PDA

View Full Version : How Different Are the Finnish to the Swedish, Danish and Norwegians?



MetallicPain
Thursday, December 4th, 2008, 11:29 PM
A few years ago I used to lump the Finnish as having much the same culture as the Swedish, Norwegians and Danish, despite speaking an entirely differently language. However, up on some more research, the Finnish strike me as very different to the other Scandinavian nations.

I guess firstly, the Finnish are technically an Eastern European ethnicity, they speak what is essentially an Eastern European language and an ethnic Finn looks different to an ethnic Swede or Norwegian. At risk of offending some people, I feel Denmark, Norwegian and Sweden are very similar nations, they speak languages which are resonabley mutually intelligible with each other and each share a similar culture, I feel they could integrate into each others countries just as well as an Englishman could integrate into Scotland or Wales and vice versa.

However, the Finnish strike as being entirely different, and I feel that even in modern times their nation, people and politics have diverted from that of the germanic Scandinavian nations. Finland strikes me as being significantly more Right Wing, and the average person seems to have far more pride in their nation and heritage, which is a big contrast to Sweden in particular where political correctness has got to ridiculous proportions and national pride is shunned and deemed racist.

While a relatively small thing, another thing which makes me think the Finnish are very proud of their nation is the language many of their musicians choose to sing in. In Sweden, Norway and Denmark their musicians seem to universally sing in English, and never in their own language, it seems as if singing in their own language is considered deeply unfashionable and undesirable. Which is a sharp contrast to Finland, where a significant amount of their musicians choose to sing in Finnish.

Also, I believe Finland has taken in relatively few non-Europeans, and that the majority of foreigners that are present in Finland are from European nations anyway. Also, when I've seen pictures of street scenes in Helsinki, and other major Finnish cities you don't see many black faces, while in pictures of Stockholm, Copenhagen or Oslo every second person is a fucking darkie.

Well done Finland :).

forkbeard
Tuesday, December 9th, 2008, 09:51 AM
I have nothing but good to say about the Finns. My mother in law is a Karelian her family being driven out of East Karelia by the Russians after WW2. Their family in turn were great land owners in Imperial Russia and suppplied the wood from their forests to the Winter Palace at St. Petersburg. (former president Maarti Ahtisaari is one of her fathers cousins)
Don't worry, I tested my wifes' cranial index and blood group before I married her. Cranial Index 72. Blood group A. Thoroughly Germanic.
The Finns are so proud and admirable.
Some anecdotes. Finns have exceptional standards of Hygeine and cleanliness So far above say the English that it gives them vertigo. My own view is that a lack of Hygeine is good for the immune system.
Finns have the largest brain capacity of any ethnic group. The highest sperm counts and the highest percentage of blondes. Most speak half a dozen languages.
Their national pride is such it would be considered an outrage to depict say the national flag on a swim suit, or have it on a towel.
Hitler called the Finns "the last race of heroes", as their kill rate in WW2 was 200:1 (Most being skilled snipers) Finland also never capitulated to Russia but signed an armistice.
On the negative side the Finns speak a Finno-Ugric language which is non Indo European. They posess some 200 genetic diseases peculiar to Finns alone. There is a large incidence of mental disorder and their will to breed is low.
Whilst there are perfectly wonderful Germanic specimens of people in Finland there are many wierd looking individuals with wide heads, slanty eyes and huge cheek bones.
What bodes ill for the future is their government asking for 5 million new immigrants in the future (Finland only has 5 million people in the first place)
What is up with people that they won't breed? Nothing is better than sex and having lots of babies and children. The slack is only going to be taken up by rat brained muds. Besides isn't replacing one population with another just slow motion genocide?

teutonkoenig
Thursday, March 19th, 2009, 11:01 PM
Typically the Scandinavians are more similar; Norwegians, Swedes, and Danes. However Icelanders and the people of the Foroese Islands are very similar to Scandinavians. Most of their languages are intelligible and can be spoken and understood very well, Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish are essentially the same language. The culture is very similar, and much of the people are genetically the same people.

The only exception are the Finns, who are an ethnic group of their own, that speak a "Finno-Ugaric" language comparably more similar to the language of the Magyars, or Hungarians. Although Finns are considered a Nordic peoples and a part of the Nordic culture, that is only because of their great kinship with Sweden, who has for years ruled Finland.

Ceasar
Tuesday, May 12th, 2009, 01:08 PM
My question is if Finland, why not Russia or the baltic countries? We have about as much in common with these cultures as the finnish culture.

In fact, the one thing that has struck me under my trips to Finland, without being degrading, is the big lack of culture.

Is it likely that the germanic influences are entirely, or in majority, from years under the swedish crown?

Rassenhygieniker
Monday, June 1st, 2009, 12:15 AM
My question is if Finland, why not Russia or the baltic countries? We have about as much in common with these cultures as the finnish culture.

In fact, the one thing that has struck me under my trips to Finland, without being degrading, is the big lack of culture.

Is it likely that the germanic influences are entirely, or in majority, from years under the swedish crown?

I would guess because Finland is highly germanized and their culture is not as highly anti-Germanic as Slavic culture.

Freja_se
Friday, June 19th, 2009, 04:00 AM
Besides isn't replacing one population with another just slow motion genocide?

Yes, that is exactly what it is. Especially if the new population is ethnically/racially totally foreign.

Gustavus Magnus
Friday, June 19th, 2009, 09:18 AM
How different are the Mongolian to the Russians, Belorussian and Polish?

That's about the same question.

Finns may sing mostly in Finnish, but it'd be inaccurate to say they have contributed much to the music industry in the world, while Sweden on the other hand is the third largest producer of music in the world. While at the same time the songs that are popular in Sweden are if not mostly, then at least fifty percenty in Swedish.

Why the Finns more or less exclusively sing in Finnish can be attributed to the fact that they are unable to learn new languages. They have to learn Swedish in their schools (which none of them do), and then English (which they learn with more espri than Swedish, but never acceptable). In my job I have met thousands of Finns that I have to talk to, but when finding out they speak neither Swedish nor English, we just have to point and make gestures. Except for the Swedish Finns, naturally they can speak Swedish.

Younger Finns may be able to learn English acceptable, but considering the language barrier (English is Indo-European, Finnish is Uralic with Mongolian ties) you will always be able to hear a strong, vulgar accent.

xcrawlxawayx
Friday, June 19th, 2009, 11:27 AM
Oh no we are having the this debate again lmao..I am always Witnessing The Finns and the Swedes fight it out. I Never got a chance to hear the differences of all four.

I am gulity of ;lumping two of the "scandivian nations" together. They Kind of get paired up in my mind.

I think Danes are an entirely different kettle of fish than an Norwegians. I can easily distingush them physically at least..cultrually I also see them as different nations..i know they are lol

I relate Denmark better to Sweden I don't know why I do it, I kind of think the people are similar looking..more glacile and less harsh ( not harsh is bad looking).


Finland I would say has the most different culture and people..I can spot finnish People miles away..it's the cheekbones..I sometimes like lump them as an Eastern European Country..I know they are not..I figure that Russia is next door I do that.

I would say though that Norwegians also kind of don't fit either, they differ a bit more in culture, physicality ( ALOT) Norwegians look soooo different than Swedes, etc...I just woke up don't mind me.

Yours are all Goregous!! so no fighting! lol

Freja_se
Friday, June 19th, 2009, 02:58 PM
I would say though that Norwegians also kind of don't fit either, they differ a bit more in culture, physicality ( ALOT) Norwegians look soooo different than Swedes, etc...I just woke up don't mind me.

Yours are all Goregous!! so no fighting! lol

No, they do not. The physical appearance and culture of Swedes and Norwegians are very similar, actually. This from a girl who actually IS Swedish, and who has family also in Norway.

Don't worry, no one intends to "fight" here, even if you can spot a provocateur when you see one. :P

xcrawlxawayx
Friday, June 19th, 2009, 03:12 PM
I was just being sarcastic lol , I know that yours are all related culturally..I was just saying because I am an outsider..that I have to make a system of classifications in my mind. No intentions to fight..:-)..I respect all of the cultures . I don't have a good sample size of Norwegians only met may be 15 in my life..so for what I had to work with , they just seemed to look very different from an outsider :-)

velvet
Friday, June 19th, 2009, 03:52 PM
While a relatively small thing, another thing which makes me think the Finnish are very proud of their nation is the language many of their musicians choose to sing in. In Sweden, Norway and Denmark their musicians seem to universally sing in English, and never in their own language, it seems as if singing in their own language is considered deeply unfashionable and undesirable. Which is a sharp contrast to Finland, where a significant amount of their musicians choose to sing in Finnish.

You obviously listen to the wrong music, haha. ;)
I would have to think a while to name bands singing english, specially the Danish and Norwegian ones, for Swedish bands I would guess what GustavusMagnus said, 50:50, but Finnish indeed I cant think of one, although there is Finntroll, singing in Swedish. :D

Rassenhygieniker
Saturday, June 20th, 2009, 11:14 PM
Finland I would say has the most different culture and people..I can spot finnish People miles away..it's the cheekbones..I sometimes like lump them as an Eastern European Country..I know they are not..I figure that Russia is next door I do that.

I would say though that Norwegians also kind of don't fit either, they differ a bit more in culture, physicality ( ALOT) Norwegians look soooo different than Swedes, etc...I just woke up don't mind me.

Yours are all Goregous!! so no fighting! lol

Norwegia and Sweden are probably the only White countries who are racially speaking the closest to one another, racially speaking they are close to being a carbon copy of each others.

As for Finns I do not see what they have anything to do regarding Scandinavian racial types because:

▪ 1. They are not Germanic but Uralic.

▪ 2. Because Finns are racially closer to Hungarian racial types than Scandinavian racial types.

Freja_se
Sunday, June 21st, 2009, 04:57 AM
Norwegia and Sweden are probably the only White countries who are racially speaking the closest to one another, racially speaking they are close to being a carbon copy of each others.

As for Finns I do not see what they have anything to do regarding Scandinavian racial types because:

▪ 1. They are not Germanic but Uralic.

▪ 2. Because Finns are racially closer to Hungarian racial types than Scandinavian racial types.

There are many Finns of Nordic type. I've never seen a pure Finn who looks Hungarian.:-O There is the Russian/Slavic type there, but the Gypsy type Hungarian..not really.

Gustavus Magnus
Sunday, June 21st, 2009, 05:25 AM
There are many Finns of Nordic type. I've never seen a pure Finn who looks Hungarian.:-O There is the Russian/Slavic type there, but the Gypsy type Hungarian..not really.

Many Finns I've met have been dark, very dark. They looked like they came straight out of the heart of Khazakstan.

Freja_se
Sunday, June 21st, 2009, 05:27 AM
Many Finns I've met have been dark, very dark. They looked like they came straight out of the heart of Khazakstan.


They can have dark hair, just like the Scottish or many Englishmen, that's true, but the ones I have met are Nordic and blond. There are many, many of them who are very blonde and Germanic in type (think Swedish rule).

The Finns are not more or less Germanic than let's say the Scottish, and certainly more blonde and blue-eyed, so let's skip the Finn dissing.

This site is excellent proof why North Europeans won't unite and save themselves. Everyone is busy glorifying themselves and dissing everybody else.

Gustavus Magnus
Sunday, June 28th, 2009, 07:19 AM
They can have dark hair, just like the Scottish or many Englishmen, that's true, but the ones I have met are Nordic and blond. There are many, many of them who are very blonde and Germanic in type (think Swedish rule).

The Finns are not more or less Germanic than let's say the Scottish, and certainly more blonde and blue-eyed, so let's skip the Finn dissing.

This site is excellent proof why North Europeans won't unite and save themselves. Everyone is busy glorifying themselves and dissing everybody else.

I can agree to some degree that Finns are as mixed as Scots, but you have to understand that while the Scots originate from a close relative to the Germanics, the Finns do not. And being Germanic is not about being blonde and blue eyed, so you can't use that against me.

North Europeans should unite as well as all of Europe, but not at such a high cost. If we, in order to unite, include everyone, then the cause is lost.

Rassenhygieniker
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 04:14 AM
I can agree to some degree that Finns are as mixed as Scots, but you have to understand that while the Scots originate from a close relative to the Germanics, the Finns do not. And being Germanic is not about being blonde and blue eyed, so you can't use that against me.

North Europeans should unite as well as all of Europe, but not at such a high cost. If we, in order to unite, include everyone, then the cause is lost.

Why even use Scotland as an example of “ungermanism”? Really Scotland has a population of only 5 million, out of all places why use a place that no one cares about as an an example? She obviously thought of using this in a way to attack me for not including haplogroup N Finn-Eurasians in the Germanic spectrum.

If Finns were so Germanic, let alone so “Nordic” in the same way as the Norwegians and the Swedish, why is N3 virtually absent from Scandinavia, except the northern part occupied by the Samis?

As Agrippa stated, Baltoids are found amongst concentration of N3, where N3 is not found there are generally no Baltoids to be found. Baltoids are common amongst mongoloid Slavs and Eurasian territories.

The Y-DNA haplogroup N has a wide distrubution primarly in northern-eurasia often associated (but not necessarily) with current and earlier Uralic speakers.

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/6103/r01r01.jpg
http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/9130/r02r02.jpg

According to studies the Finnish entered Europe through Northern Asia around 12,000/14,000 years ago, their language (Finno-Ugric) originated in the Ural mountains around 5,000 years ago, the language is related to Estonian and Hungarian. If so, then why not add Estonians in Scandinavia as well? Afterall, aren't they some of the one with the highest amount of blondism and blue eye? Nevermind that Estonia carries as much haplogroup N than does Finland!

Freja_se
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 01:32 PM
I never said the Finns are as Nordic as the Swedes or Norwegians. Kindly don't create straw men.

The point is not who is the most non-Germanic. The point is Finns and Scots are both not entirely Germanic in an ethnic sense, for different reasons. I don't think Scots are any more Germanic than Finns are, generally speaking. Finns have close ties to Sweden in many ways, a country that is more genuinely Germanic than any on the British Isles.



It is true that some Finns are more foreign to us if they have Uralic admixture. This does not make Scots Germanic. Many Scots look very dark, yet, that was used as an argument against being Germanic only when you discuss Finns. That was what I objected to, since there are many who have dark brown hair and dark brown eyes in Scotland, for example. Those traits are typically Southern European, and that's where I think they come from originally, if we speak about the British Isles. (Roman influence)


Naturally blonde hair and light blue, grey and green eyes are not a 100% proof of racial purity, but they are NEVER an indication of non-white admixture, which dark brown eyes and hair very well could be. That's why those colours are so important and need to be protected since they are getting increasingly rare.


If a Finn has Nordic traits and is also blonde and blue-eyed he will be more Germanic/Nordic to me ethnically than a Nordish Scotsman who has black hair and dark brown eyes.


To me, the recessive and typically Nordic hair- and eye colours do matter if you want to find a truly Nordic/Germanic type. Those colours are far more prevalent in Finland than in Scotland.

Stormraaf
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 02:04 PM
The point is Finns and Scots are both not entirely Germanic in an ethnic sense, for different reasons. I don't think Scots are any more Germanic than Finns are, generally speaking.

But wouldn't you agree that language is a key indicator of whether or not a group is Germanic? Both Scottish (not Scottish Gaelic) and English are Germanic languages, whereas Finnish is not.


If a Finn has Nordic traits and is also blonde and blue-eyed he will be more Germanic to me ethnically than a Nordic-looking Scotsman who has black hair and dark brown eyes.

