PDA

View Full Version : Germanic or Teutonic, Which Term Do You Prefer?



Bradford
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 05:27 AM
Don't you? It's more fitting, as it really comes from the Germanic word for themselves. People, so, Teut, Theod, Deutsch, etc.

Well whatever... I just like the term better.

Ward
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 08:39 AM
Do you mean you prefer the term "Teutonic" over "Germanic?"

If so, I don't think those terms can be used interchangeably. From my understanding, the term "Teutonic" denotes specifically the German (Deutsch) people, similar to the way "Viking" is term ascribed to Scandinavians during a certain time period. You can't use either of these as blanket terms for all Germanics.

Sigurd
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 11:36 AM
I prefer the term "our folk" or "our kin" to either of those terms. I'd like to think that we can use the word "we" to describe ourselves. Essentially, it's only those not of our kind who need a label for us, right? ;)

þeudiskaz
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 12:15 PM
:thumbsup

I'm sure we can all agree with that! :D

Thusnelda
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 05:43 PM
Well, I think the meaning of "Teutonic" is more restricted to us Germans nowadays. ;) Originally, the Teutons were one of the Germanic tribes back in the age of the early Roman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teutons). Their origin is Jütland, that´s Denmark and northernmost Germany today.

Many know the notorious phrase "Furor Teutonicus". The original expression is generally attributed to the Roman poet Marcus Annaeus Lucanus, also known as Lucan. It occurs for the first time in his work "Bellum civile/Pharsalia".
Lucan used the term to describe what he believed to be the outstanding characteristic of the Germanic tribe called the Teutones: a mad, merciless, berserk rage in battle.

The Teutons met with the armies of the Roman Empire in the eastern Alps around 113 BC. The Romans, under the command of the Consul Papirius Carbo, tried to lure the tribe into a trap, but they underestimated their military potential and lost the Battle of Noreia. The Romans also lost the Battle of Arausio (105 BC) and other lesser battles, before putting Gaius Marius in charge of their defence.


If you ask me I´d say that "Teutonic" is too exclusive. "Germanic" is a more inclusive term and so I´m prefering "Germanic".

Bradford
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 06:31 PM
I suppose...

But the word Germanic has German in the name. (And certain tribes, never even existed in Germania proper.)

>:/

Wolgadeutscher
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 06:33 PM
I prefer the term "our folk" or "our kin" to either of those terms. I'd like to think that we can use the word "we" to describe ourselves. Essentially, it's only those not of our kind who need a label for us, right? ;)
Yes this works for Germanic people only. But if you titled this forum for example "our folk", everyone who visited it and saw this name would think it could be him. :D

Nachtengel
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 06:37 PM
But the word Germanic has German in the name.
So does Deutsch. I think it was originally Teutsch. To us Germans, Deutsch certainly won't mean a Swede or Englishman. It will mean a German proper. ;)

Sigurd
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 06:43 PM
Yes this works for Germanic people only. But if you titled this forum for example "our folk", everyone who visited it and saw this name would think it could be him. :D

Well, in a way yes, but I would rather say it highlights my point: We can use it to demark ourselves from precisely these other population groups, which need a name for us.

Internally however, we need not to specify to our neighbour of what folk we are, he knows that. Internally, everyone knows what you mean if you say "our folk". In fact, to some extent even the outsider will know that you exclude him - if you amend that slightly, and in conversation, use "my folk".

I know it all sounds like semantics - but it is a bit like the fact that Ancient, Pre-Christian Germanics had no name for their religion, quite frankly because there was no need to. These days, we have hundreds of different names. But in a self-contained and self-sustainable society, you don't need to mention to which folk you belong, it's perfectly clear to all, insiders and outsiders alike. :)

þeudiskaz
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 08:56 PM
I suppose...

But the word Germanic has German in the name. (And certain tribes, never even existed in Germania proper.)

>:/

Well, the Proto-Germanic root for "Germany" is "Theudiskaz", from which Althochdeutsch turns it to "deudisc". We can see the root of "Deutsch" and "Teutonic" here.
Even still, the Romans named the greater geographic region, and the people/culture Germania, from which we get the greater description, where as the derivatives of Theudiskaz are used more for mainland Germany/Germans.

