Why are some Polish people dark complected,and others very light

Latent genetics is the vehicle by which skin pigmentation is, at times, brought to the forfront with regards to Polish ethnicity. An examination of Polish history, with emphasis on it's wars of invasion will satisfactorily provide the answers you seek. Waring tribes from the East, the Hunic expansion and of course the Khans of Mongolia all contribute.

"They came from the East" is a common enough phrase with respect to this subject amongst Poles.

I think the last two pure breed people were Adam and Eve.
Shortly after their initial meeting (arranged by a higher authority) they engaged in sex and nothing has been the same since. (That's a fact!)

It has to do with sun exposure.I am sure vampires in Poland have very white skin.

Hungarians are more Slavic than you think. The local Slavic population was conquered by Turkish Avars who left the language and few customs.
There is still a discussion about Hungarian language, does it belong to Ugro-Finnish or Turkish. I believe than it its definitely Turkish/Iranian family. Spending some time in these countries I found the sounds very similar, I do not know about meaning.

wierd how people on this thread talk about others' experiences from history as if they were their own.

other than that, this is a very interesting topic to read through.

they dont celebrate halloween.. :D


quote=Foreigner4] wierd how people on this thread talk about others' experiences from history [/quote]

isnt that what the imagination is supposed to do, put yourself in history so that you
can try to understand what they did, went thru, to get to where we are today?


I agree.. we need more input in this thread.. has anyone had their DNA tree
done ( ancestry) to see which group they belong?

I plan to in the near future..

I feel you have a point there, and I agree with you, but only to an extent. I.E, imagining isn't the same as being.

I agree with you that we must endeavor to empathize in order to sympathize. But we must keep ourselves in check when we speak about realities. If it has not been our direct experience then it is, in my opinion, a form of dishonesty to use a term which attributes an event to our experience.

The following example is simply only that and a simplification of something i've seen and read many times, the basics have been kept true to form:

-We had to go through a lot during the period of partition.

In the above example, unless the person (albeit an example) had gone through this experience themself, then the term "we" is incredibly inaccurate.

These kinds of words lead to an "us vs them" kind of debate imo.

but every moment in time cannot be re-created or forseen so its up to the imagination
to bring forth these so called experiences from the past given the information
presented by those whom have explored these avenues of our past lives...

there wasnt just one dinosaur or one human..



we,us,they, them -pleural forms meaning more then one.. history involves many..




not necessarily so, IMHO it can repeat itself thru others and in certain instances..

For example: someone can be attacked by a pitbull. it might not be the same one
that attacks again, but the same breed of pitbull can attack another human and
leave the same damage.. thus two of the same types of historical events that happened to ( pleural) two people with more then likely the same provocation as this is
how we learn about animals, plants and humans because history can be predictable
in some instances.. we have come so much further because of this.

:))

That's when logic must stop the imagination from substituting reality for fantasy and acknowledge others' pasts while admitting we have no past lives to readily call upon ourselves.


No. "We" is a first person subject pronoun that means the speaker or writer speaks for a subject group as a representative. "Us" is first person object pronoun that accomplishes the same only as a object group representative. History involves many, but if a person was not a participant then as sanity dictates, they are not qualified to present themselves as one outside of acting or literature.




No, I'm sorry but you wrote yourself "in other instances," in my example the reasoning still stands unblemished and unaffected.

Excellent point! I completely agree with you on some levels of this arguement. If i get
you right, a viable conclusion could be "we should be careful of this dog" or "this dog may attack us." Is that what you meant?

However, I've read the equivalent of people making statements like "We were attacked" or "This dog attacked us."

Semantically so close, yet so different in logic and in reality. Unfortunately people seem to look down on semantic specificity as it limits the play on emotions and doesn't allow for lazy thinking.

I completely agree with you again, and wouldn't dream of presenting anything against that. But, simply because this kind of thinking applies to laws of nature and the people act doesn't give us (yes "us") license to present ourselves as realtime players in things we (yes "we") haven't been apart of. Yes, in a thought exercise, of course you're right, (and then some). Yet there is a line of logic and reason people cross when given to imagination and it's in crossing that line people fall down the slippery slope into backward and childish rants that though full of base emotion, are void of anything beyond that. And outside the bedroom is seldom to positive effect.

well of course,, because the first statement doesnt specify what they were attacked by
the second tells what attacked them and so the two arent similar because the first
statement could refer to a man or a cat or snake..

but its up to the individual to become interested in the statement and create his own
thought process of how/what happened.. or succumb to lazy thinking and not be
interested at all..

ok let's take it that step further, even to say "we were attacked by that dog" is still fallacious use of language. the object need not be identified explicitly when the two people discussing it are both clear on what the object (in this case our example dog) is.

other than that i still agree with some of your assesment but i still stand by my observation.

ahhh but how do we know they are only discussing it among themselves?

maybe the reference to being attacked was to a goup of people :)

they can read can't they?

dont fall off the wagon

*grabs foreigner4 by the hand*

its clearly a discussion , not a book :)

no, i meant that two seperate incidents happened .. by the same type of animal
( predictable) making the incident's similar in how/possibly why/ what happened.

two different sets of people/persons.