As long as both individuals fall within the Germanic sub-racial spectrum, I would not judge the one to be more Germanic than the other based on appearance at all. Culture, history and language would then be the criteria by which I draw a comparison.

Freja_se
Tuesday, June 30th, 2009, 01:21 AM
But wouldn't you agree that language is a key indicator of whether or not a group is Germanic? Both Scottish (not Scottish Gaelic) and English are Germanic languages, whereas Finnish is not.



As long as both individuals fall within the Germanic sub-racial spectrum, I would not judge the one to be more Germanic than the other based on appearance at all. Culture, history and language would then be the criteria by which I draw a comparison.

I share the same language with countless invaders of my country..arabs, blacks, asians... I don't consider them closer to me than my Finnish neighbours. Language is of secondary importance as it is no longer good evidence of racial/ethnic kinship, if it ever was, since tribes that share a language could split and evolve totally isolated from one another culturally and racially for thousands of years, like Hungarians and Finns, supposedly.

Germanic sub-racial spectrum?
Well, that one is also open to subjective opinion. Some would feel Scots don't belong racially within the Germanic spectrum. Apparently Finns don't, according to this site's criteria, even though many are Nordic/Germanic in type, so it depends on how you choose to look at it. True, there are those Finns who are too foreign racially to be considered Germanic, but show me a country that is totally homogenous.


Culturally and historically we have closer ties to each other since we are Nordic countries. There are differences, of course, but generally speaking that is the case.

"Appearance" is a word that suggests superficiality, which it is not in this case as it pertains to race and ethnic belonging. Appearance does play a part since it is evidence of ethnic kinship. We tend to seek friendship and love amongst our own, so it does matter.

Rassenhygieniker
Tuesday, June 30th, 2009, 07:31 AM
I share the same language with countless invaders of my country..arabs, blacks, asians... I don't consider them closer to me than my Finnish neighbours.

But Arabs, Blacks and Asians did not conceive the Germanic Swedish language, whereas finns did conceive their own Uralic language.



Germanic sub-racial spectrum?
Well, that one is also open to subjective opinion. Some would feel Scots don't belong racially within the Germanic spectrum. Apparently Finns don't, according to this site's criteria, even though many are Nordic/Germanic in type

As Gustavus already told you, being “Nordic” or even a mere display of blondism does not equal being Germanic. Following your reasoning, the mere fact of pocessing Nordid types would also make Poland, Estonia and Russia Germanic as much as the rest of the Germanic world.

“Germanic” Russia:
http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/7230/r03r03.jpg
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/6038/r05r05.jpg

“Germanic” Estonia:
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/1830/r07r07.jpg
http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/2585/r06r06.jpg

“Germanic” Lappland:
http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/6501/r09r09.jpg
http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/5120/r08r08.jpg

Stormraaf
Tuesday, June 30th, 2009, 12:10 PM
Language is of secondary importance as it is no longer good evidence of racial/ethnic kinship, [...]

In itself, no, but when the vast majority of a country speaks one language, I also see that as an indicator of past or present socio-cultural dominance. Where Germanic tribes migrated and flourished, their language followed to become dominant where they settled. Since Finns speak Finnish, I'm doubtful as to how much Swedish culture were exported to Finland, regardless of the two countries' past relationship. That the Finns kept their own language rather speaks of their own success at retaining a distinctive character.


Apparently Finns don't, according to this site's criteria, even though many are Nordic/Germanic in type, so it depends on how you choose to look at it.

An obvious difference between how the two of us choose to look at it is in your use of Nordic slash Germanic, since it implies you equate Germanic with Nordic. As I've indicated before, the view I take of Scandinavia is that of the "womb of nations", and I understand and support the notion of greater Nordid racial type preservation where it was born and is a distinctive feature of a population group, but I don't see Nordicism as a measure of wider Germanicism. In terms of lumping nations together as Germanic, I also do not think the argument of Nordic Finns is any more relevant than that of Atlantid French, for example.


"Appearance" is a word that suggests superficiality, which it is not in this case as it pertains to race and ethnic belonging. Appearance does play a part since it is evidence of ethnic kinship. We tend to seek friendship and love amongst our own, so it does matter.

Of course, I agree with you on this. "Based on appearance" was a poor choice of words on my behalf. My position is only that I wouldn't use the above approach as a further measure of Germanic quality after I have judged a person to be of Germanic racial stock.

Freja_se
Tuesday, June 30th, 2009, 03:29 PM
What is your point, Rassen? Nothing you say refutes the fact that Scots are not any more Germanic than Finns are. Racially they have very little from Germanics, less so than the Finns.

You can't say that just because they speak English they are Germanic, when their racial traits tell you they are not Germanic. Race trumps language.



Finns are often much more Germanic in type, racially, and culturally they are close to a people who is more Germanic than any other on the British Isles..the Swedes.


There are non-Germanic types in every Germanic country, and since the Vikings were an exploratory people there will be evidence of Germanic blood in many parts of Europe, and elsewhere.

Scottish culture is Celtic - not Germanic. Neither Scottish culture, nor their race is Germanic.

Finns of Germanic type;

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv185/newdawn99/594872_466x344.jpg

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv185/newdawn99/340x.jpg

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv185/newdawn99/fi.jpg

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv185/newdawn99/0023.jpg

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv185/newdawn99/finn.jpg

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv185/newdawn99/139929298_22ae5228c9.jpg

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv185/newdawn99/tonytonyJO_jk.jpg



I love Sean Connery, but the fact is he looks very much like another known figure who is of Persian ethnicity.

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv185/newdawn99/khomeini_connery1.jpg


http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv185/newdawn99/RobertCarlyle.jpg

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv185/newdawn99/alancumming.jpg

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv185/newdawn99/souness.jpg

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv185/newdawn99/mcallister.jpg

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv185/newdawn99/football.jpg

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv185/newdawn99/samtorrence.jpg

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv185/newdawn99/ewen_bremner.jpg

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv185/newdawn99/shirleyhenderson.jpg


The fact is that the Scots have precious little to do with Germanics, culturally and racially, and certainly not more so than the Finns. They are racially not Germanic, generally speaking. If you include a non-Germanic people like the Scots you should also include the Irish and the Finns, I think.

Ward
Thursday, July 9th, 2009, 05:01 AM
What is your point, Rassen? Nothing you say refutes the fact that Scots are not any more Germanic than Finns are. Racially they have very little from Germanics, less so than the Finns.

You can't say that just because they speak English they are Germanic, when their racial traits tell you they are not Germanic. Race trumps language.



Finns are often much more Germanic in type, racially, and culturally they are close to a people who is more Germanic than any other on the British Isles..the Swedes.

The fact is that the Scots have precious little to do with Germanics, culturally and racially, and certainly not more so than the Finns. They are racially not Germanic, generally speaking. If you include a non-Germanic people like the Scots you should also include the Irish and the Finns, I think.

Well, I think you're being a just a wee bit tendentious in your selection of photos. I've been to Scotland, and I'd say Ewan McGregor would be a pretty good representative of the average Scotsman - pale-skinned, brown-haired, blue-eyed, medium stature. I wouldn't say many of them have the classic Nordic look, but I wouldn't mistake many of them for southern Europeans either. If you can stomach the movie "Trainspotting," the people you'll see in it give a good depiction of the average Scottish phenotypes.

Anyway, the word "Scottish" itself derives from the Roman word for Gael, so I also think sounds strange to say they're a Germanic nation. I agree with you there. And I don't understand the Finn bashing either. They're a decent people as far as I know, and their heroic resistance to the Soviet Goliath is legendary.

Or maybe Celts and Finns are more related to each other than we think in light of the uncanny resemblance between Irish-American comedian Conan O'Brien and Finnish president Tarja Halonen :D:

http://www.shanatinglipton.com/blog/uploads/separated.jpg

Svartljos
Thursday, July 9th, 2009, 06:11 AM
The fact is that the Scots have precious little to do with Germanics, culturally and racially, and certainly not more so than the Finns. They are racially not Germanic, generally speaking. If you include a non-Germanic people like the Scots you should also include the Irish and the Finns, I think.

Hmm well I wouldn't call a lowlander a highlander, and also don't forget to tell the Shetlanders and Orcadians they're celts :p. I could selectively pick Finns who don't quite look 'Germanic' (as if every Germanic person is über nordic) as well. I think the discussion is a little funny. Oh and yeah, Finns aren't really Germanic. Maybe the Swedish speaking ones are (they could assimilate into Sweden). Once Finland speaks a Germanic language and adopts Germanic customs maybe they can be let into the club.

Ward
Thursday, July 9th, 2009, 07:21 AM
Hmm well I wouldn't call a lowlander a highlander, and also don't forget to tell the Shetlanders and Orcadians they're celts :p. I could selectively pick Finns who don't quite look 'Germanic' (as if every Germanic person is über nordic) as well. I think the discussion is a little funny. Oh and yeah, Finns aren't really Germanic. Maybe the Swedish speaking ones are (they could assimilate into Sweden). Once Finland speaks a Germanic language and adopts Germanic customs maybe they can be let into the club.

I'm not an expert or anything, but the first time I ever heard Scotland referred to as a Germanic nation was on this forum.

What is proportion lowlanders versus highlanders in Ireland? Did no Celtic influence survive in the lowlands? And how much intermarriage has there been between the two regions? I somehow doubt they've remained strictly segregated. Besides the "lowland Scot" dialect, which was attributed to the Angles I believe (Anglish/English), it seems that most of Scottish folk culture is Celtic-related, no? My sense is that a lot of the surnames found throughout Scotland are of also of Gaelic origin.

A lot cities in central and southern Ireland were founded and settled by Vikings, but they eventually assimilated into the Celtic culture. When the Normans invaded Ireland, they were said to take to Irish culture so enthusiastically that they became "more Irish than the Irish themselves." Nowadays the Gaelic language has been displaced by English, so based on your logic, should the areas where with more the Vikings, Normans, and English settled be considered Germanic, too?

I suspect that most of these peoples would still identify themselves as Irish, not "Germanic."

The fact is that the term "Scot" refers specifically to Gaels. Obviously there has been a great amount of Germanic input and influence in Scotland over the centuries, but it's still quite a stretch to say it is a Germanic nation. I think it would make more sense if the people who consider themselves "lowland Germanic Scots" were looked at as more of a subset of the English people.

That's just my take on the matter anyway. If it makes some Scots feel good to say they are Germanic and if people here are willing to accept them as Germanic, then so be it. Even if I think it's a bit silly, I don't really care one way or the other.

Svartljos
Thursday, July 9th, 2009, 06:27 PM
I'm not an expert or anything, but the first time I ever heard Scotland referred to as a Germanic nation was on this forum.

What is proportion lowlanders versus highlanders in Ireland? Did no Celtic influence survive in the lowlands? And how much intermarriage has there been between the two regions? I somehow doubt they've remained strictly segregated. Besides the "lowland Scot" dialect, which was attributed to the Angles I believe (Anglish/English), it seems that most of Scottish folk culture is Celtic-related, no? My sense is that a lot of the surnames found throughout Scotland are of also of Gaelic origin.

A lot cities in central and southern Ireland were founded and settled by Vikings, but they eventually assimilated into the Celtic culture. When the Normans invaded Ireland, they were said to take to Irish culture so enthusiastically that they became "more Irish than the Irish themselves." Nowadays the Gaelic language has been displaced by English, so based on your logic, should the areas where with more the Vikings, Normans, and English settled be considered Germanic, too?

I suspect that most of these peoples would still identify themselves as Irish, not "Germanic."

The fact is that the term "Scot" refers specifically to Gaels. Obviously there has been a great amount of Germanic input and influence in Scotland over the centuries, but it's still quite a stretch to say it is a Germanic nation. I think it would make more sense if the people who consider themselves "lowland Germanic Scots" were looked at as more of a subset of the English people.

That's just my take on the matter anyway. If it makes some Scots feel good to say they are Germanic and if people here are willing to accept them as Germanic, then so be it. Even if I think it's a bit silly, I don't really care one way or the other.

Hmm well I don't know why you're talking about Ireland so much, I didn't mention them. I'm not an expert on Scottish culture, but honestly I doubt anything about their 'modern' culture stretches back to their Celtic heritage, except maybe some highland games or other things like that that people do to feel connected to their old country, and even those are probably not done in lowlands cities like Edinburgh. The language Scots is a Germanic language, more so than English in many respects, and there obviously was germanic settlement throughout Scotland. Not all Scottish names are based in Celtic names either, by the way, perhaps you have heard of the Scot Gordon Brown? Anyway, a lot of names are either English or have been Anglicised, and on top of that, some of the 'Celtic' names are based on Norse-Gaels names (eg. MacLeod). And I don't want to get started on the Shetlands and Orkney, they were long not even part of Scotland :p.

I believe the people of those Islands probably wouldn't call themselves Celtic, but I'm not sure about Scots speakers on mainland Scotland, as I'm not Scottish. They'd probably just say they were Scottish though, I don't know if anyone ever identifies as "Germanic" unless they're a weirdo. Being Celtic is popular though.

Obviously the name 'Scot' itself refers to the Gaels who went there, but don't let that fool you. I believe the name for the Scots language in Scots at one point itself was Inglis. Anyway, I wasn't saying that Scotland was an entirely Germanic country, unless you have reading comprehension difficulties, I noted that there was a difference between Lowlanders and Highlanders. I also noted Swedish Finns and Finnish Finns. Whether or not it should be considered a Germanic nation or a nation with Germanics in it is not up to me, but I wouldn't classify the USA or Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa as Germanic nations either if this is the case. My main concern was the Swede's attempt to make Scots out as some sort of Middle - Eastern looking people, which seemed to be the issue you took as well.

Edit: I think the Swedish Speaking Finns themselves are often not even descendants of actual Swedes, but Finns who learned the language because of its prominence in the country back in Sweden's Hey-day.

Stygian Cellarius
Friday, July 10th, 2009, 01:04 AM
I was actually quite surprised to see "Scotland" listed as a Germanic category in this forum when I first joined. I never considered it to be. Not that I really cared either, but if my say counted and I wanted to be as accurate and exclusive as possible; I would revise this forum to exclude Scotland. If I created a forum with an exclusive Germanic theme, I would keep this site exclusive to those who are culturally Germanic, viz. those who always spoke a Germanic language and who's descendants worshiped Germanic gods. Neither of which the Scots would claim; who had English superimposed on them and worshiped Celtic Gods. There was never anything Germanic about the Scots other than absorbing substantial Germanic genes.
If they are included than an argument can be made for the French as well, another Celtic population that was dominated by Germanic's. So much that they adopted its name (Franks) to define themselves, something that cannot be said of the Scots who never adopted the Germanic name of their Masters because they did not identify with it. Sure, the French speak a non-Germanic language, but this is simply because they were dominated by a superior culture (at the time). Which surely would have happened to the Scots (or anyone for that matter) if their Geographic location had been swapped with Gaul.
Also, if Scotland is included than so should Northern Ireland. The Northern Irish are very close genetically to the Scots. Not only because of ancient migrations between the two places, but also because they both experienced a similar genetic history afterwards, to become an amalgamation of Germanic, Celtic and autochthones (which can be said of Germany as well). They also had English superimposed on them. They are also the most British of all the British. There are no die-hard Brits comparable to the Northern Irish; who would die before divorcing themselves from their Germanic culture (and have died). That cannot be said of the Scots who have a long history of anti-anglicism.