Additionally, "Teutonic" might confuse many people, as they are most prominantly known as post-Christian crusaders in Modern day Preussen.

AngloTeutonic
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 09:05 PM
Don't you? It's more fitting, as it really comes from the Germanic word for themselves. People, so, Teut, Theod, Deutsch, etc.

Well whatever... I just like the term better.


The problem with the word "Germanic", is that it is too close to the word "German", so people naturally think when you call them Germanic, that you are calling them Germans.

Nachtengel
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 09:07 PM
The problem with the word "Germanic", is that it is too close to the word "German", so people naturally think when you call them Germanic, that you are calling them Germans.
Only in English. Anyway, I'm going to make a poll abut this.

Please vote your preference, how should 'Germanic' people be called and why?

Kriemhild
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 10:19 PM
I chose Germanic because it is all-encompassing. Teutonic refers specifically to one Germanic tribe, the Teutones. I think any confusion about the meaning of the word Germanic and whom it refers to is just a product of ignorance.

Thusnelda
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 10:41 PM
The problem with the word "Germanic", is that it is too close to the word "German", so people naturally think when you call them Germanic, that you are calling them Germans.
But that misinterpretation is just a gap in education. It could be solved with information and rectification. :)

Bradford
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 11:48 PM
Also I really don't like being associated with Germans, to be totally honest. No offense.

Nachtengel
Tuesday, August 4th, 2009, 12:06 AM
Also I really don't like being associated with Germans, to be totally honest. No offense.
None taken. I don't like Americans who want to be German either. :)

Bradford
Tuesday, August 4th, 2009, 12:09 AM
Yeah, you'll get a lot of that, since German music is popular.

I'm English-American, but on both sides, they're from the quaker and mayflower colonies.

So I'm pretty American.

CambridgeGreen
Wednesday, August 5th, 2009, 08:20 PM
I originally prefered "Teutonic" over "Germanic" on the poll. But after some thoughts I consider "Germanic" is more widely accepted amongst the community. It would be awkward to explain to strangers that we are "Teutonic" people rather than "Germanic", at least in English Language. Englishmen may consider themselves more affined to "Germanic" or "Anglo-Saxon" or even simply "Saxon" culture rather than "Teutonic" one.

I suppose some groups of German people (in Deutschland) may favour "Teutonic" over "Germanic". Even so, most German people seem to prefer "Germanic" over "Teutonic". As mentioned in the post above, "Teutonic" could be too specific for other Germanic groups, from Anglo-Saxons to Nordic peoples, and South Germans.

Pilgrim
Thursday, August 13th, 2009, 06:07 AM
I prefer Germanic, as Teutonic only refers to a single tribe, and is also related to the Teutonic order which attempted to forcibly convert the Orthodox slavic nations to roman Catholicism.

Nagelfar
Thursday, August 13th, 2009, 07:40 PM
I chose Germanic because it is all-encompassing. Teutonic refers specifically to one Germanic tribe, the Teutones. I think any confusion about the meaning of the word Germanic and whom it refers to is just a product of ignorance.

"Germanic" comes from a tribe too remember (the 'Germanoí'). When speaking English I say Teutonic, because words all may have particular roots (little tribes) that lead to universals (entire language groups) but there was no designating term originally so alternate terms must be found: this happens time and again. The thing is to be practical with a name in the language and terminology you are now using, and too many anglophones get "Germanic" confused with "of German" or Deutsch proper. Not everyone is like us, and in fact I think the majority of plebian minded individuals that make the masses, who speak English, do think "German" when they hear "Germanic" and not English, Scandinavian, etc., as well; most of these same think something else when they hear "Teutonic", at least if they do not understand it they do not assume so there is less confusion.

TrueEnglish
Wednesday, September 2nd, 2009, 09:59 PM
Eventually there should be a superior term to both of them, but Germanic makes sense, since the area of north middle europe where a large bunch of the ancestors were congregated is now known as Germany.

Grey
Thursday, September 3rd, 2009, 09:37 PM
I prefer Teutonic merely because most people get the wrong impression from the term Germanic, and I'm tired of explaining the meaning of the term.

NorthWestEuropean
Saturday, September 5th, 2009, 08:38 PM
Isn't Teutonic another word for proto-Germanic tribes? I.e. all Germanics aren't Teutonic? Aptrgangr told me something like that on another forum.

