Question about the Anglo-Saxon race

Language Gives Clues to History, Which Also Gives Clues to Language

Why is their language so different from German?  Black, room, dog, etc. instead of schwartz, zimmer, hund.
Since some Saxon words are more prehistoric Indo-European than German, maybe they had conquered deeper into Old European territory.  The Germans are not primarily of Aryan descent.  

race is a myth
genetics is pseudo-science
anglo-saxons destroyed truth
with the false-flag 'attack'
on Lindisfarne

history is not written by the winners
its written by those most intent on writing

It seems you confuse race with species. Bananas are fundamentally different to apples.
The concept of race as regards humans has only superficial value, and in almost all
cases is based on completely false stereotypes, most specifically as regards the plasticity
of the mind to acquire skills. Thats why apartheid and Hitler failed dismally.
Their ideas were completely at odds with the real physical and psychological world.

The desire to 'classify' people in this way is always based on feelings of inferiority
which then get projected onto the so-called "race".

Biologically, everyone in the world is connected going back only a few centuries,
something very easy to prove mathematically.

You have esoteric evidence, no proof.
As it is this evidence is hedged with endless sophistry and jargon,
designed to be as incomprehensible as it can be, with endless promises
of answers that never materialize. A paradigm based on neo-darwinian
"evolution" whose only principles are that whoever kills is right; and where
deceit is the quickest method to eliminate the opposition.

An ethic of murder and lies.

My proof is just plain math.

Going back 1 generation (25 years) you have 2 ancestors (parents).
Obviously, 2 generation is 4 ancestors, and 4g = 16a.
Thus the formula is:

a = 2^g

So after 250 years its ~1000a
500 years = 1 million
1000 years = 1 billion
1500 years = 1 trillion potential ancestors.
3000 years = 1000000000000000000000000000000

Of course that is an approximation. Many will be counted more than once.

But now we have to see that for any two people not to be related
in the given time frames, distinct population groups would need
to form that had NO proximity to one another.

You say africans are different?
Do you consider Egyptians to be africans?
Where do you draw your line such that arabs and africans
never at all interbred in the given time frames?

You do realize that if you walked just 10km per day,
you could circumnavigate the entire african continent in 1 lifetime?

Or is it that you racism is so ingrained that you find it
impossible to even imagine having sex with "non-whites"?

Jonbain, for me to say that in a species there are various races or breeds is to rejoice in the diversity of Nature; it is not to be against any particular race. But "race" refers to either somatic traits or, specifically cerebral traits/potentials (whereby different cultures are created). By constructing a genealogy of Mankind by treating humans as mathematical units (quantities), you strip them of their empirical/historical nature. That's racism or, we should say, "speciationism". You may as well lump together the gods and the rats of the Earth, all of which are units.