The above is in no way an expression of distaste for Scots. I love the Scottish. My argument was purely logical in nature in regards to this sites classification system (or more specifically, the classification system of the forum creator). I would hate to see the Scottish excluded, just as I would hate to see the Northern Irish or French excluded if they were already categories here.

In my opinion, the Finnish should not be included because of the very same reasons I do not think any of the above should be. In fact, the Finnish are much more distant relatives than any other Race in Europe. Czech's are genetically closer to Germanic's than the Finnish are.

Genetic Relationships:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v633/Casen/laoplot02qp5.jpg

Again, this does not mean I have any distaste for the Finnish or Scottish. I hold them in high regards. I do not allow the theme of this forum to affect my feelings about Europeans considered "Non-Germanic" (by this site). A phenomenon I've noticed in this forum and which seems to be limited to this forum. As far as I understand it, this forum is just a Germanic cultural site. I would also be a member of a Celtic cultural site if I knew of one, but if there was (perhaps there is?) I do not think Iceland should be a category therein even though we know they have considerable genetic inheritance from the Celts.

None of this really concerns me. I just wanted to make a few points, points of which I care nothing about btw.

Svartljos
Friday, July 10th, 2009, 03:18 AM
Genetic Relationships:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v633/Casen/laoplot02qp5.jpg


Half of the patriotic Northern Irish you're talking about are the ones that are taking the lives of the other half. If this is a debate on whether or not a country considers itself 'Germanic' then I think people generally would either not think about themselves as Germanic, or if they did it would be after they consider themselves Nationally/Regionally/whatever other group. Anyway I agree with what you say somewhat here, I wouldn't call Scotland a 'Germanic' country, but I would call it a country with a significant amount of Germanic genes and culture. That's not to suggest that people either properly identify with it or that it's the majority. I think we need to get more imput from actual Scottish people as none of us seem to be and I am stuck in the role of playing devil's advocate here.

I'm curious about this map though. The data is for UK, not for any constituent country, so it is a little too ambiguous to say anything about Scots in particular. The section further to the left on this map may be more Welsh/Cornish/Eastern half of the country people, but it's impossible to tell from the image. Secondly, even if it had said 'Scottish' there are as I was talking about earlier a few groups of Scots. I'm not a historian but I don't believe the lowlands Scots speaking Scots were ever of significant gaelic ancestry.

At anyrate, the UK group (even the Irish group) seems to cluster (besides the outliers on the left) well around the Scandinavian countries, Netherlands, and the first German sample. In fact, they seem to be within normal deviation of the others, so I don't know what it's trying to prove? The second German sample and the Austrian sample seem further removed to me, at least on average. The Swedish sample overlaps none of them besides the Germans. It shows that they are all pretty close together, but other than that, is it just showing that the Finns are a lot different genetically than North-West Europeans (including British Isles and Germany) who seem to be generally similar genetically?

The left side of the UK does seem a bit strange to me though, maybe they're decendents of the Spanish Armada :D

Stygian Cellarius
Friday, July 10th, 2009, 06:36 AM
Half of the patriotic Northern Irish you're talking about are the ones that are taking the lives of the other half. If this is a debate on whether or not a country considers itself 'Germanic' then I think people generally would either not think about themselves as Germanic, or if they did it would be after they consider themselves Nationally/Regionally/whatever other group.
I agree. I would think neither the Scottish, nor the Northern Irish would consider themselves Germanic. I'm sure that most never even thought about it, but if you asked them, they might think for a second then say "nah, we're Celtic". However, the phenomenon of ethnic pride does not manifest itself as Germanic or Celtic anywhere really. This phenomenon tends to have a more localized manifestation, viz. Irish, Scottish, German.


I'm curious about this map though. The data is for UK, not for any constituent country, so it is a little too ambiguous to say anything about Scots in particular. The section further to the left on this map may be more Welsh/Cornish/Eastern half of the country people, but it's impossible to tell from the image. Secondly, even if it had said 'Scottish' there are as I was talking about earlier a few groups of Scots. I'm not a historian but I don't believe the lowlands Scots speaking Scots were ever of significant gaelic ancestry.

Oh, I wasn't trying to make a statement about Scots when posting the image. It was posted to show the genetic relationship between Germanics and Finns.


At anyrate, the UK group (even the Irish group) seems to cluster (besides the outliers on the left) well around the Scandinavian countries, Netherlands, and the first German sample. In fact, they seem to be within normal deviation of the others, so I don't know what it's trying to prove? The second German sample and the Austrian sample seem further removed to me, at least on average. The Swedish sample overlaps none of them besides the Germans. It shows that they are all pretty close together, but other than that, is it just showing that the Finns are a lot different genetically than North-West Europeans (including British Isles and Germany) who seem to be generally similar genetically?

The left side of the UK does seem a bit strange to me though, maybe they're decedents of the Spanish Armada :D

I found the left UK cluster a bit curious myself. I would imagine it could be broken down something like this. Left to right: Autochthones, Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, respectively. If you wanted to attribute states to the variance in the UK cluster; left to right: Wales, Scotland, England. I would suspect the Scottish cluster to be in the overlapping region with Ireland. Of course, in reality it doesn't matter where the cohorts lived, since the UK is relatively heterogeneous, individuals will gravitate to one region or another depending on the predominance of genes they inherited.

I thought the Swedish cluster was odd as well. This image would suggest the Danish are more closely related to Norwegians. I would suspect Swedes and Norwegians to be closer relatives. Not that it would be a big surprise if Danes and Norwegians were closer, it's just slightly off from what would be assumed.

Ward
Friday, July 10th, 2009, 08:17 AM
I'm curious about this map though. The data is for UK, not for any constituent country, so it is a little too ambiguous to say anything about Scots in particular. The section further to the left on this map may be more Welsh/Cornish/Eastern half of the country people, but it's impossible to tell from the image. Secondly, even if it had said 'Scottish' there are as I was talking about earlier a few groups of Scots. I'm not a historian but I don't believe the lowlands Scots speaking Scots were ever of significant gaelic ancestry.

At anyrate, the UK group (even the Irish group) seems to cluster (besides the outliers on the left) well around the Scandinavian countries, Netherlands, and the first German sample. In fact, they seem to be within normal deviation of the others, so I don't know what it's trying to prove? The second German sample and the Austrian sample seem further removed to me, at least on average. The Swedish sample overlaps none of them besides the Germans. It shows that they are all pretty close together, but other than that, is it just showing that the Finns are a lot different genetically than North-West Europeans (including British Isles and Germany) who seem to be generally similar genetically?

Well I'll be darned, from that map it looks like the Shetlanders and Orcadians haven't added a whole lot to the overall Scottish gene pool. With their small numbers I didn't think they were going to have much effect on the greater Scottish population. I think it's safe to say that many Scots, and other peoples the Isles, share a good deal of the same genes and ancestry.

You just gotta remember that there is really no such thing as a "Germanic race" or "Celtic race" or what have you. The widespread prevalence of the R1b genetic marker in western Europe suggest that a great deal of the people living there, like the French, Germans, Scottish, Irish, Dutch, Danes, etc., are bonded by an ancient, shared bloodline. Besides the outright massive invasions, I think the small scale migrations between the people of these nations that has gone on since time immemorial indicate a good degree of racial/cultural compatibility amongst them. This allowed them to assimilate into each others' tribes/nations rather easily without doing any real harm.

Stygian Cellarius
Friday, July 10th, 2009, 09:01 PM
The widespread prevalence of the R1b genetic marker in western Europe suggest that a great deal of the people living there, like the French, Germans, Scottish, Irish, Dutch, Danes, etc., are bonded by an ancient, shared bloodline. Besides the outright massive invasions, I think the small scale migrations between the people of these nations that has gone on since time immemorial indicate a good degree of racial/cultural compatibility amongst them.

That does seem to be the case. Although I believe once they fully understand autosomal DNA it will shed light on some important differences not available through Y-chromosomal/mtDNA phylogeny's. But even then, due to the evidence of ancient European genetic diffusion, you would expect those differences to be generally represented in each population, making them no differences at all. Of course with the exception of minor differences in frequency here and there and frequency of admixture with non-European populations.

But what does it all mean? I guess it will ultimately depend on the importance one places on certain genetic traits. Once full genomic knowledge has been reached I think they should develop a hierarchy based on the significance of specific genes relevant to the human condition. Since I am human I place the greatest importance on intelligence. So more weight should be given to that to determine compatibility. I mean who cares if two populations are genetically identical with a majority of their genes, but those genes they share determine how big toes are or whether their ear lobs are attached or not. Also, two populations could be closely related, but one has a small degree of non-European admixture that may affect their intelligence potential. To me, that would exclude them from any relationship in favor of more distant relatives without admixture.

Genetics is so complex and interesting. The science being in its infancy also makes it all that much more exciting, kind of like exploring a new frontier. But to be honest, it really has not told us anything we didn't already know. We figured out that the Finnish were unrelated to us a long time ago through linguistics. So far genetics seems to have just vindicated theories already discovered through other disciplines, i.e. history, linguistics, archaeology, anthropology, etc., but the great thing about it is it confirms them.

Here is a more detailed version of the Map:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v633/Casen/laoplotvu4.jpg

velvet
Friday, July 10th, 2009, 10:18 PM
I thought the Swedish cluster was odd as well. This image would suggest the Danish are more closely related to Norwegians. I would suspect Swedes and Norwegians to be closer relatives. Not that it would be a big surprise if Danes and Norwegians were closer, it's just slightly off from what would be assumed.

Also the Norwegians hate it, they are 'just' a Danish people. Norway once was part of the Danish kingdom, so of course they are closely related. The Swedes have been there before the Danish tribes went north-west, so indeed they might be slightly more different. Although I would assume that they just came before and were an originally Danish tribe themselves. East-Denmark in ancient times refered to the northern half-isle of Denmark and the southern part of today's Sweden, while the Danish reign also included Norway (West-Denmark) and also, in times, England (nice to see on the old language forms, which are quite similar in ancient times). The southern part of today's Denmark back then was part of Schleswig / Holstein.
I would assume that Denmark was the epicenter of early movements (I have seen somewhere around here a map with the Germanic Urheimat, which was dark red in today's area of Denmark, so...).

Cail
Wednesday, July 15th, 2009, 06:55 PM
Typically the Scandinavians are more similar; Norwegians, Swedes, and Danes. However Icelanders and the people of the Foroese Islands are very similar to Scandinavians. Most of their languages are intelligible and can be spoken and understood very well

Well, continental languages (Danish, Swedish, Norwegian) indeed have a very good mutuall intelligibility, but the Faroese and Icelandic arent intelligible with them. Written language can be understood to some degree (much worse then other continental though), but spoken isn\'t at all. Have been separated from the continuum for too long, i guess.

ejarln
Sunday, November 15th, 2009, 09:34 PM
Finns are often much more Germanic in type, racially, and culturally they are close to a people who is more Germanic than any other on the British Isles..the Swedes.


that's false. Finns are genetically far away from scandinavian as well as other European.

http://i775.photobucket.com/albums/yy32/krueng1609/1523.jpg

http://s775.photobucket.com/albums/yy32/krueng1609/a53eac118048.jpg

Sigurd
Sunday, November 15th, 2009, 10:03 PM
that's false. Finns are genetically far away from scandinavian as well as other European.

But still far closer to other Europeans than to non-Europeans. And also closer than some other Europeans between each other. On the second picture you posted, Finland (Helsinki) and Sweden are genetically closer to each other than f.ex. Sweden and Lithuania --- and also closer than Russia and Bulgaria to each other, who are both Slavic. Your picture hence proves practically nothing towards your argument. ;)

Einarr
Sunday, November 15th, 2009, 11:39 PM
Well, I think you're being a just a wee bit tendentious in your selection of photos. I've been to Scotland, and I'd say Ewan McGregor would be a pretty good representative of the average Scotsman - pale-skinned, brown-haired, blue-eyed, medium stature. I wouldn't say many of them have the classic Nordic look, but I wouldn't mistake many of them for southern Europeans either. If you can stomach the movie "Trainspotting," the people you'll see in it give a good depiction of the average Scottish phenotypes.

Anyway, the word "Scottish" itself derives from the Roman word for Gael, so I also think sounds strange to say they're a Germanic nation. I agree with you there. And I don't understand the Finn bashing either. They're a decent people as far as I know, and their heroic resistance to the Soviet Goliath is legendary.

Or maybe Celts and Finns are more related to each other than we think in light of the uncanny resemblance between Irish-American comedian Conan O'Brien and Finnish president Tarja Halonen :D:

http://www.shanatinglipton.com/blog/uploads/separated.jpg

I agree, her pictures were a little selective but still valid :thumbup. Basically though Connery for example is the Scottish equivalent to a "black irish" person, as were some of the other pictures. If you go to Scotland, people are not all going to look like that. They would be the minority. And I'm not saying this just because I have some Scottish ancestry, rather I think it's the honest truth and deserves to be said.

And I wanted to add, it would be like me finding all the asiatic looking Finns I could find, and then saying "These are Finns!" It just isn't correct, I mean I certainly do not look like those pictures of "Scots" on the other page (though I'm not fully Scottish obviously).

Freja_se
Monday, November 16th, 2009, 01:50 AM
that's false. Finns are genetically far away from scandinavian as well as other European.



No, not the Germanic Finns who have Scandinavian blood.

The other types of Finns are indeed far removed from us, so it depends on what kind of Finns you are talking about.

Nordlander
Monday, November 16th, 2009, 03:59 AM
I have spent time in all of the Scandinavian countries ,and as I love Norway and her mountains and people and the time spent there ,I have a special admiration in my heart for the Finns, as they are the people most like myself .My family came from the cold Forests of East Prussia but a quick boat ride across the Baltic sea to Finland. Never more have I felt a kinship towards a group of people as I do the Finns.Their history of independence,their love of the forest and winter,their total warrior mentality,their strength and cleanliness and especially "Sisu" the Finns' perserverance in the face of hardship.These people have a toughness unsurpassed in any I have met. I liked the people so much when I was in Norway for ski training I took leave to visit Finland.I was made to feel right at home wherever I went as the Finns returned the admiration and kindness I had shown them.I was also amazed at the fact wherever I went the Finnish people knew what a U.S.Marine was and totally respected me as a fellow warrior.Listen to the music of Sibelius and you can almost hear the forests of Finland speak.

Einarr
Monday, November 16th, 2009, 09:51 AM
I was actually quite surprised to see "Scotland" listed as a Germanic category in this forum when I first joined. I never considered it to be. Not that I really cared either, but if my say counted and I wanted to be as accurate and exclusive as possible; I would revise this forum to exclude Scotland.

Agree, I wouldn't of described Scotland as a "primary" germanic region, though it obviously has a lot of germanic influence. Whether it's ancestry from Anglo-Saxons, Norse, or just the fact that they speak English etc. I agree that some scots might rebuff the idea of them being germanic, though many might feel otherwise or some simply may not care. I just don't appreciate them being dragged through the mud because of a few pictures of weird/foreignish looking "Scottish" people (yeah you freja!) ;). It should be known that they do not look like swarthy dark southern Euro's or middle easternid types. The movie Braveheart (yes I know it's not historically accurate/is fictional story) will give you a pretty good idea of what present day 'celts' or 'scots' look like. A far cry from Sean Connery (who does look foreign) or some of those other people.