Hauke Haien
Saturday, September 5th, 2009, 09:19 PM
Its roots are in a PIE word for 'tribe', at the Proto-Germanic stage probably meaning 'people'. Both 'Deutsch' and 'Teuton' are independently derived from that, also 'Gut-þiuda', 'Sui-þióð', 'Angel-ðēod'.

There is no endonym for all Germanics, because the direction of their world view was not from the universal to the specific, but from their center of existence outwards. Therefore, they identified their own group with a name and called other groups by their (Germanic-language) names. A special identifier only became necessary when they encountered groups that were too strange to fit into their world view, and that is when 'Welsh' ('Walloon', 'Vlach'), meaning 'foreigner', was coined.

Similarly, 'Germani' may actually be a Celtic term, meaning 'neighbours', rather than the proper name of the tribes in Gaul it was presumably taken from.

Teutonic
Tuesday, October 20th, 2009, 03:20 PM
None taken. I don't like Americans who want to be German either. :)


würde das mich einschließen? weil ich im usa geboren war?


I like Teutonic..

Nachtengel
Tuesday, October 20th, 2009, 03:31 PM
würde das mich einschließen? weil ich im usa geboren war?
I said Americans, that should be clear. If you are an American, yes. If you are German born in the USA, then no. One can't be both. Either, or.


I like Teutonic..
Why?

Teutonic
Tuesday, October 20th, 2009, 05:18 PM
I said Americans, that should be clear. If you are an American, yes. If you are German born in the USA, then no. One can't be both. Either, or.

I'm sorry to all, since this is off topic.
I remember reading as a kid about accounts of the fall of the Berlin wall, and a woman from west Germany said that she didnt consider the east Germans German anymore, since they had been seperated for far to long to be considered proper German. She said she thought of them as Austrians or Swiss Germans,or Germans from another land,Sure they speak German but are not really German. My family has been in the usa for 60 and 90 years on both sides, all my Grandmothers and Grandfathers come from Germany, I guess it doesnt matter how many wars my family members died in fighting for Germany, the Germany they helped rebuild, sweat and bled for..Because to people like you we will always be just americans or some foreigners that speak German.I am not trying to be a jerk, i'm just trying to understand you. I am German with or without my Deutsche Staatsbürgerschaft. So am I no better than a turk inside of Germany to you? All my German blood doesn't mean anyting huh?It seems to mean enough to the German goverment as they will give me citizenship very easily should I apply once I am back in Germany..Even the traitorous BRD recognizes the signifigance of my blood. One thing about our people is that sometimes, we never know how to unite. Deutsche Einigkeit, meine Stärke Meine Stärke, Deutschlands Macht These words carved on Hermanns sword is a lie for people like you, but they run in my veins and heart.
I will not raise my family in the usa, they will be raised in Germany, Deutschland ist mein Vaterland auch.I will admit at times even as proud as my family is to be German, I sometimes feel as though they got what they deserved when they were treated like shit in the usa during and after ww2, there is only one land and place for Germans in this world and its in Germany...


Why?

I mean for me I personally like Teutonic, while I am Germanic I put my German people first and Teutonic means only German..

Nordlander
Tuesday, October 20th, 2009, 07:00 PM
I personnally prefer "Nordik" as for me it encompasses all the Northern/Germanic people .

Nagelfar
Sunday, October 25th, 2009, 09:28 AM
I personnally prefer "Nordik" as for me it encompasses all the Northern/Germanic people .

Yes but "nordic" is solely the word for northernly peoples in our tongue. What of Saami, Finns, Balts, Picts, Eskimos, Siberians? They are 'north men' too.

I still say Teutonic for the same reasons given; same root as Germanic ultimately, no confusion for specific single groups of people (in our, as in what we're speaking here & now, language) as with the Germans, as Germanic would confuse.

I think the romanicism with holding onto the "Germanic" moniker within the English language for the entire cultural language group is the association with National Socialism and the third reich of the German people proper; spread out over all Teutonic people; those concerned with the term as our demographic would be are concerned with the preservation that the same grouping as the state of NS Germany had sway over and similar interest in, the movement and ideology.

