The racial classification of people is similar to the RGB classification of colors. That is, we cannot say about ordinary natural colors that they are pure "red" or "blue" or something like that. And it would be correct to say that this flower is 80% red, 15% green and 5% blue.
The racial "colors" are "Baltic", "Equatorial" and "Asian". It seems that Sicilians are about 90% Baltic + 10% Equatorial + 0% Asian
This is a really horrible question for a few reasons: first, how are you defining "African" vs. Caucasian? Are you trying to imply that African music is more rhythmic than European? Or are you dividing the world into an American-style dichotomy between black- and white-skinned people? In the first case, your question is misguided because it is wrong to assume that African music is any more rhythmic than European. Many dance styles, though not popular now, originated in Europe. The most obvious would be any kind of ball room style, though it would be fair to say that these styles were perfected in South and Central America. However, dance styles such as polkas, mazurkas and waltzes come from Europe and do have rhythms. African music, on the other hand, is often less cohesive and "put-together" than European music. Bear in mind that the full orchestra is a European concept, not African; we can see that the standards of music are very different between the two continents. It would be unfair to say that one type of music is better than the other, but it is probably fair to say that the concept of rhythm has been more thoroughly explored in European music than in African. On the other hand, if you are using the American dichotomy, then you are talking about a cultural divide, not a racial divide based on skin color or genetics. This is nurture, not nature. Going back to the fact that traditional "white" dance styles are no longer considered "cool," (i.e., polka), we see that a lot of white people in America are not encouraged to dance. Add to that the fact that many Christian denominations declare music and dancing anathema, we see that many white people have a culturally conditioned fear of dancing! Think of "basketball rules" at middle school dances, for example. For this reason, a lot of white traditional dances have completely died out in America, and with it the average white person's desire and ability to dance. If a white person does study dance, he will probably be more interested in the prestige that comes with traditional black styles (i.e., Hip-Hop, break dancing, &c.) or Latin styles (i.e., tango, salsa, samba, &c.). If a white person pursues polka, jazz or choreography (such as you might find on Broadway), he'll face very strong stigmas - traditional "white" styles such as polka or Broadway choreography are respectively considered "painfully uncool" and "gay." However, for a white person to study "black" dances, he may face the stigma of being a poseur, a fake or fool. Dance, then, is a very difficult thing for a white person in America to participate in. There are prejudices and stigmas on every side - should he be true to his heritage and forfeit his social standing by studying polka? Or should he adopt a new tradition and risk looking like a poseur? What about the risk of eternal damnation promised at his church? Should he go against God's will and join a dance team? Your question is impossible to answer unless we know what perspective you're coming from. If you are a black person trying to throw out a bit of bravado, then your answer would be "Because you are fly." If you are a racist, black or white, your answer would fall back on cliched racial stereotypes - you probably don't want an honest or real answer. Because you are racist, you would rather hear the cliches and stereotypes that will confirm your prejudices. Sorry, I can't do that. If you want a racist answer, it is this: white people can't dance because their culture does not give them any real opportunities to do so. Black culture does. It doesn't get any more racial than that because dancing ability is not a racial characterisitic! You might have gotten the impression that it does because, in America, cultural lines are drawn along skin color lines - white Americans are not the only people with a restrained and repressed sense of rhtyhm! If you're just a generally misguided person, then your answer is, in short, "They don't have more rhythm in their bodies at all." It might be productive for you to read up on the concept of race, perhaps studying some genetics in there as well. In addition, you would do well to be more introspective and pay attention to the way you move and the way people around you move. Finally, you ought to open your mind up a little and pay attention to culture - most differences that, on the surface, appear to be based on race are entirely cultural!
No, Sicilians do not have any African in them. Sicilians are genetically the same as other Italians.
Sicilians are famous for many things like -food -wine -people -Mafia
They are a mixed race. Sicily was an independent country that had its own language and government that were mixed from Greek, Arabic, and northern African influences and it eventually got conquered by Italy. They are normally concidered caucasians and whites but in a sense they are their own race/color.
Yes, the natives of Spain are caucasians
There is no patron saint of caucasians.
Italian Naturally it is Sicilian and Sicilians like to be called Sicilians they do not consider themselves Italian though Italy owns Sicily.
caucasians are just white people.
It's all in the genetics of the parents of the caucasians.
Yes, there are lots of Caucasians living in Nigeria.
Incorrect Sicily it Part of Italy and therefore Sicilians are also Italians.