As far as I understand it, this forum is just a Germanic cultural site. I would also be a member of a Celtic cultural site if I knew of one, but if there was (perhaps there is?) I do not think Iceland should be a category therein even though we know they have considerable genetic inheritance from the Celts.

Yes, both Iceland and Denmark have a high amount of R1b, more than haplogroup I1. Iceland in particular is regarded as having a lot of celt ancestry as you said, but I fully see them both as Scandinavian countries because of their languages and cultures. Both also have a high amount of I1, or the norse ancestral line. So that of course is another primary reason. I separate Iceland a little from 'Scandinavia' just because of its isolation, but their culture and language is definitely Scandinavian related, as well as their heritage.

I1

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8b/I1_europe.jpg

I would also like to make it clear that there are germanic/nordic Finns, yet also asiatic mixed Finns. Please do not blanket statement all Finns like freja does to Scotland :)

Sigurd
Monday, November 16th, 2009, 10:40 AM
It should be known that they do not look like swarthy dark southern Euro's or middle easternid types.

Indeed, my experience is that their skin pigment is typically no darker than what you would find in much of Southern Germany; in most cases, actually it is remarkably lighter. The more Mediterranean look is fairly uncommon, but stronger the further West you get.

In Aberdeen it was an uncommon sight, dark hair pigment was usually mixed with remarkably light skin pigment. We had a guy at halls whose hair was essentially jet black and whose eyes were a fairly dark brown, but who could have competed with snow-white when it came to lightness of skin. That was, remarkably, a fairly unmixed Orcadian, though.


A far cry from Sean Connery (who does look foreign) or some of those other people.

Where does Sean Connery look foreign? He is just of the darker type. The Scottish population has anything on the NW-European scale, from extremely light pigment (we had a guy in halls that could have been mistaken for an Icelander by morphology and pigment) to almost swarthy pigment (we had a guy in halls that was clearly of British-Isles-Atlantid phenotype morphology but whose pigment would not have looked out of place in Spain).


Yes, both Iceland and Denmark have a high amount of R1b, more than haplogroup I1. Iceland in particular is regarded as having a lot of celt ancestry as you said, but I fully see them both as Scandinavian countries because of their languages and cultures.

Can we stop linking haplotypes to ethnic groups? Whilst in some cases, such a link is certainly valid by the extension that a fairly homogeneous group migrated to a certain area at a certain point, or isolated themselves from other influence.

In most cases, the major Northern-European genotypes (R1a, I1, R1b) are believed to have formed in the last interglacial, a long while before Indo-European, let alone Celtic or Germanic, ethnogenesis. Whilst such incidences can certainly be a pointer, the test is a far cry from being fool-proof.


I would also like to make it clear that there are germanic/nordic Finns, yet also asiatic mixed Finns. Please do not blanket statement all Finns like freja does to Scotland :)

There are fairly few "asiatic mixed" Finns. If you survey genetic data, you will find a high genetic variation throughout Finland. Obviously if they survey the Saami as Finnish, they're going to get such a wide spread. That'd be like surveying the Basque and the Spanish together, things that distort the picture.

At least on a cultural sphere, I believe in the "Indo-European theory of Finns" --- i.e. they are cultural Indo-European but that their language is from a different source, i.e. the Urals. This idea would make the Finns part of a Fenno-Baltic concept (something we see especially pronounced with the Estonians), and their relation to Volgaic Finns merely a linguistic one.

Einarr
Monday, November 16th, 2009, 11:51 AM
Where does Sean Connery look foreign? He is just of the darker type. The Scottish population has anything on the NW-European scale, from extremely light pigment (we had a guy in halls that could have been mistaken for an Icelander by morphology and pigment) to almost swarthy pigment (we had a guy in halls that was clearly of British-Isles-Atlantid phenotype morphology but whose pigment would not have looked out of place in Spain).

Well, I think it lies in his facial features, they look a bit foreign to me. As people will note he almost appears to have similarities to some middle easternid types. And I completely agree that the British Isles/Ireland has a wide range of appearance, though I'm willing to bet that the majority look of more Northern type, rather than med. If they do look medish, then I cannot identify with them because nobody in my family does or did. Everyone in my family has lighter features generally; hair, eye, or fairness.

I just don't like blanket statements, it is not possible to cover appearances of a highly variable place like the Brit Isles/Eire with just a few pictures.


Can we stop linking haplotypes to ethnic groups? Whilst in some cases, such a link is certainly valid by the extension that a fairly homogeneous group migrated to a certain area at a certain point, or isolated themselves from other influence.

In most cases, the major Northern-European genotypes (R1a, I1, R1b) are believed to have formed in the last interglacial, a long while before Indo-European, let alone Celtic or Germanic, ethnogenesis. Whilst such incidences can certainly be a pointer, the test is a far cry from being fool-proof.

This is a fair point, and it is true that they are ancient lines. But I believe that I1 is a good indicator for where Norse type congregated (clearly). I do understand that R1b/a is all over the place, and that they've all come up into their own special/distinct ethnic groups as of present. I don't mean to say that all groups with heavy R1b are the 'same' or anything! I was just pointing out the interesting fact that Iceland and Denmark have more R1b than I1.




There are fairly few "asiatic mixed" Finns. If you survey genetic data, you will find a high genetic variation throughout Finland. Obviously if they survey the Saami as Finnish, they're going to get such a wide spread. That'd be like surveying the Basque and the Spanish together, things that distort the picture.

At least on a cultural sphere, I believe in the "Indo-European theory of Finns" --- i.e. they are cultural Indo-European but that their language is from a different source, i.e. the Urals. This idea would make the Finns part of a Fenno-Baltic concept (something we see especially pronounced with the Estonians), and their relation to Volgaic Finns merely a linguistic one.

Noted! I have seen mostly germanic/nord Finns as I will call them, but occasionally I will spot the one with asiatic features. As I have with some slavs. I also agree that their uralic language is the main driving force of them being regarded as "foreign" too.

NorthWestEuropean
Monday, November 16th, 2009, 01:07 PM
East Baltids (that can be found in Finland) aren't "Asian". If you would test an East Baltids genome, you will probably see that the individual isn't Asian.

As far as it goes for Finns, it depends on what kind of Finns we are speaking of. That Finland is a homogeneous country, or perhaps the most homogeneous country in the world, is a myth. Finns do not have any significant genetic similarity with Hungarians either.

Western Finns, especially South-Western Finns and Southern Ostrobothnians, have a lot to do with Germanics actually.

South-Western Finn of "Reihengräber type":

http://www.gt.se/polopoly_fs/1.988686!slot100slotWide75ArticleFull/3447786819.jpg

Eastern (as well as Northern) Finns share genetic similarity with Balts and North-Western Russians.

Ethnic Karelian (as Eastern Finnish one can get):

http://www.caradvice.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/img_0951_big1-682x1024.jpg

Einarr
Tuesday, November 17th, 2009, 02:28 PM
Where does Sean Connery look foreign? He is just of the darker type.

I was thinking about this some more Sigurd, and I will halfway take back what I said about Connery. I would classify him with some mixture of med in appearance, Euro med of course. However he does have a few similarities to a handful of non-arab middle easternid people as others have mentioned before. I think that is rather common though with some amount of Southern Europeans. Catherina Zeta Jones came to mind as another one of those British Isles outlier cases like Connery. People always question their descent because they don't look typical for the region.

Genfluss
Thursday, November 19th, 2009, 09:05 AM
Genetically Finns aren't that different to Swedes, Danes and Norwegians. You can find indigenous Nordid Finns and Lappish Swedes, Danes and Norwegians. They are only different linguistically. Finns also have some of the best music imo, they also make some good Viking Metal :thumbup

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr6dR6nkLhw

Méldmir
Thursday, November 19th, 2009, 12:13 PM
Genetically Finns aren't that different to Swedes, Danes and Norwegians. You can find indigenous Nordid Finns and Lappish Swedes, Danes and Norwegians. They are only different linguistically. Finns also have some of the best music imo, they also make some good Viking Metal :thumbup

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr6dR6nkLhw

What about the results we see on the Genetic Map of Europe? Scandinavia is a big place, and for example western Norwegians are different from Finns, you can't lump all Scandinavians into one group like that.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/08/13/science/figure1a_600.jpg


The Danes have no Lapp blood, and Lapps in Scandinavia are another ethnic group, they are Scandinavian but not Swedish or Norwegian, not Germanic.

Freja_se
Monday, November 30th, 2009, 12:37 PM
Finns are different from Scandinavians. Scandinavians are Germanics and Nordics and belong to an entire different language family. Finns are typically much heavier and coarser built and mostly of a rather extreme variety of the East Baltic, and often they show visual similarities with the Sami.

It is a myth spread by Finns that they are Nordic. They are not. Nordic admixture has been introduced more recently through Swedish admixture but it's not enough to conceal their basic Uralic/Eastern race. They are fundamentally non-Nordic and Eastern Uralic and sometimes Slavic in type.

Their very heavy East Baltic type lacks the refinement and gracility that you see in Nordic types, and even in some East Baltics in Scandinavia.


Something you see often in Finns is their lack of a developed nose bridge. It is very often flattish the way you see in mongoloid races, and their eyes rather often show different stages of an epicanthic fold.

Their faces are typically broad and rounded, their bone structure larger, and their noses are often short and sometimes upturned and broad at the tip. Overall their appearance is rather mongoloid and Uralic, making it obvious that their race has Eastern origin.

Finnish sub racial types appear to be dominant in a similar way that asian is dominant over caucasian, and spread easily in Scandinavia. It is a pity since it is at the expense of true Nordic types. In the interest of the preservation of Nordic races these should be kept more separate as the more recessive and gracile Nordic types such as the Hallstatt Nordic seems to become more rare as the Finnish ones spread and become more common.


I believe Finns have been "responsible" for damaging the Scandinavian/Nordic sub races more than any other group of people. Their migration into Scandinavia has introduced their coarser and Eastern types into the general population in a way that has proven to be damaging to Nordic sub races.




Finns,

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv185/newdawn99/finns.jpg

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv185/newdawn99/kaisa-saarenmaa.jpg

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv185/newdawn99/Ifinnish1.jpg

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv185/newdawn99/finns32.png

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv185/newdawn99/baltia01.jpg

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv185/newdawn99/juha.jpg

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv185/newdawn99/dd.jpg

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv185/newdawn99/08_dignity3.jpg


http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv185/newdawn99/finn43.jpg

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv185/newdawn99/460-finland-man-gun_997107c.jpg

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv185/newdawn99/finns62.jpg

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv185/newdawn99/finns74.jpg

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv185/newdawn99/tytot_200dpi_srgb_pieni.jpg

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv185/newdawn99/brahenkatu_tytot-600x450.jpg

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv185/newdawn99/Ifinns21.jpg

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv185/newdawn99/leena2.jpg

Hauke Haien
Monday, November 30th, 2009, 01:17 PM
If the Nordid subrace is older than the Germanic peoples, then it is possible that there are individuals of Nordid type who are thoroughly non-Germanic. It is another question if they could be assimilated, but they certainly could not be considered Germanic in their own right, since it is an ethnic term that has requirements beyond race.

I do not know exactly how Swedish nationalism defines their people, but the German concept is this:

Descends from ethnic Germans / belongs to one of the established German racial types Speaks the German language Participates in German culture

I think it would be illuminating if the Swedes and other Scandinavians could explain how this concept looks in their own nationalist traditions, and by analogy it should be possible to express their criteria for Germanics as a wider category of people, criteria that one could also judge entire ethnic groups against.

Einarr
Monday, November 30th, 2009, 02:02 PM
Well I can certainly see asiatic looking features in many of those people above, but I've also seen Finns who do not seem that out of place with Scandinavia. I suppose they are a minority though. I will also admit that the genetic mapping of Finland concerns me a lot, it just seems very odd that they are way off to the side like that. I assumed that the reason for this was Finnish being a uralic language, thus coming from people out of ural regions who brought their asiaticness with them (Eurasian). It would seem understandable, but then again Hungarian is a uralic language too, yet Hungary seems to fit in the genetic mapping as expected. I don't really know enough about the history of these regions to keep running my mouth however, so I will shut up about it.

Freja_se
Monday, November 30th, 2009, 06:07 PM
If the Nordid subrace is older than the Germanic peoples, then it is possible that there are individuals of Nordid type who are thoroughly non-Germanic.

These are not people of a Nordid sub race, obviously. That was the whole point. By the way, there are plenty of Germans who have East Baltic traits. That sub type is present in all of Europe, probably because it is very dominant, as I said, just as the asian race is dominant over the caucasian one, in general.

However, the type you see in Finland is typically more extreme, more mongoloid, and also much more common. Some look Russian, and some look like the Sami, so there probably was/is some inter-mixing there.

There are no people of pure Nordid type who are non-Germanic. You don't get any more Germanic than the pure Nordic. The Nordic race IS the Germanic as it spread South from Scandinavia.

Eastern/Uralic races and Slavic races are not Germanic. That is also reflected in the Finnish language family which is the non-Germanic Finno-Ugric language family.

NorthWestEuropean
Monday, November 30th, 2009, 07:54 PM
I believe Finns have been "responsible" for damaging the Scandinavian/Nordic sub races more than any other group of people. Their migration into Scandinavia has introduced their coarser and Eastern types into the general population in a way that has proven to be damaging to Nordic sub races.

It is not true that ("real") Finns have been migrating to Sweden in bigger amounts. The only real Finns that moved to Sweden were the Forrest Finns, moving to Central Sweden. It should be noted that the Swedish government worked hard for getting rid of them, sending many of them to the Swedish colony (nowadays Delaware) in the United States. I doubt those who stayed did any damage to the gene pool, as Sven-Göran Eriksson and Tage Erlander looks/looked quite "regular".

Most Finns having migrated to Sweden historically have been migrated from the Southwest of Finland to Eastern Sweden. These are quite close to the Swedes genetically.

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1 371%2Fjournal.pone.0003519.g002&representation=PNG_M

http://i42.tinypic.com/2uynkva.jpg


If the Nordid subrace is older than the Germanic peoples, then it is possible that there are individuals of Nordid type who are thoroughly non-Germanic. It is another question if they could be assimilated, but they certainly could not be considered Germanic in their own right, since it is an ethnic term that has requirements beyond race.

I do not know exactly how Swedish nationalism defines their people, but the German concept is this:

Descends from ethnic Germans / belongs to one of the established German racial types Speaks the German language Participates in German culture

I think it would be illuminating if the Swedes and other Scandinavians could explain how this concept looks in their own nationalist traditions, and by analogy it should be possible to express their criteria for Germanics as a wider category of people, criteria that one could also judge entire ethnic groups against.

That Nordids only exists in Germanic populations is old BS. Ever heard of the East Nordid (http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/rg-eastnordic.htm) type? It is true that non-Germanic Nordids are of a different type in comparison to the Skandonordids though. Then again, there are Keltic Nordids who are Germanic.

Hauke Haien
Monday, November 30th, 2009, 08:07 PM
These are not people of a Nordid sub race, obviously. That was the whole point.
I was responding to the idea that "Nordic admixture has been introduced more recently through Swedish admixture", which is not immediately obvious if there were pre-Germanic opportunities for the migration of Battle-Axe types to Finland.


By the way, there are plenty of Germans who have East Baltic traits.
Anything to make you feel better, I suppose. The question is what to do about them, among the German and Swedish peoples respectively. Simply pretending that they do not belong will not make them go away, which I assume is what you want?