We should be careful of this dog is pre-meditated warning. as is this dog may attack
us because the dog hasnt attacked yet, but possibly could.

same applies to known diseases, animals, humans, plants, ( being predictable)
so someone elses reality could have repeated itself ( different person) but
same instances therefore it cannot be a dishonest to use a term to describe something even it is was someone else's reality because that is the english language
and if the word only has one meaning, it cant be another's dishonest abuse of the term if its the only word to describe it.

and even if we are seperate in realitys, we still all in some way share the same
predictable history.. which is why we are so comfortable with our lives now.
we learned from it.. and would it be wrong to say that when your born , you do not
have a handbook in your diaper that tells you what not to do, its all a case of learning
which we all know by experience have went thru similar learning experiences growing
up..

do not touch a stove. do not play with scissors, do not pull the dogs hair, do not
eat crayons, do not.. the list goes on.. thats my point.

:)))

well thank you for pointing out something i wasn't referring to, no just kidding.
hey you should start up a lil promotion, you could predict the past for people, you'd be all but guaranteed a perfect score, lol.

in any case it was only an observation how people wrongly attribute things to their own experience, it's like knowing vs hearing something.


How many meanings of "we" can exist in a given context? Check your medication or stop eating crayons, one or the other:)

it's lazy thinking to not be specific, but people are prone to substituting themselves as players in events they never experienced, so yeah that's a lil dishonest, and it was that and only that i had meant. now let's continue to beat a dead horse and you can reclarify something that i made no comment on anyhow ok?

nahhhhhhhh , I will let you beat whatever it is you want to.. I got better things to
do. :) lol

hope Your Christmas was Blessed.. :)

I just had my DNA genetic profile done, and it came out that I am completely Polish. This came as a complete surprise because most of my genealogy from the last 500 years is English, Irish, and Dutch. I have very fair skin with freckles, green/hazel eyes, and dark hair. Is my complexion common in Poland?

Why are some Polish people dark complected,and others very light

Some are what you call 'Polish Negroes' or Czarny Polska.

Some of the darker people might be jews who are attempting to blend in with the local population.

When I was younger I had blonde hair but now I am a lot like you. Also how much did you pay to get the dna profile done?

It struck me when I came to Warsaw after being abroad for a quite a long time how identical everyone looks. I was looking down on a crowd waiting for luggage.
I had a friend who without a doubt had some Tartar blood, he looked like a copy of Zbigniew Brzezinski (slightly slanted eyes, and facial features making children cry). To my great sorrow he passed away, anyway I doubt if he will know. There were Tartars resettled on the eastern border, these were captured soldiers of an Ottoman Empire, recognized as well trained and fierce worriers they were offered freedom and land on the eastern border. Officers were granted nobility status and throughout the Polish history they were the most patriotic. Quickly integrated into polish society while retaining their religion (Muslim). Since the eastern parts were after WW2 incorporated into USSR many of them moved to the central Poland.
There was also Armenians coming to Poland as small traders when both countries were part of Great Russia, then at the beginning of XX century when they were running away from Turks. They also quickly assimilated.
Both are usually shorter and having darker completion people (my friend was very pale and tall).

I'm one of the dark ones :)

My sister is strawberry blond with blue eyes, and I'm a brunette with brown eyes. We both look completely different and yet people almost always know that the both of us are Polish.

He could be Jewish. Since they come from Israel they have a darker complexion, or he could be of ethnic Turkish origin or Tartar or Cossack etc.

im a light one LOL! i got blonde hair blue eyes and fair skin

What happened to the original question ?
Poland is a nation, therefore Poles are a Nationality group.
Being Jewish refers to a Religious group.
Racial group originally was a larger group which had similar physical characteristics;
more recently that has become skin color. the problem is there are millions who don't fit into any group: or for their own issues others put them into a different group.

That'll be the Romanians.

More recently it has become genes.Poles are the purest Slavs by DNA.

My father looked like your typical Santa Claus! High cheekbones, moustache (of course - but no beard) He had high cheekbones, blue eyes and fine fairish/brown straight hair. I look very like him but without the moustache! I have fair skin but tan very easily.

My grandparents, however, from the one photo I have of them look darker and have a different physiognomy, they don't look as slavic. As my father was married before, I have a half sister who has almost jet black wavy hair and dark grey eyes and looks more like our grandparents than she does our Dad.

And I recently was very attracted to a Kurd who I met while I was buying an apartment in Turkiye of all places! Felt very in tune with him for some reason.

You see that there are dominant genes which can be predominant over others?Polish genes remained only although there were english,irish and dutch ancestors as well.This as an answer to some smartasses who think that there is no way some genes can dominate over others.

Also please.Skin colour has to do with exposure to sun.If Poles emigrated to some region with lots of sunshine like Egypt,they would have become darker after some generations.It is natural selection mechanism.Finns and Hungarians had common ancestors.Despite that Finns now have lighetr skin colour than Hungarians because they live in a place with much less sunshine.
Be reasonable.Colour is not very important.It changes easily according to place.What is important are the facial and body characterisics,especially the length/width of nose ratio,the length of nose/width of splachnic cranium ratio and many other indexes which differ between different nationalities.