know well the facial features and shapes of head of the original Danish and Norman invaders.
‘Yet the expert craniologist, when he examines a mixed collection of skulls, obtained from the Celtic, Saxon, Danish, and Norman graveyards of England, has the same difficulty as the ordinary man has when he seeks to separate the descendants of these races in the morning crowd which emerges from Liverpool Street Station.
‘In facial feature and cranial shape all these invaders of England were of the same general conformation. Celt, Saxon, Dane and Norman, although they came at different times, bringing with them peculiarities in speech, manners, and customs; one and all they were offshoots of the same great parent stock of North-west Europe. They were cousin peoples.. .we may rightly look upon the British people as the least mongrel, the most uniform, to be found in any country in Europe.’
In his English Commonwealth (page 35), Sir Francis Paigrave remarks:
‘Britons and Anglo-Saxons, Danes and Normans, were all relations: however hostile, they were all kinsmen, shedding kindred blood.’
ONE PEOPLE
 Dr. Thomas Nicholas, in The Pedigree of the English (page 33) declares: ‘The researches of modern historians unequivocally favour the opinion that under the names of Keltai, Galatai, Gauls, Gaels, Gwyddyls, Celts, Cimmerii, Cimbri, Cymry, Brython, Lloegrians, Scots and Picts, only one race, under different tribe or clan divisions, political organisations, and periods of existence, is spoken of, and while different degrees of diversity through shorter or longer periods of estrangement and foreign admixture had intervened, still no such diversity prevailed as would materially affect their unity and integrity, and hence their classification as one people.‘
 According to Julian Huxley, A.C. Haddon and A.M. Carr Saunders, the authors of We Europeans, the true Semitic type is long-headed, or, as it is commonly called, Nordic. Therefore, since the British people are Nordic, there is certainly no racial impossibility, whatever objection may be raised on historical grounds, that the settlers in these islands may have been of lsraelitish, Hebrew or even earlier Semitic stock.
End