There are no people of pure Nordid type who are non-Germanic.
There are some East-Nordids who seem very convinced that they are Russians. Can they be trusted to keep the cause of the Swedish nation in their hearts? Is it possible to treat them as Germanics without any further conditions?


The Nordic race IS the Germanic as it spread South from Scandinavia.
If we stipulate that the original Germanics were heavily drawn from a pre-existing Nordid element, it still does not follow that they comprised the entirety of the Nordid race and it would be a logical error to equate them (unless it is for the purposes of subterfuge, i.e. good old 'Nordic deceit'). Reducing a people to be equivalent to its race can easily lead to contempt for important emanations of race.

Freja_se
Monday, November 30th, 2009, 08:09 PM
It is not true that ("real") Finns have been migrating to Sweden in bigger amounts.

Depends on what you mean by bigger amounts. There has been migration enough to cause damage to the Nordic race.



That Nordids only exists in Germanic populations is old BS. Ever heard of the East Nordid (http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/rg-eastnordic.htm) type? It is true that non-Germanic Nordids are of a different type in comparison to the Skandonordids though. Then again, there are Keltic Nordids who are Germanic.

It is not BS. I see you have put yourself as a predominately Baltic type so this might be a sensitive subject for you.

The term "East" and "Nordid" do not belong together. They are opposites.
East Baltcs, East Nordid...all terms that refer to sub racial mixing where non-Nordic genes have interfered with the pure Nordic sub race. As you go East the Nordic type becomes more and more mixed with Eastern types and less and less pure, culminating in becoming the Asian race.

NorthWestEuropean
Monday, November 30th, 2009, 08:31 PM
I see you have put yourself as a Baltic type so this might be a sensitive subject for you.

This is definitely not a sensitive subject to me, as I don't belong to those believing in "sub-races", simply because people have different opinions on individuals belonging to different types, and also because of the fact that food and climate can change the length of bones. Why has the Swedish average height gone up so much within the last 100 years for instance? When the old Swedish anthropologists worked, 168-170cm was considered a "pure Nordid/tall height". Nowadays that is considered midget for males. :thumbup

By the way, there are plenty of Swedes with Baltid/"Finnish" looks without having an ounce of Finnish blood. Björn Björkqvist is usually classified as Sub-Nordid/Baltid and "more Finnish-looking than Swedish" on forums. He is from Gotland originally, and as far as I know, Finns never populated Gotland. I also have a Swedish friend with a Baltid phenotype, and the only foreign blood he has is Danish.

Non-Swedes?

http://www.expo.se/www/img/1_719.jpg
http://www.nationell.nu/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/kalmar3.jpg

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa29/powerup927/ddd.jpg (Classified by Agrippa as Balto-Nordid.)

http://expo.se/www/images/hoglund_zundel_070707.jpg (Half Swedish, half German, also classified by Agrippa as metrically Nordid but with Baltid facial features.)


It is not BS.

So you deny the fact that there is an East Nordid type?


The term "East" and "Nordic" do not belong together. They are opposites. East Baltcs, East Nordid...all terms that refer to sub racial mixing where non-Nordic genes have interfered with the pure Nordic sub race.

Agrippa wouldn't agree with you...

http://i40.tinypic.com/2ciiip2.jpg

Freja_se
Monday, November 30th, 2009, 08:45 PM
This is definitely not a sensitive subject to me, as I don't belong to those believing in "sub-races", simply because people have different opinions on individuals belonging to different types, and also because of the fact that food and climate can change the length of bones. Why has the Swedish average height gone up so much within the last 100 years for instance? When the old Swedish anthropologists worked, 168-170cm was considered a "pure Nordid/tall height". Nowadays that is considered midget for males. :thumbup....

snip



There is room for more than one opinion. The Eastern Uralic Finn type has undoubtedly migrated and mixed with pure Nordic types in Scandinavia, and that is fact.

There are many of subracial mixtures who have no recent record of any mixing with Finns. The vast majority, most likely. That doesn't mean that the Finnish genes are not there. Swedes of "Finnish" type is what they are called.

Non-Nordic admixture is transferred during many, many generations, during hundreds of years, so there is really no realistic way of saying "I have no Finnish/Sami" blood if your face clearly shows that you have it.



No, the pure Nordic does not have traits characteristic of Sami or Uralic Finns. The East-Nordid is a racial mix. Why else put the word "East" there..if it is Nordic it is Nordic. It clearly suggests a variety that is mixed, and in this case obviously with Eastern types.

I also think that those who call Eastern types Nordics have some racial issues themselves as it has no basis in reality. I have seen it often in Finns and in Swedes who have clear Sami admixture. They all think of themselves as Nordics with a little Eastern twist perhaps. The truth is that they are the result of the bastardizing of the pure Nordic races.

NorthWestEuropean
Monday, November 30th, 2009, 09:07 PM
There is room for more than one opinion. The Eastern Uralic Finn type has undoubtedly migrated and mixed with pure Nordic types in Scandinavia, and that is fact.

Modern Finns are Europeans. Even Agrippa would say so if you asked him. However, he wouldn't agree with Saamis being Europeans, so you got one right there.

http://i36.tinypic.com/nvuse8.jpg

Ok, so the Finns are just a little bit more "Asian" than the others...

Finns and other Northern Europeans compared to Asian countries:

http://i33.tinypic.com/2807abo.jpg
http://i36.tinypic.com/1zgyjp1.jpg


There are many of subracial mixtures who have no recent record of any mixing with Finns. The vast majority, most likely. That doesn't mean that their genes are not there. This is somethig that is being transferred during many, many generations, during hundreds of years, so there is really no realistic way of saying "I have no Finnish/Sami" blood if your face clearly shows that you have it.

Newsflash, ethnic Swedes look different from each other. What is so wrong with that? If all Swedes shared similar phenotypes (as you being into physical anthropology seems to want it), I honestly think that people would find it a little boring. DNA studies have shown that Swedes are quite homogeneous racially, despite having different looks, and I simply choose to trust technology from modern times before physical anthropology from the 1930s.

And if you have foreign blood that is less than 6,25% (fifth generation), chances are very low that an offspring will inherit features from it. It also won't show up on a DNA test.


I also think that those who call Eastern types Nordics have some racial issues themselves as it has no basis in reality. I have seen it often in Finns and in Swedes who have clear Sami admixture. They all think of themselves as Nordics with a little Eastern twist perhaps. The truth is that they are the result of the bastardizing of the pure Nordic races.

East Nordid is a Nordid type of its own, usually having higher heads than Skandonordids and more soft features. The reason why it is called East Nordid is because it exists in Eastern European countries, as well as it differs from the Skandonordids. Is it really that hard to understand?

Freja_se
Monday, November 30th, 2009, 09:35 PM
Anything to make you feel better, I suppose. The question is what to do about them, among the German and Swedish peoples respectively. Simply pretending that they do not belong will not make them go away, which I assume is what you want?


It doesn't make me feel better. However, for example on this site, I have seen some Germans pat themselves on the back and point fingers at Swedes, complaining about the problem, when the truth is that they too have the exact same problem. Blindness to a problem will make it worse.

The first step in the solving of any problem is firstly realizing that there IS a problem. That the problem exists. As you can see here in this thread some don't recognize it as a problem, mainly because they are part of that said problem themselves.

When we have realized that there is a problem - that Nordic types are indeed recessive in relation to the Eastern/Uralic heavier types of mongoloid character - then we can assess the damage caused already, and then inform people on behaviour and on the importance of protecting their subrace that will become endangered, just as any other species/race that is being outbred and swallowed up by other more dominant ones.

This is a slow but continuing process happening everywhere. People are focusing so much on the white race that the subraces are often forgotten. There are subraces that obviously are more or less sensitive and vulnerable.

It is a very difficult and sensitive issue but I don't think that as long as people totally ignore it anything will change, and the Nordic types WILL inevitably be the first ones to go since there are more dominant types whose mongoloid element makes their genes far more dominant than ours.



There are some East-Nordids who seem very convinced that they are Russians. Can they be trusted to keep the cause of the Swedish nation in their hearts? Is it possible to treat them as Germanics without any further conditions?


I don't recognize the term East Nordid. Nordid is Nordid, period. Anything that needs two names in it is a mixed type, in this case Nordid with Eastern types, and these types are VERY much part of the problem as they contribute to the vicious circle that is slowly outbreeding Nordics.

NorthWestEuropean
Monday, November 30th, 2009, 09:43 PM
I don't recognize the term East Nordid. Nordid is Nordid, period. Anything that needs two names in it is a mixed type, in this case Nordid with Eastern types, and these types are VERY much part of the problem as they contribute to the vicious circle that is slowly outbreeding Nordics.

So then there is no Skandonordid, Keltonordid, Sub-Nordid, Nordatlantid or Norid type either?

Hauke Haien
Tuesday, December 1st, 2009, 09:14 AM
When we have realized that there is a problem - that Nordic types are indeed recessive in relation to the Eastern/Uralic heavier types of mongoloid character - then we can assess the damage caused already, and then inform people on behaviour and on the importance of protecting their subrace that will become endangered, just as any other species/race that is being outbred and swallowed up by other more dominant ones.
I think this could be subsumed into a generalised instruction for people to approximate their own level in mate selection. The problem then shifts to the relative reproductive rates that allow certain types to permeate the others. In particular, the inverse relationship between economic success and reproductive success means that many of the more competent types are used as fuel for the economy, among them presumably a good deal of Nordids.

The issue cannot be solved by continuing to let the economy determine its own parameters of operation, as well as those of society. Ultimately, there has to be deliberate manipulation by authority.


I don't recognize the term East Nordid. Nordid is Nordid, period. Anything that needs two names in it is a mixed type, in this case Nordid with Eastern types
I see. The wider question of Nordid origins has been touched upon in some older threads, for example: http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=7600

Freja_se
Tuesday, December 1st, 2009, 02:56 PM
Just a little clarification. I realize that there are different subraces that have Nordid elements to them outside the Nordic "host" countries, due to Viking influence and so forth, for example.

What I see as a problem is when the local subraces/ethnicities are virtually outconquered by new types, effectively changing the entire ethnic demographic of a region. This is simply not right. When they stop living harmoniously side-by-side and instead become a threat to the indigenous population.


The true mediterraneans that you see in Italy, for example, deserve their protection from Romas and from Middle Eastern admixture, and in the exact same way the more fragile true, unmixed Nordid types need their protection in THEIR countries as well.


No Germanic population deserves being genocided by foreign races/ ethnic groups, and that was the point I wanted to make here. In Scandinavia the dominant ethnic groups should consist of Nordic subraces, obviously, and should not be slowly pushed back and destroyed by genetically dominant Uralic/Eastern types such as Sami-mixes or Finns that I showed photos of here.


The Nordid subraces need protection just like other fragile and endangered ethnic groups, and this is something that is NOT in any way recognized or discussed on any public level. So in other words, we might see the Nordid types go extinct way sooner than we will see the white race as a whole become extinct simply because the issue is totally ignored.


The only way to stop this development is to raise awareness, and make people see the value of protecting their ethnic group, and consider choosing a partner from their own population. This may sound as eugenics but the reality is that some kind of loyalty and concern for our future IS needed if Nordic types are to survive even in their own countries.


Our nations used to be much more isolated and insulated by their previously more closed borders. Today, free movement is being promoted in the name of multi-culturalism, and as a result people who are members of other ethnic/racial groups will find it easy to establish themselves on foreign soil. This will make the process of Nordic extinction much more rapid, I think.

NorthWestEuropean
Tuesday, December 1st, 2009, 03:30 PM
The Nordid subraces need protection just like other fragile and endangered ethnic groups, and this is something that is NOT in any way recognized or discussed on any public level. So in other words, we might see the Nordid types go extinct way sooner than we will see the white race as a whole become extinct simply because the issue is totally ignored.


The only way to stop this development is to raise awareness, and make people see the value of protecting their ethnic group, and consider choosing a partner from their own population. This may sound as eugenics but the reality is that some kind of loyalty and concern for our future IS needed if Nordic types are to survive even in their own countries.

What happens if two Nordids have a kid being classified as Faelid then? Is that "miscegenation", with Faelid being a Cromagnid/UP, and not Nordid, type? :D There is no guarantee that an offspring will look exactly like its parents...

And you seem to claim that Samis of today are a "threat" to the Swedish gene pool. That is both funny and quite false. They might have mixed with Swedes and Torney Valley Finns before, but if you knew anything about this group, you would know that they often despise Swedes with all their hearts. They are taught already in daycare not to go near "the evil Swedes". They are a little group, proud over their heritage and working for protecting it. There are a little bigger problems than the Samis in the modern society of Scandinavia.

Freja_se
Tuesday, December 1st, 2009, 03:41 PM
It is not false at all. Sami are a threat and there is more mixing going on than you think in Norrland, and many Sami move to Stockholm and don't at all keep to themselves like they used to. This is what I have heard and seen.

Here is one Sami page's way of describing Sami distribution in Scandinavia;

"In all four countries you can find Sami's outside the
area shown on the map above.
This has two reasons, the Sami people have been
forced to the north by the colonization of the Sami
homeland.

A few choose to stay and managed to keep parts of
their culture but these can only be found in a few sparse
locations.

Some have also moved in search of work
so today an significant part of the Sami population
can be found outside the Sami core area, also in
the major cities such as in Stockholm and Oslo.

-There's a joke among the Sami's that Stockholm is
the largest Sami colony in the world."

Hauke Haien
Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009, 09:34 AM
Just a little clarification. I realize that there are different subraces that have Nordid elements to them outside the Nordic "host" countries, due to Viking influence and so forth, for example.
Nordid history does not start with the Viking age. The Hallstatt type is named after a found site in Hallstatt, Austria, where a salt mining operation, extending back to the Neolithic with an associated settlement, amassed great wealth and power in the region during the early Iron Age.

It is not possible to equate such types with subsequent ethnic groups, since they are often composed of a variety of types that proceed to shape a common culture. The degree to which such groups can operate efficiently depends on physical and psychological homogeneity, which is a state purpose rather than a pre-existing fact.


No Germanic population deserves being genocided by foreign races/ ethnic groups, and that was the point I wanted to make here.
Preservation cannot be secured by moral appeals, it necessitates power. The primary foundation of power is a fortified biological presence, the preliminary end result of previous efforts to expand it - through power.

Freja_se
Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009, 11:01 AM
This is just empty semantics. There are Nordic subraces and there are non-Nordic types. Stormraaf seems to regard the East Baltid as a Germanic type. Most people don't.

The fact remains that Uralic/Eastern types like the East Baltic are not Germanic and should not be allowed to dominate and take over in Germanic countries, which of course have the right not to be demographically altered by genetically more dominant Uralic/mongoloid ethnic groups.

Germanic countries that are taken over by non-Germanics, whoever they may be, will not be Germanic any more.


Finland is not allowed on this site. It is not Germanic - nor are their Uralic/East Baltic/Sami-influenced emigrants who alter the racial composition and structure of Scandinavia.


Sweden has had more or less open borders with Finland for a long time and that's where the East Baltid type comes from. They are called Swedes of a Finnish type. Do those East Baltid/Uralic Finns who come here and their descendants suddenly turn Germanic just because they settled in Sweden? In that case the Turks in Germany must now be Germanic and the Roma people in Hungary Hungarians. After all, they have been there for many generations.


If a site has a rule that allows only ethnic Germanics I think they should stick to the rule, for the sake of credibility and consistency. Discussion closed as far as I am concerned since it is quickly becoming nonsensical.