This, in my opinion, created a closet desire to emulate, of strength, of extremity that no other movement had. Whereas in modern society the strong virile male is the negro or non-white races, stereotypically; the NS movement was a strong, yet distinct from the strength of the modern idealized non-white races differently as being overly logical (as in thought out, rather than correct or not; cold & calculating), orderly and controlled in rank & file. Our manliness was one of controlled discipline rather than plain brute force; with civilization and the creation of society and the state; as well as being cold; having no moral or ethical hang-ups - the same way the holocaust symbolizes virility being devoid of feelings or it being wrong by the pain it caused in all manner; feelings and appeal to emotion as a logical fallacy; whether the holocaust (not opposing its occurrence as some apologists do; yet still from the opinion of a apologist here) was or was not wrong logically in other manners (faults are here not discussed) the appeal to emotion that is the first stop of many where it is "without question" (logical fallacy) the "worst catastrophe" in mankind; is purely in and of itself a logical fallacy; well going headlong and avoiding this is a manly type of reason.... anyhow, quite a ways off topic but I believe subconsciously many want the "Germanic" name for its association with the recent historical race consciousness officialized by the entire nation in just recent history by said German state. A state which also associated many of their national relatives with "Germanic" grouping (though there it was more logical and less to be confused because in the German tongue "Germanik" has no confusable connotations.)

Wulfhere
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 12:40 AM
I can't help thinking that the word "Germanic" has been foisted on us by the academic establishment precisely to retard any sort of mutual feeling. After all, it's very similar to "German", and after two world wars no Englishman would ever want to describe himself as such. "Celtic", on the other hand, does not sound like any one Celtic country, so all so-called Celts can unite under that label. Prior to WW2, it was apparently equally common to use the word "Teutonic" to mean "Germanic", and earlier still the term "Gothonic" was also in vogue.

Elessar
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 12:46 AM
Well, just what word would you chose to describe our mutual ancestry and diaspora? I pride myself on being "Germanic" it's so much more than being simply 'German'.

VikingManx
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 01:11 AM
I like Teutonic a lot.

Kaiser Wilhelm II referred to England and Germany as the "great teutonic powers" and felt they had a natural alliance due to common blood.

Teutonic is a kickass word as well.

Wulfhere
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 01:15 AM
I like Teutonic a lot.

Kaiser Wilhelm II referred to England and Germany as the "great teutonic powers" and felt they had a natural alliance due to common blood.

Teutonic is a kickass word as well.

I rather like Teutonic too (though even that has been used as a synonym for "German").

Wulfram
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 01:34 AM
I can't help thinking that the word "Germanic" has been foisted on us by the academic establishment precisely to retard any sort of mutual feeling.

From what I have read, the word "Germanic" is at least as old as the 1630s. I am sure that back then it was used almost exclusively by individuals who taught and were educated at the various universities. Even today you will come across very few people who would describe themselves as such. Apart from forums such as Skadi, its usage is probably limited to these very same students or scholars. I doubt that the conspirators have forced it upon us as a way of preventing a unified spirit. They have kept our people separated with far more effective tools of subtle genocide: The multi-cult, porn, video games, fashion obsession, White guilt, drugs, etc.
Sadly, using the word "Germanic" in speech will eventually be thought of as eccentric, much in the same way many already feel about the word "Teutonic".

SubtleCalmingFlow
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 02:03 AM
I use the word "Japhetic".


Unfortunately the Khazars are Japhetic too. lol

None the less, I think Japhetic is the most expressive to include all the peoples we intent (minus the Khazars of course).

Svartljos
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 02:20 AM
These days, most people using the term Germanic/Germanisch/Germanisk are linguistics students.

I think the word is probably fine, other than the fact that it ironically is a foreign word. A good replacement would be ðēodisc maybe, Theodish. I doubt the majority of people will really ever identify as Germanic anyway, even if they recognise the relationship their people have with other Germanics.

SpearBrave
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 04:10 AM
We should use the word Germanic as that is what we are. We all belong to the Germanic language group whether we speak English, Swedish, German, Dutch, etc.

I don't feel any connection to the Celts as I don't share those blood lines or much of their language. The term white should not be used as that could be used for Slavs, meds, or other European races.

