There's a lot of French influence in certain parts of southern Italy (Naples for one), which is why there are some blue eyed Italians there.

My family always noted that they were from the North because there was a lot of racism and discrimination against Italians during the middle of the last country - name calling, refusal to hire and job discrimination, housing and dating segregation. It certainly was no different from the discrimination towards the Irish during the late 1800s, towards Chinese and Japanese immigrants to the West Coast during that century, or towards Hispanics today, but it happened and my family used the North/South distinction to try to avoid being treated badly. Though growing up in the suburbs during the '70s and early '80s, I certainly heard my share of negative remarks against Italians, including my family, so claiming we were from the North didn't help much!

Anonymous wrote:The study, published in the journal PLoS Genetics, was led by Reich and doctoral student Priya Moorjani. Nick Patterson, a research scientist who works in Reich’s lab and at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, worked with Moorjani to develop an additional technique —which they called ROLLOFF — for estimating the dates of population mixture events.

Together with other contributing researchers, the three determined that southern Europeans bear an average of 1 to 3 percent African ancestry dating back about 55 generations. Groups in the eastern Mediterranean’s Levant region have between 4 and 15 percent African ancestry, with an average mixture date of 32 generations ago, while Jewish populations have between 3 percent and 5 percent African ancestry, dating back on average about 72 generations ago. No African ancestry was found in northern European populations.

Give us a link, please. Because what you are suggesting is preposterous. Northern Europeans did not spontaneously generate from the north. They and all humans descended (no matter if more than 77+ generations ago) from Africans. The 3% of "ancestry" you are quoting is a vague misrepresentation of the fact that the concept of "race" is void of biological foundation. Differences are purely superficial.
"The data for tracking lineages come from genomics, DNA comparisons and the study of genetic markers. Tattersall and DeSalle argue that not only are the differences between the classically defined “races” very superficial, they are also of surprisingly recent origin; the variety of human populations seems to have both accumulated and begun to reintegrate within the past 50,000 to 60,000 years. The diversity among us has arisen in a blink of evolution’s eye. The process of relative geographic isolation of local populations into what might have been true races (genetically differentiated populations) during the last Ice Age began to reverse as formerly isolated human groups came back into contact and interbred. That reintegration, which has occurred intermittently throughout human history, is sped up today because of great migration and widespread mating of individuals from disparate geographic origins. The result is that individuals identified as belonging to one “race,” based on the small number of visible characters used in historical race definitions, are likely to have diverse ancestry. The distinction between ancestry and race has important implications, as the authors discuss."
http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/Help/Books.aspx

Anonymous wrote:OP, I would suggest you visit to see for yourself. You will get no straight answers here. DCUM is representative of the area - a bunch of know it alls who know nothing.

There are North vs. South arguments in every single continent and country I have visited. Often, Northerners feel superior (and yes, PP, "Honey Boo" whats her name may have something to do with this perpetuation). Visit and see for yourself! Don't be a "know nothing" who likes to hear themselves talk

If you know people who speak Spanish, there are places that feel themselves superior to other Spanish speaking areas (cue the "I am NOT Mexican - I am Angentinian" sentiment; thought this is not admitted amongst outsiders).

It is not just Italy. Expand your horizons. Unless you are a troll who hates Italians and thinks the Sopranos are representative of all Italians (there are not that many Italians in this area compared to other areas, frankly). Then just go away.

except in South America

Anonymous wrote:The Germans see ALL Italians as dark, even those from the "north". The Brits see the continental people (including the Germans as dark. It is all relative.
I love dark skin and LOVED the way Sicilian men looked when tanned. Absolutely gorgeous.
The DNA points to everyone south of the Alps as having SUB-SAHARAN African blood in them. That would include Northern Italians.

Lol. The DNA points to everyone having sub-saharan blood in them--Humans have less DNA variation within their blood than chimpanzees do within their chimpanzee cohort.