Rassenhygieniker
Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009, 02:12 PM
So you deny the fact that there is an East Nordid type?

East Nordid is just an ungermanized Nordid just like with the case of the Keltic, those two types are not Nordid proper but still belong to the Nordish spectrum.

East Baltids are obviously not natives Germanics and are not even natives to the Indo-European spectrum, West Baltids are just Germanized urals who permeated unto Germanics countries.


In essence, the East Baltid type forms an extension of the Lappoid variety into Europe. It is most common in the Baltic states and Finland, but the area of its distribution extends southwestward into Poland and northeastern Germany, southeastward into Russia, and westward into the Scandinavian Peninsula.

I think that the actor Daeg Faerch is a good examplar of the germanized Baltid race.

EQ Fighter
Thursday, December 3rd, 2009, 03:19 AM
Freja_se

No Germanic population deserves being genocided by foreign races/ ethnic groups, and that was the point I wanted to make here.

Actually I think the starting point was not the foreign races but adoption of Cultural Marxism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism), and the society destroying garbage that comes with that. Culture War, Gender War, and Media Disinformation.


The Nordic receive traits have definitely become a major problem for Scandinavian peoples survival. Especially considering the sort of militant immigration you have today.

The irony is, it is probably those recessive traits that kept Semitics out of Nordic countries in the past, making them easy to spot.

But we should all by now, know that the real goal of "Multiculturalism"
Is to have a mono culture of easy to control mud people.

It seems that Sweden especially is like the proverbial frog in hot water.
It will stay until it cooks if the water is raised one degree at a time.

Mjolnir
Thursday, December 3rd, 2009, 04:31 AM
I can t help but hold the Finnish in high regard. They were elite soldiers during WW2. Even Himmler subscribed that.

Danes, Swedes, Norwegians are boasting about their Waffen SS "heritage". They didn t deliver like the Finns did.
Even the Dutch, with the most Waffen SS volunteers of all germanic lands, didn t achieve that status. Danes, Swedes, and Norwegians were a minority as Waffen SS volunteers (even if you take them all into account). 50.000 Dutch volunteered for the Waffen SS.....some 15.000 Scandinavians all put together (Freikorps Danemark included).

If you compare it to nowadays it s the same....The Finns have a strong economy. They are not involved in globalism, unless its usefull for their own people, they choose their allies wisely.....I can relate to their independance.

I hold the Finns in high regard. I also despise the Norhern Eurpeans who can t acknowledge their role in our Germanic history. Especially the Swedes who put the Finns aside, should know better .....

Blod og Jord
Thursday, December 3rd, 2009, 04:53 AM
This is one Dane that won't boast about the Danish contribution to the Waffen SS.
In fact I don't have a high opinion of Nazi Germany at all.
I have nothing against the Finns either, but contributing to the Waffen SS or being brave doesn't make one Germanic. The SS and Wehrmacht had volunteers from non-Germanic and non-European countries too. It was a matter of political alliances, so aiding Nazi Germany doesn't establish someone's ethnic or racial background. The Nazis were allied with the Japanese and some people admire the Japanese too.
The Finns aren't Germanic. They are similar in some ways to other Scandinavians, but they're Finnic. Their culture and language has some specific traits.

Hersir
Thursday, December 3rd, 2009, 10:01 AM
I can t help but hold the Finnish in high regard. They were elite soldiers during WW2. Even Himmler subscribed that.

Danes, Swedes, Norwegians are boasting about their Waffen SS "heritage". They didn t deliver like the Finns did.
Even the Dutch, with the most Waffen SS volunteers of all germanic lands, didn t achieve that status. Danes, Swedes, and Norwegians were a minority as Waffen SS volunteers (even if you take them all into account). 50.000 Dutch volunteered for the Waffen SS.....some 15.000 Scandinavians all put together (Freikorps Danemark included).

If you compare it to nowadays it s the same....The Finns have a strong economy. They are not involved in globalism, unless its usefull for their own people, they choose their allies wisely.....I can relate to their independance.

I hold the Finns in high regard. I also despise the Norhern Eurpeans who can t acknowledge their role in our Germanic history. Especially the Swedes who put the Finns aside, should know better .....

When the finns capitulated to Soviet, they and the russians hunted norwegian volunteers fighting against Soviet. We were there to help them against the reds. What a way to thank us.

Hamar Fox
Friday, December 4th, 2009, 10:46 AM
Cavalli-Sforza concluded the Finns were 10% Asiatic, the second least Caucasoid people in Europe after the Hungarians. Finns also have an incidence of 55% for the Uralic marker tat-C, as opposed to Norway's 6% and Denmark's 2%.

To be fair to Finns, though, there are steep clines within Finland in terms of Uralic mixture, and fortunately the most highly populated regions are also the most Europid. However, nowhere in the country does Uralic influence come even close to zero.

Mjolnir
Sunday, December 13th, 2009, 04:50 AM
When the finns capitulated to Soviet, they and the russians hunted norwegian volunteers fighting against Soviet. We were there to help them against the reds. What a way to thank us.
Well, if you hold that standard, the post war standard, even the Germans were hunting down non germans for being SS men. Thats a cheap answer, subscribing to the leading main stream opinions.
I am talking about our nationalist history.
Even in Holland some 2.000 Dutchmen died in suspicious circumstances, after the war. All were SS men.


This is one Dane that won't boast about the Danish contribution to the Waffen SS.
In fact I don't have a high opinion of Nazi Germany at all.
I have nothing against the Finns either, but contributing to the Waffen SS or being brave doesn't make one Germanic. The SS and Wehrmacht had volunteers from non-Germanic and non-European countries too. It was a matter of political alliances, so aiding Nazi Germany doesn't establish someone's ethnic or racial background. The Nazis were allied with the Japanese and some people admire the Japanese too.
The Finns aren't Germanic. They are similar in some ways to other Scandinavians, but they're Finnic. Their culture and language has some specific traits.
I didn t say you should boast about it. You are missing my point. The Finns are better off than we are, they are drawing their own line.
They chose their alliances carefully....They are an independant people. We Germanics aren't anymore...well maybe you Danes are.
No you are not.

The point you are making about the Waffen SS has some truth in it, although you are not paying respect to the men who believed in a Germanic heritage. The Waffen SS was pure Germanic (the volunteers, which I think I did point out; Volunteers...) until 1942/1943.

Méldmir
Sunday, December 13th, 2009, 10:14 AM
Mjolnir:

I think you missed the point of the thread. The point is not wether the Finns are superior or inferior to Germanics, or how hard or well they fought in WW2. The point is how similar they are to Scandinavians, and when we Scandinavians conclude that most people in Finland are quite different from us, we are not saying that they suck or anything like that, we're just saying they are not Scandinavian and Germanic.

Mjolnir
Tuesday, December 15th, 2009, 10:21 PM
Mjolnir:

I think you missed the point of the thread. The point is not wether the Finns are superior or inferior to Germanics, or how hard or well they fought in WW2. The point is how similar they are to Scandinavians, and when we Scandinavians conclude that most people in Finland are quite different from us, we are not saying that they suck or anything like that, we're just saying they are not Scandinavian and Germanic.

Ehm, sorry to ruin your party...but whats new about that?

They are different, pretty obvious.

Méldmir
Tuesday, December 15th, 2009, 10:50 PM
Ehm, sorry to ruin your party...but whats new about that?

They are different, pretty obvious.

Yes, so how come you went Off Topic in the first place, and praising the Finns? As tis thread has nothing to do with if they are good or bad, just how different/similar they are to Scandinavians.

It sounded like you criticized Scandinavians for not accepting Finns, as you drew comparisons between them and us, and some things they had done better. As you can see, some other posters here thought that as well. I don't disagree with the points that you made about Finns, you should have just made it clear from the beginning that it was just general opinions of Finns, and nothing to do with the earlier discussion.

Mjolnir
Wednesday, December 16th, 2009, 01:00 AM
Yes, so how come you went Off Topic in the first place, and praising the Finns? As tis thread has nothing to do with if they are good or bad, just how different/similar they are to Scandinavians.

It sounded like you criticized Scandinavians for not accepting Finns, as you drew comparisons between them and us, and some things they had done better. As you can see, some other posters here thought that as well. I don't disagree with the points that you made about Finns, you should have just made it clear from the beginning that it was just general opinions of Finns, and nothing to do with the earlier discussion.

I actually did criticise you Scandinavians......Sharp.
I hold you lot in high regard though, but I think you are missing my point. The Finns are also Scandinavian, they are our first line of defence against the Slaves...

It is my opnion about the Finns (who proved themselves moreover), in case you didn t catch on to it.
I thin they are our natural allies.

But, as I said earlier.I don t want to ruin your Scandinavian party.......

Bradford
Wednesday, December 16th, 2009, 01:22 AM
What's the dispute here? Finland's population is Uralic, with a small Swedish Minority on the coasts. Finns are ethnically totally different from Germanic peoples, I'm hardpressed to even consider them White, and they're not even located within Scandinavia proper.

I don't know why people are glorifying them so much, they've defended themselves well in war and Hitler praised them for fighting like cowards, burrowed in their little snow piles, it doesn't change the fact that they're nothing like the Swedish, Danish or Norwegian. I for one, am not really a fan of lapps.

Thunner
Wednesday, December 16th, 2009, 02:15 AM
The Finns have a very different mentality from the Germanic peoples.

I suppose the Finland-Swedes are a grey area.

Méldmir
Wednesday, December 16th, 2009, 11:02 AM
They are different, pretty obvious.


The Finns are also Scandinavian, they are our first line of defence against the Slaves...

Now you need to make up your mind whether you think they are Scandinavian or not.

Listen, I've got nothing against the Finns, but why are you sp eager to make them Scandinavian? They do not fight for us, they fight their own wars to protect their own people, which is very logical. Just because Russia would probably need conquer Finland and the Baltic states before Scandinavia, doesn't make this first region and Scandinavia into one region. Then we could say that Britain is also Scandinavian or something, since Russia might have to take us before them. Beyond that, Finns often look different and speak a language that is very alien to Germanics.

Anyway, I've got nothing against Finns as long as they stay in Finland.

Edit: I want to make my point more clear.
Slavs are in the first line of defense in an eventual Mongol invasion of Europe. Slavs are also often more conservative than Germanics, if you look at modern, post-war times. Does that make Slavs Germanic? No. You use the same logic to make Finns become Scandinavian.

Mjolnir
Sunday, December 20th, 2009, 04:54 AM
What's the dispute here? Finland's population is Uralic, with a small Swedish Minority on the coasts. Finns are ethnically totally different from Germanic peoples, I'm hardpressed to even consider them White, and they're not even located within Scandinavia proper.

I don't know why people are glorifying them so much, they've defended themselves well in war and Hitler praised them for fighting like cowards, burrowed in their little snow piles, it doesn't change the fact that they're nothing like the Swedish, Danish or Norwegian. I for one, am not really a fan of lapps.

Hitler didn t think of the Finns as cowards. Actually, The German command thought they were brave soldiers (HIMMLER WANTED MORE FINNS IN THE WAFFEN SS), they even found them one of the bravest soldiers.
I am Germanic, but I salut the Finns for their fighting spirit, their independance and their non globalism.

The Finns I don t consider Lapps, you consider Swedes as bastard Lapps/Germanics???? Swedes were countrymen of the Finns, way back and for quite a long time...
Like I said, they were our first line of defence against the slavic hordes and they took that role seriously.
I despise you lot who can t appreciate history, especially our Germanic history.

We need allies and Fins are our natural allies.
We agree Finns aren t Germanic, but they are the best allies we can get. Whatever your BULLSHIT arguments. They are proven allies.. The fact is, they DID fight for us, even more than you Swedes (that isn t even a comparison because the Swedes didn t fight at all).....

I rather have an Anti Russian,anti slavic beside me (like a Fin) than a Germanic who isn t that aware of his/her heritage.
Who is not likely to defend her/his heritage against slavics like the Finns did? We should take that into account.
We Germanics, most of us apparently, are slaves to mainstream thoughts.

Keep on being conformists, enslaving yourselves to "public" opinion.

Sorry about my harsh statement, but I salute the Finns who fought for our heritage, while most of your forefathers were smoking pipes, being cheap armchair politicians and generals, especially the Swedes (The Swedes didn t fight for our heritage.....and they are still, up to now, leftwing, pipe smoking liberals). I am proud some + 50.000 Dutch fought for our heritage when it mattered.....

Furthermore I agree that they are NOT Germanic and that they ARE different. But thats obvious....

Méldmir
Sunday, December 20th, 2009, 12:38 PM
Hey Mjolnir, don't be childish now. You know we Swedes never actually were in war with Germany ;) And we let them send troops and get the resources they wanted for us during the war. While you Dutch joined the globalist Zionist Allies. :thumbdown Oh, and what about al those potheads in Amsterdam today? :O


With the above, I'm not trying to start a flame-war, cause I think both your and mine arguments are silly. I'm just trying to show you that sitting and arguing what some countries did and did not do in WW2 is quite irrelevant and there is no reason critizicing each other over that, I can't see it leading anywhere. I cannot see, either, how it helps critizcing those of someone else's folk that are decadent, since that is quite obvious that exist in all countries in post-war times.

Mjolnir
Monday, December 21st, 2009, 06:44 PM
In a sense, you are quite right... I don t like starting wars over nothing either, especially if we are agreing basically (did I start a war over it, thats what I am wondering now...I was speaking my mind).
This thread is pretty obvious, to me.... Finns are different. But I happen to like those different, harsh bastards :D

Midgård
Friday, June 18th, 2010, 08:02 PM
Finns are more mixed with saamis and other easterners than us scandinavians (and more lappoid, in terms of phys.anth). The scandification has been going on since late iron age though, so there are hopes for those finns at least.

Balders gate
Saturday, July 3rd, 2010, 03:57 PM
My father is a full blooded finn and he is blonde and blued eyed. The entire side of family on my fathers side are all blued eyed and have light colored to blond hair. When i was a kid on my dads farm some relatives from finland came over and they were really tall. They were taller than us over here in america. My grandparents look like typical western european americans and my father has a typical american blond youth when he was a little kid. Basically these relatives on my dads side are all longed headed and dont have high check bones so i dont know really if their are any different than other western europeans. Even some of the laplanders I have seen in pictures have blue eyes and look like europeans. Now their are some finns that do have high check bones and short skulls that I have seen. My father is a lot lighter than me and I have also german and english ancestry.

Gustavus Magnus
Saturday, July 3rd, 2010, 05:45 PM
Even some of the laplanders I have seen in pictures have blue eyes and look like europeans.

They are mixed.

Untersberger
Sunday, July 4th, 2010, 12:51 AM
I would just like to make a post here to thank all contributors to this most interesting thread. It has been a valuable source of education and understanding and an incredible insight into where Finland fits into the whole northern European perspective. Non-Germanic perhaps but with an obvious small but strong Germanic influence and considered mostly as a defender of Germanic Europa against the Red Bolshevik hoards even if it was their own front garden they were mostly concerned about at the time of their own particular Bolshevik invasion. It is very obvious had Finland fallen to the Bolsheviks then Sweden was in real bloody trouble.. (Thats another thread perhaps??)

I now fully understand the Finnish? nurse whom once treated me in a Sydney hospital whom assured me after I questioned her about Finland that she was in fact an ethnic Swede by culture from a fishing village that was once part of Sweden if I can remember correctly. (Im sure her family name was something like Blumquist???) She said she still preferred Swedish as her first proper language and only carried a Finnish passport as part of geographical protocol? She was quite headstrong which was something I quite admired about her.

Fascinating..

Again sincere thanks if I may express them here to all of you for your posts..
:dankesch

Rassenhygieniker
Thursday, July 8th, 2010, 04:41 PM
How Different Are the Finnish to the Swedish, Danish and Norwegians?

This is how different they are.

Scandinavians:

http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/6103/r01r01.jpg

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/9130/r02r02.jpg


Finns:

http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/1869/r20r20.jpg

http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/92/r21r21.jpg

http://www.genealogical.com/products/The%20Delaware%20Finns/9413.html



They are mixed.

As if Finns were any different, the ones who call themselves Finns are just Scandinavized Lapps.


EUROPEAN HAPLOGROUPS

R1b: Western Europe (Celtic, Basque, Italic, Frisian, Saxon)
R1a: Eastern Europe (Slavic, Aryan)
I1: Northern Europe (Germanic, Scandinavian)
I2a: Southern Slavic (Balkans and southwestern Ukraine. I2a1 is also present in large numbers in Sardinia, Basques.)
I2b: Western Europe (Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium and England)

MEDITERRANEAN AND MIDDLE EASTERN HAPLOGROUPS:

J1: Arabs, Jews.
J2: Spanish, Italian, Sicilian, Greek, Anatolian Turkish, Jewish, and some French and Portuguese.
T: Small haplogroup that is most present among Egyptians, Iraqis, Serbs and the Spanish. Despite small presence anywhere and especially in Europe, it was the haplogroup of President Thomas Jefferson, Russia’s Czar Nicholas II and several English royals.
G: Most present in Caucasus (southern Russia), which is culturally Middle Eastern. About 60% of Ossetians; 30% of Georgians, Kabardinians and Balkarians.
E1b1b: North Africa, Jews and southern Europe in the same regions as J2, but especially Greece and Serbia at 27% and 24%. (Most of E haplogroup migrated back from the Near East to Africa, but E1b1b stayed above Sahara and spread into Europe. It is now the most common of Mediterranean haplogroups among most European ethnicities.)

ASIAN AND AMERINDIAN (NON-CAUCASIAN) HAPLOGROUPS

N: First appeared in Southeast Asia. Its highest frequency occurs among the Finnic and Baltic peoples of northern and eastern Europe, the Ob-Ugric and Northern Samoyedic peoples of western Siberia, and the Siberian Turkic-speaking Yakuts.

Q: It is the dominant haplogroup among Native Americans. Also highly present among some Siberian Mongoloids like the Kets. (Their language has been linked to the Na-Dene languages among Indians in Western Canada and Alaska.)

Sigurd
Thursday, July 8th, 2010, 06:11 PM
Also Finns...;)

Johanna "Jonsu" Salomaa (musician, Indica)
http://plaza.fi/s/f/vanhat/67763.jpg

Alexi Laiho (musician, Children of Bodom)
http://www.pollsb.com/photos/o/344258-alexi_laiho_children_bodom.jpg

Tuomas Holopainen (musician, Nightwish)
http://www.freewebs.com/fmim/holopainen.jpg http://www.valleyofwishes.net/site/images/newspost_images/tuomaspromo5-everdreamers.n.jpg

Kimi Räikkonen (racing driver)
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00700/sport-graphics-2008_700487a.jpg

Heikki Kovalainen (racing driver)
http://smggermany.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/12/14/heikki_kovalainen_2.jpg

Toni Nieminen (ex-ski jumper)
http://static.iltalehti.fi/urheilu/nieminenblogiMH_ur.jpg

Petri Lindroos (musician, Ensiferum & Ex-Norther)
http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/7500/petri8jp2.jpg

You know, I can also post selective pictures. :nerner

Méldmir
Thursday, July 8th, 2010, 06:15 PM
Selective or not, the point is that Rassenhygeniker's pics show the general difference between the peoples in question. The typical Finn is more like the East-Baltids you see in the first pics. Also I think some of the last pics ar rather Nordid/East-Baltid mixtures.

Hamar Fox
Thursday, July 8th, 2010, 06:40 PM
Also Finns...;)

Johanna "Jonsu" Salomaa (musician, Indica)
http://plaza.fi/s/f/vanhat/67763.jpg

Alexi Laiho (musician, Children of Bodom)
http://www.pollsb.com/photos/o/344258-alexi_laiho_children_bodom.jpg

Tuomas Holopainen (musician, Nightwish)
http://www.freewebs.com/fmim/holopainen.jpg http://www.valleyofwishes.net/site/images/newspost_images/tuomaspromo5-everdreamers.n.jpg

Kimi Räikkonen (racing driver)
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00700/sport-graphics-2008_700487a.jpg

Heikki Kovalainen (racing driver)
http://smggermany.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/12/14/heikki_kovalainen_2.jpg

Toni Nieminen (ex-ski jumper)
http://static.iltalehti.fi/urheilu/nieminenblogiMH_ur.jpg

Petri Lindroos (musician, Ensiferum & Ex-Norther)
http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/7500/petri8jp2.jpg

You know, I can also post selective pictures. :nerner

Finns are 10% Mongoloid. Plenty of people who are even 25% non-white can appear to be purely European, so obviously so can Finns. The point is that regardless of what they look like, they have mixed ancestry. Their children could look mixed, even if they don't. Also, the 10% is influential enough to manifest itself in the majority of Finnish people, hence the classic 'Finnish look'. It's even apparent to some degree in the Nightwish member you posted.

Sigurd
Thursday, July 8th, 2010, 07:12 PM
Selective or not, the point is that Rassenhygeniker's pics show the general difference between the peoples in question. The typical Finn is more like the East-Baltids you see in the first pics.

Actually, both the various types of Nordid (Skandonordid, East-Nordid) and Baltid (esp. Baltid, East-Baltid) are relatively equally common; I've known quite a few Finns and that were outright extreme East-Baltids, most tended to be on some blended spectrum - more common was actually outright Battle-Axe East-Nordids, though they're of course not the majority either.

The most common is actually a stabilised blend of the two, of which I'd consider Olympic figure skater Kiira Korpi amongst the most characteristically Finnish in look; she is perfectly intermediate between the types:

http://img.mtv3.fi/mn_kuvat/mtv3/urheilu/luistelu/2008/612643.jpg

Or of course this unknown Finnish woman on her Kantele, who would also be fairly typical as a fairly harmonious Nordid-Baltid intermediate (have what you will, most Finns are harmoniously balanced), including pigment (ash-blonde, grey-blue eyes)

http://www.mimifroufrou.com/beautyandthesalamander/images/Finnish-Woman.jpg

Of course, there's many that are well more Baltoid, but this doesn't mean they automatically look Mongoliform: f.ex. Alexander Kuoppala (musician, ex- Children of Bodom) is very Baltid but not in the slightest "Mongoliform":

http://dsa.animehq.hu/metalmenu/cob_tagok/image004.jpg

The "over-borealised" looking type is typically "rather rare" though (rarer than the yardstick-drawn East-Nordid types), potentially has something to do with gender dimorphism (almost exclusively observed on females), and is as much pushing an agenda as the rest. They're not Germanic, and not even Indo-European --- but this doesn't mean they're actually Mongols. ;)

What is selective is not just his examples of Finns, but also that of Scandinavians. Like all Scandinavians were typically über-Nordid. Where's the strong Cro-Magnid adstrate (whether Borreby or Baltid)?

Some CM Swedes:

Tomas "Ace" "Quorthon" Forsberg (musician, Bathory)
http://www.spirit-of-metal.com/membre_groupe/photo/Quorthon_-12402.jpg

Johan Hegg (musician, Amon Amarth)
http://www.simnet.is/dabbirock/ljosmyndir/johann_hegg__lmk.jpg

Greta Garbo (actress)
http://www.divasthesite.com/images/Greta_Garbo/Greta_Garbo_nickname_01.jpg

Dag Hammarskjöld (politician/diplomat)
http://perspective.usherbrooke.ca/bilan/contributions/1980e0e20090904101733868.jpg

Pernilla Wiberg (skier)
http://gfx.aftonbladet-cdn.se/multimedia/archive/00082/Inte_ovanligt__82064w.jpg

Some CM Norwegians:

Torbjørn Sandvik (musician, Glittertind).
http://www.darkside.ru/band/2365/n12651.jpg

Edvard Grieg (composer).
http://www.zgapa.pl/zgapedia/data_pictures/_uploads_wiki/e/Edvard_Grieg.jpg

Vibeke Stene (singer, several projects)
http://www.spirit-of-metal.com/membre_groupe/photo/Vibeke_Stene-12381_e804.jpg

Ted "Nocturno Culto" Skjellum (musician, Darkthrone)
http://www.getreadytorock.com/pure_metal/nocturno_culto.jpg

Some CM Danes:

Valdemar Psilander (silent movie actor)
http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5a/Valdemar_Psilander.jpg/250px-Valdemar_Psilander.jpg

Karl Verner (linguist)
http://www.denstoredanske.dk/@api/deki/files/29700/=505762.501.jpg

Queen Margarethe II (monarch, writer)
http://www3.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Queen+Margrethe+II+Celebrates+65th+Birth day+RVKnJUpeBX8l.jpg

and so on and so forth... ;)

Méldmir
Thursday, July 8th, 2010, 07:18 PM
Yes, I see your point, Sigurd. It just seemed to me you tried to show people there was no real difference between Swedes and Finns in your first post. But there is of course, and East-Baltid may not be the most common, but a Nordid/East-Baltid mixture which is still distinct from Swedes, whom are usually a Nordid-West Baltid or Nordid/C-M mixture. And yes the number of pure C-M types in Scandinavia is probably as big as the amount of pure Nordid types.

Sigurd
Thursday, July 8th, 2010, 07:31 PM
Yes, I see your point, Sigurd. It just seemed to me you tried to show people there was no real difference between Swedes and Finns in your first post.

No, that was never my intention. I was just concerned about the use of selective picturing which seemed to be more to underline a certain agenda rather than being scientific about it. :)


But there is of course, and East-Baltid may not be the most common, but a Nordid/East-Baltid mixture which is still distinct from Swedes, whom are usually a Nordid-West Baltid or Nordid/C-M mixture.

Yes, that is indeed true, the outright East-Baltid type is from my knowledge (which will of course be much more limited than yours ;)) not particularly common in Sweden, I have not seen a Swede. Well, I've seen one, but she was half-Finnish, so scratch that. :P


And yes the number of pure C-M types in Scandinavia is probably as big as the amount of pure Nordid types.

As I would assume, most are of course a mixture (f.ex. common Trønder type in central Norway), whilst the number of relatively phenotypically pure is bound to be relatively equal. Since we see this throughout Germanic lands, we can safely assume that Germanics as we know them probably consisted of Cro-Magnid and Neolithic types at Germanic ethnogenesis, and quite possibly/likely at least already at the time of the earlier Germanic-Baltic-Slavic construct.

Méldmir
Thursday, July 8th, 2010, 07:40 PM
Yes, that is indeed true, the outright East-Baltid type is from my knowledge (which will of course be much more limited than yours ;)) not particularly common in Sweden, I have not seen a Swede. Well, I've seen one, but she was half-Finnish, so scratch that. :P


Well, people from northern Sweden have much in common with Finns, at least the most northern regions of Norrland have a strong bond, which is indisputable, with some towns even being on the middle of the boarder and bilingual. Also there is the Finnish minority, that mostly exists in northern Sweden, + the Sami population. So those Swedes (technically) are more like their Finnish neighbours. After all this part of Sweden is historically a Finnic part of the Scandinavian pennisuela. And thus, the East-Baltid subrace exists up there. Northern Swedes are also known to be somewhat swarthy, probably due to Lappoid ancestry.

Rassenhygieniker
Thursday, July 8th, 2010, 10:03 PM
Also Finns...;)

Johanna "Jonsu" Salomaa (musician, Indica)
http://plaza.fi/s/f/vanhat/67763.jpg

Alexi Laiho (musician, Children of Bodom)
http://www.pollsb.com/photos/o/344258-alexi_laiho_children_bodom.jpg

Tuomas Holopainen (musician, Nightwish)
http://www.freewebs.com/fmim/holopainen.jpg http://www.valleyofwishes.net/site/images/newspost_images/tuomaspromo5-everdreamers.n.jpg

Kimi Räikkonen (racing driver)
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00700/sport-graphics-2008_700487a.jpg

Heikki Kovalainen (racing driver)
http://smggermany.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/12/14/heikki_kovalainen_2.jpg

Toni Nieminen (ex-ski jumper)
http://static.iltalehti.fi/urheilu/nieminenblogiMH_ur.jpg

Petri Lindroos (musician, Ensiferum & Ex-Norther)
http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/7500/petri8jp2.jpg

You know, I can also post selective pictures. :nerner

Aside from Jonsu who is Sub-Northern (Deniker), the rest all show Baltid/Scando-Lappid admixture. You may argue that say Alexi Laiho is Nordiform and that would be correct, but so was Reinhard Heydrich and as I pointed out in another thread that did not stop him from showing obvious Eastern influences.



Actually, both the various types of Nordid (Skandonordid, East-Nordid) and Baltid (esp. Baltid, East-Baltid) are relatively equally common; I've known quite a few Finns and that were outright extreme East-Baltids, most tended to be on some blended spectrum - more common was actually outright Battle-Axe East-Nordids, though they're of course not the majority either.

The rule is when dealing with Finns is that no matter the subrace that they be Nordiform, Cromagniform, Dinariform or whatever else is that most of them all equally show Lappoid admixture, that's the finnish trademark.

http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/8333/r32r32.jpg



The most common is actually a stabilised blend of the two, of which I'd consider Olympic figure skater Kiira Korpi amongst the most characteristically Finnish in look; she is perfectly intermediate between the types:

http://img.mtv3.fi/mn_kuvat/mtv3/urheilu/luistelu/2008/612643.jpg

Hardly an intermediate, that one's main subrace is Nordid, but there are obviously some Baltid in there as well which will explain her sanded features who are not as sharp as in the Nordid proper types. Though unlike most other, she doesn't pocess the overtly pseudo-samid looks.

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/6686/r30r30.jpg

Laura Vandervoort is much more Baltid/Samid influenced than Kiira Korpi, but again she is more Nordiform than Baltiform..



Or of course this unknown Finnish woman on her Kantele, who would also be fairly typical as a fairly harmonious Nordid-Baltid intermediate (have what you will, most Finns are harmoniously balanced), including pigment (ash-blonde, grey-blue eyes)

http://www.mimifroufrou.com/beautyandthesalamander/images/Finnish-Woman.jpg

Again hardly an intermediate, this one from what we can tell looks subracially Anglo-Saxon.



The "over-borealised" looking type is typically "rather rare" though (rarer than the yardstick-drawn East-Nordid types),

No it isn't, it is actually fairly common in countries where the Haplogroup N is again in turn fairly common.



What is selective is not just his examples of Finns, but also that of Scandinavians.

Of course the picture were selective, what I wanted to explain by pointing out the two extreme of each side, was that in Scandinavia extreme end is to Nordoid, it does not matter if it is Tronder or Noric, the general consensus is Nordoiform with additional cromagnoid components, hence the stereotypical Swede. While the stereotypical Viking, is someone with the body of a Dalofaelid and the face of a Nordid.

Most of the population is between Nordid and Cromagnoid.