Anonymous wrote:My family is from Nothern Italy, and when I explain that I'm Italian, I generally say the North but that's because I don't "look" like the stereotypical Italian (e.g., dark hair, etc.) I have olive skin, but light hair and eyes, which is more typical of the north. Frankly, I never thought anything of it beyond clearing up confusion when people think I must be full of sh*t.

My grandparents are equally split between southern (Naples) and northern (Torino) Italy. The southern set have olive skin, brown hair and BLUE eyes. This is incredibly common in the south. Most of my family in Torino (and in fact, most people I know there) have brown eyes and dark hair. So I think only WASPs or American anglos would assume you're not Italian if with your coloring.

P.S. I don't have the olive skin or brown eyes OR dark, thick hair -- I have light skin with freckles, green eyes, and auburn hair, but no one in Italy (north OR south) assumed I was anything but Italian I doubt northern Italians go out of their way to say so because people think they are lying about their ancestry!

Why do most (not some) southern europeans do this? Racism. Southern Europeans are more likely to have a close YES sub-saharan (read AFRICAN) ancestor. They are, like virtually all europeans teeming with racial insecurity and obsessed with "purity" so they think they are distancing themselves from it by saying they are from the North and thereby "whiter". It is sad. As most Americans from the south should know, visible African features can be mostly erased from offspring through intermarriage in about 2 generations. My family is german--my grandparents are of course white, but with very full lips and coarser features. My grandmother had a hatred of gypsies that was drenched with the fear that she herself may have descended from them. Just look at Arnold Schwarnegger...

Italian Americans who tell you they are from the North want to reassure that they are not like the stereotypical Jersey/South Philly Italian (who stereotypically dress a certain way that they Northerners think is uncouth, call sauce "gravy" and replace a "c" with a "g" sound (galamad instead of calamari, managoot instead of manicotti, etc.).

I think it is ridiculous, and my wife and I are each one half southern Italian, and one half "merigan" (which I think means American) - trust me, our family with Southern Italian ancestry is the best!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
According to PP, we're all black?

Only if you apply the one-drop rule. Which is fine, nothing wrong with being black, but the history of that approach to racial identification is pretty effed up.

I should add, it's more accurate to say that we're all African. Black as a racial construct is much more recent and varies from culture to culture and continent to continent, whereas our origins in Africa are much older, universal, and fairly undisputed (thank you, Lucy).

Anonymous wrote:
According to PP, we're all black?

Only if you apply the one-drop rule. Which is fine, nothing wrong with being black, but the history of that approach to racial identification is pretty effed up.

Anonymous wrote:
According to PP, we're all black?

It's true.. well.. kinda. Do some research.

According to PP, we're all black?

OP, I would suggest you visit to see for yourself. You will get no straight answers here. DCUM is representative of the area - a bunch of know it alls who know nothing.

There are North vs. South arguments in every single continent and country I have visited. Often, Northerners feel superior (and yes, PP, "Honey Boo" whats her name may have something to do with this perpetuation). Visit and see for yourself! Don't be a "know nothing" who likes to hear themselves talk

If you know people who speak Spanish, there are places that feel themselves superior to other Spanish speaking areas (cue the "I am NOT Mexican - I am Angentinian" sentiment; thought this is not admitted amongst outsiders).

It is not just Italy. Expand your horizons. Unless you are a troll who hates Italians and thinks the Sopranos are representative of all Italians (there are not that many Italians in this area compared to other areas, frankly). Then just go away.

Even in northern Italy, blond hair is rare and it is referred to as "Italian blond". I have heard the same term for Jewish blond and Spanish blond, which is often a light brown.

The Germans see ALL Italians as dark, even those from the "north". The Brits see the continental people (including the Germans as dark. It is all relative.
I love dark skin and LOVED the way Sicilian men looked when tanned. Absolutely gorgeous.
The DNA points to everyone south of the Alps as having SUB-SAHARAN African blood in them. That would include Northern Italians.