While in Finland, the extreme end is Baltoid, it doesn't matter if it is Balto-Nordid or Scando-Lappid, the general consensus is Baltoiform with additional lappoid components, hence the stereotypical Finn. While the stereotypical Lapp, is someone with the body of a Baltid and the face of a Hmong.

Most of the population is between Baltid and Lappoid.



Where's the strong Cro-Magnid adstrate (whether Borreby or Baltid)?

Some CM Swedes:

Johan Hegg (musician, Amon Amarth)
http://www.simnet.is/dabbirock/ljosmyndir/johann_hegg__lmk.jpg

He is a good examplar of the Battle-Axe type, you will notice that he is Nordiform (his head shape) and he would fit in the Viking Stereotype (Nordid face, with robust body built).

lostviking
Thursday, July 29th, 2010, 11:40 PM
Just saw these and wanted to make sure it's clear.
The woman here (Anette Olzon) is actually Swedish, not Finnish.

Also Finns...;)

http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/92/r21r21.jpg


Also Tuomas Holopainen in the Nighwish documentary "End of Innocence" states that both of his parents came from Russia, so though Holopainen seems to be a Finnish name I think he's only Finnish by culture.


Tuomas Holopainen (musician, Nightwish)
http://www.freewebs.com/fmim/holopainen.jpg http://www.valleyofwishes.net/site/images/newspost_images/tuomaspromo5-everdreamers.n.jpg



Just wanted to throw that out there :)

Svartljos
Friday, July 30th, 2010, 01:24 AM
Also Tuomas Holopainen in the Nighwish documentary "End of Innocence" states that both of his parents came from Russia, so though Holopainen seems to be a Finnish name I think he's only Finnish by culture.


Just wanted to throw that out there :)

He could be a descendant of Finns who live/lived in Russia (for example in the Karelian Republic or Leningrad Oblast), not saying it is the case but it could explain the name.

Saxe
Thursday, November 18th, 2010, 11:49 PM
In my experience, most people consider the Finns to be a Scandinavian people. The few people who I've met that mark a difference are actually from Finland, and ethnically Finnish. They generally, when asked, will refer to themselves as Finnic, or Baltic. The high cheekbones that people have been mentioning, in my opinion, comes from interbreeding with the Saami people.

All my own opinions and experiences, here.

Thulean
Friday, November 19th, 2010, 05:22 AM
In my experience, most people consider the Finns to be a Scandinavian people. The few people who I've met that mark a difference are actually from Finland, and ethnically Finnish. They generally, when asked, will refer to themselves as Finnic, or Baltic. The high cheekbones that people have been mentioning, in my opinion, comes from interbreeding with the Saami people.

All my own opinions and experiences, here.

I believe the Finnish themselves should have the last word on this, and that they themselves are far better judges of their own identity than anyone else and that other people should not impose an other identity on them. They are indeed very unique, and that is a good and beautiful thing to be. Their language is not even related to Nordic languages. They are not Nordic people, no matter what ignorant Nazi-types who think Nordic means some kind of breed, like a special type of animal, which is an extremely degrading and insulting way to view Nordic people, or any people, might think.

The Finnish are not a Nordic people, no matter how genetically similar they may be. They have their own culture and language, very different from anyone else, and therefore they truly are a people of their own, which is a great thing, and have every right to view themselves that way.

Saxe
Friday, November 19th, 2010, 07:50 AM
Was that supposed to be directed to me? Because we said the exact same things...

Þoreiðar
Friday, November 19th, 2010, 11:52 AM
The Finnish are not a Nordic people, no matter how genetically similar they may be. They have their own culture and language, very different from anyone else, and therefore they truly are a people of their own, which is a great thing, and have every right to view themselves that way.What is your definition of the word 'Nordic'?

In general, Finland (and even Estonia) tends to be included when referring to 'the Nordic countries'. And by the way, organizations like Foreningen Norden (http://www.norden.no/page100/page100.html) are far from being "ignorant Nazi-types".

Hersir
Friday, November 19th, 2010, 01:48 PM
The Finnish are not a Nordic people, no matter how genetically similar they may be. They have their own culture and language, very different from anyone else, and therefore they truly are a people of their own, which is a great thing, and have every right to view themselves that way.


No, both Estonian, Hungarian and other languages are very similar. Finno-ugric languages. More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Ugric_languages

Northern Paladin
Friday, November 19th, 2010, 03:43 PM
First of all, they speak a non-Germanic, and better yet a non-Indoeuropean language. Second of all, they are mixed with Lappoid races of the north-east. They are different.

ulfrik
Sunday, November 21st, 2010, 09:46 AM
the fins are very different, not quite norwegian and not russian.

the fins do have a thunder god called uku , similar to thor.

NorthWestEuropean
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 11:11 AM
I have written in this thread before. But I just want to point out some things.

Firstly, why are you discussing a non-Germanic people on a Germanic forum?

Second, there might be an Asian (as in "Siberian") gene frequency in Finns, but it does not seem to be significant. We have never defined people by their DNA, and I don't think we really do today either. Different DNA companies etc seem to all give people different estimates of admixture, so how trustable should it be? In any case, the highest Asian score among Finns have been 5%. And I believe that is people from North-Eastern Finnish areas like Kuusamo, where half of the founding population actually were Saamis. The one-drop rule drew the line at 1/16 Amerindian (6.25%) or 1/32 (3%) Negroid, if I don't remember wrong. No Finn has ever scored more than 1/16 Asian in any case. People from Western and Southern Finland (who are the most populated areas) usually score about 1-2% Mongoloid. On 23andme, I believe they score 100% European.

Phenotypically, Finns are mainly a mix of East Nordid (dominate western Finland) and Baltid/West Baltid (dominate the eastern and northern parts). People with "funny" eyefolds (East Baltid or just Lappoid-influenced types) can occur occassionally, but they also occur in Scandinavia. Lennart Hyland (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Zu-L8Z2LGa4/TFce_piLpxI/AAAAAAAAD3o/jOclEwev_KE/s1600/Hyland_461_300.jpg), for instance, was from the southern parts of Sweden. I doubt he had any recent Saami or Finnish blood. Some theorize that it just comes from the result of borealization in a cold climate (and Finland is colder than the other Nordic countries :P).

When it comes to high cheekbones, it's just a Cromagnid trait that is actually considered quite typical for Scandinavian people. I have seen them be described as "Norwegian traits" or "Swedish traits". Viggo Mortensen has high cheekbones, and Saamis haven't mixed with the Danes as far as I know. According to anthropological studies made by Löfgren, the Swedish-speakers of Nyland in Finland actually had more prominent cheekbones than the Finnish-speakers.


Löfgren also points that the cheekbones were slightly prominent, however this was also the case among many European nations. This feature was more well-defined among the Swedish speakers, with the arch of the cheek being larger.
http://finnanthro.blogspot.com/2006/12/nyland-summary.html

Waffen-SS were sceptical to the origin of the Finns. When they recruited in Finland, they originally wanted Swedish-speakers only, who were considered Germanic enough. Since the Swedish-speaking applicants were so few, and the Finnish government got angry over the preference, they decided to accept applications from Finnish-speakers too. But they were supposed to have been quite harsh on the racial criterias because of being sceptical to the language and origin. And yet, of the 2009 Finns that applied, 1566 got accepted (!).

Mongoloids?

Lauri Törni, Eastern Finnish:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/fi/thumb/5/57/Lauri_torni.jpg/200px-Lauri_torni.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Torni_lauri.jpg/250px-Torni_lauri.jpg

Some Finn named Ensio (others have argued that he was Norwegian or Estonian):

http://oi55.tinypic.com/6sweq1.jpg

A crowd of SS Finns:

http://www.axishistory.com/fileadmin/user_upload/w/wss-fi-volunteers.jpg

Piia Pantsu, from South-East and East Finland:

http://www.hippson.se/images/artikelbilder05/piia_pantsu1_200.jpg
http://www.piiapantsu.fi/images/piia_potretti_2_1024.jpg

Yes, I do admit that the pictures are cherrypicked. Finns are phenotypically quite diverse, and you can find anything from Nordiform types to very East Baltid/Lappoid-influenced types. I don't dispute that. But most seemed "Nordic" enough for membership in the Waffen-SS.

I think we should stop discussing this. The Finns are not a Germanic people, they differ in mentality when compared to the Scandinavians, and consider themselves to be Finnic and most related to the Estonians and Finnic peoples in Russia, not Scandinavians and Germanics. They look slightly different from the Scandinavians too (but yet again, I have troubles differentiating people who are half Finnish from a crowd of Swedes). Culturally, they don't differ that much from Scandinavia, as Swedes and their ancestors have been influencing them so heavily. They celebrate the North Germanic christmas (Swedish: Jul, Finnish: Joulu) that originates from the Germanic jol. Also, the Finnish word for mother, äiti, is a Germanic loanword from the Goths eibai. But Finns and Estonians are a different kind when compared to the Scandinavians, some Finns are also quite hostile towards Swedes, and should thus have their own forum. End of story.

Hersir
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 12:55 PM
There was alot of Swedish immigration and influence in Estonia.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Estonian_Swedes
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Swedish_Estonia

As for the samis, most of the samis here in Norway live in Oslo and are all integrated. I think they would mix with Danes as any Norwegians.

There is 60 000 to 100 0000 samis here, and only 2800 of them are involved with traditional reindeer herding.

The samis living up north sometimes kill predators illegally and their use of snow mobiles damages the ecosystem up there. Recent news also shows that they svindle cash out of the state by claiming they loose far more reindeer to predators than they really do. The state pays them compensation. If their numbers is gonna add up, one wolf has to eat 1,5 reindeer each day.

Why shouldnt we discuss samis, jews etc? They all have a influence on the Germanic sphere. We have bigger problems than samis though.

NorthWestEuropean
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 01:55 PM
There was alot of Swedish immigration and influence in Estonia.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Estonian_Swedes
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Swedish_Estonia

Of course there is a lot of Scandinavian influence among the Finns and Estonians, just like I pointed out in my earlier post. Estonians and Finns could culturally even be considered some sort of "honorary Scandinavians". They drink the Christmas beverage glögg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulled_wine#Scandinavian_Gl.C3.B8gg) for instance, and at least Finns celebrate Midsummer (though a little different from the Swedish variant, I believe).


As for the samis, most of the samis here in Norway live in Oslo and are all integrated. I think they would mix with Danes as any Norwegians.

There is 60 000 to 100 0000 samis here, and only 2800 of them are involved with traditional reindeer herding.

The samis living up north sometimes kill predators illegally and their use of snow mobiles damages the ecosystem up there. Recent news also shows that they svindle cash out of the state by claiming they loose far more reindeer to predators than they really do. The state pays them compensation. If their numbers is gonna add up, one wolf has to eat 1,5 reindeer each day.

Well, Saamis do not really have much in common with Finns (and Estonians), neither genetically nor culturally. There are Saamis in Finland as well, and they are, if I have understood it correctly, quite "hostile" towards the Finns, just like the Saamis in northern Sweden are "hostile" towards the Swedes (and Finns living near the border). There seem to be obvious ethnic barriers between them.


Why shouldnt we discuss samis, jews etc? They all have a influence on the Germanic sphere. We have bigger problems than samis though.

If it is about "problems", integration or influencing, then I would call it legitimate to discuss the group in question. But I think it's a little unneccessary to have extremely large threads about racial makeups in a section about culture (that's what I attacked). That subject should be in the genetics section. When it comes to Finns and Estonians being "white" or "alien to Scandinavians", just remember that I wrote that I cannot see much difference on Finnish-descended "Swedes" like Johan Thornberg (http://www.aik.se/ishockey/200910/herrar/bilder/allmant_tornberg.jpg) or Mikael Backlund (http://images.sportsverige.com/files/1513839_466x344.jpg) and actual Swedes.

Einarr
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 02:37 PM
I would like to add a question in regards to Finland and the Sami. The map below marks Finland's high frequency of haplogroup N, which the Sami indeed also hold in a high percentage themselves (most common for both). Estonia also seems to have a high percentage for example, and all three of the aforementioned areas (Finland, Sami land, Estonia) share a related language family.

In short - is it a Baltic thing, or something else? I am referring to the frequencies of haplogroup N.

http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/1962/ydnae.jpg

Some sources,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_genetics_of_the_Sami

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_N_(Y-DNA)


Haplogroup N
Highest frequencies: Yakuts 75%, Nenets 75%, Finns 60%, Saami 40%, Baltic States 45%

NorthWestEuropean
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 03:22 PM
I would like to add a question in regards to Finland and the Sami. The map below marks Finland's high frequency of haplogroup N, which the Sami indeed also hold in a high percentage themselves (most common for both). Estonia also seems to have a high percentage for example, and all three of the aforementioned areas (Finland, Sami land, Estonia) share a related language family.

In short - is it a Baltic thing, or something else? I am referring to the frequencies of haplogroup N.

http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/1962/ydnae.jpg

Some sources,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_genetics_of_the_Sami

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_N_(Y-DNA)

It's haplogroup N1c, not N. Calling N1c "N" is like calling haplogroup I1 "I" or even "IJ". And it occurs in high frequencies in North-Eastern Europe. Some have argued that Finns and Lithuanians share most genetic similarity.

Granraude
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 03:46 PM
Well, I for one, do not think of them being similar to Scandinavians. Stating the obvious here, but different language, different culture and most Finns I've seen have looked quite East-Baltid to me.

But I do find their culture intruiging, and I love Rare Exports =P

Einarr
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 04:01 PM
It's haplogroup N1c, not N. Calling N1c "N" is like calling haplogroup I1 "I" or even "IJ". And it occurs in high frequencies in North-Eastern Europe. Some have argued that Finns and Lithuanians share most genetic similarity.

Very well, let us also note that N1c is the specific marker for all of the populations mentioned in my post (Finns, Sami, Estonians). I believe you said that Finns and the Sami do not have much in common (genetically speaking), so I was perhaps questioning that statement with the comparison of marker frequencies.

NorthWestEuropean
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 04:40 PM
Very well, let us also note that N1c is the specific marker for all of the populations mentioned in my post (Finns, Sami, Estonians). I believe you said that Finns and the Sami do not have much in common (genetically speaking), so I was perhaps questioning that statement with the comparison of marker frequencies.

Well, there are non-Europeans, like Altaians, who carry a lot of "Aryan" R1a, and I'd reckon that they are still distanced from Europeans genetically. And Saamis also carry high frequencies of I1, I believe.


Highest frequencies: Parts of Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, Central Asia, Siberia and South Asia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a_%28Y-DNA%29

But according to Cavalli-Sforza, Finns and Saamis were quite distanced from each other.

Einarr
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 05:43 PM
Well, there are non-Europeans, like Altaians, who carry a lot of "Aryan" R1a, and I'd reckon that they are still distanced from Europeans genetically. And Saamis also carry high frequencies of I1, I believe.

Indeed, a considerable percentage of R1a is found in Iran and India too, which I believe represents very clear evidence of the Aryan invasion, leading all the way down into the Indus Valley (Sanskrit as you know was IE, as well as modern-day Hindi). Farsi/Persian is also Indo-European. All of these people are mixed at present day, however.

My issue with N1c is the fact that it doesn't exist anywhere in Europe outside of the few areas which speak Uralic based languages (and those nearby), as well as in Russia. I am guessing that it has a tie with the Urals, just as the language family. It only seems logical.

Adding a counter argument to my own argument though, which is Hungary. Hungary is interesting in that they speak a Uralic based language as well, yet N1c seems to be completely absent within their population.