As far as people of English decent they were also part of the Germanic tribes and therefore are Germanics also. Even the Normans were a Germanic people.

We should encourage the use of the word Germanic and be proud of it. We should discourage the use of the term white.

That is my thoughts on the matter anyway.;)

GroeneWolf
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 04:22 AM
I can't help thinking that the word "Germanic" has been foisted on us by the academic establishment precisely to retard any sort of mutual feeling. After all, it's very similar to "German", and after two world wars no Englishman would ever want to describe himself as such.

That is just a problem for the English-speakers ;). Because in your language the word for the people of Germany as well for those of this branch of the Indo-European tree are practically the same.

But for the larger population is does not matter what kind of term you use, unless the term is strongly camouflaging. Since the general socio-cultural thinking is hostile to things Germanic. And prefer to see their culture as anything but being dominantly Germanic.

Changing a term that covers the load is not the solution for the problem. The problem is the lack of knowledge among the general population about the positive aspects of our Germanic cultural heritage.

Huginn ok Muninn
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 04:29 AM
After all, it's very similar to "German", and after two world wars no Englishman would ever want to describe himself as such.

No Englishman? I would think highly of any Englishman who could overcome the brainwashing that caused hatred of the Germans in the first place. You must remember that Britain entered both wars by choice, when they did not have to, and the leaders of Germany at the time were specifically Anglophiles who did not want war with the UK. Your leaders were tools, just like our leaders are today, and they led you astray into a war against your kinsmen. We have to learn to refocus on the real enemy, but that requires spitting in the face of propaganda and being TRUE leaders, of first our own minds. The jew says being anti-semitic is evil and to hate Germans is good? Why did anyone listen to this?


Changing a term that covers the load is not the solution for the problem. The problem is the lack of knowledge among the general population about the positive aspects of our Germanic cultural heritage.

Yes, whatever the word might be, it can always be manipulated by the masters of propaganda... if we pay attention to them. If we, however, laugh in their faces and tell them to go stuff themselves, the greater the victory for us.

Sigurd
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 04:38 AM
I think the word is probably fine, other than the fact that it ironically is a foreign word. A good replacement would be ðēodisc maybe, Theodish.

Actually, this would be a sub-ideal replacement. Because the German word for this is --- yes, you're right, deutsch < thiudisk < theodiscus. As such we'd just be removing an obstacle for the English native-speakers and create a new one in the same vein for German native-speakers.

This would be against English interest ultimately, because most Germans with at least a half-ways decent upbringing enjoying a classical education will be aware of the fact that the Scandinavians and the Dutch are also Germanics, but many simply forget about the English. ;)

Svartljos
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 05:25 AM
Actually, this would be a sub-ideal replacement. Because the German word for this is --- yes, you're right, deutsch < thiudisk < theodiscus. As such we'd just be removing an obstacle for the English native-speakers and create a new one in the same vein for German native-speakers.

This would be against English interest ultimately, because most Germans with at least a half-ways decent upbringing enjoying a classical education will be aware of the fact that the Scandinavians and the Dutch are also Germanics, but many simply forget about the English. ;)

:p I was thinking about that when I was writing what I said, but I was mainly considering English speakers, but technically this should be a word all groups call themselves. It would kind of be like in other ethno-linguistic groups where their word for their nation just means something like "people". Germanic languages have always lacked a word for this type of thing, but according to some article I've read (which I have upstairs atm, I'm too lazy to pull it out) the origin of the use of the word Deutsch to signify the people in Germany traces its roots back to English ecclesiastical usage of the word to signify the vernacular language/ the local inhabitants (aka, not Germans as we know them today).

Teutonic is also a problem as it just refers to one tribe, the Teutons :S.

I don't think it would add too much confusion, we could refer to the Germans as Dutch, the Dutch as Netherlandic, and the whole group as Theodish. Of course, I don't care what the Germans or Danes want to call everyone, they can call the Germanics Swahili if it pleases them, it doesn't really matter what we say of ourselves as long as we all understand that it might be different in another language :p. Of note, my idea is not that outrageous as there already were lands other than Deutschland referred to as theod in English and still in Icelandic Swēoþēod / Svíþjóð.

Also, as I said I alread think Germanic is a fine word, I just found it odd that it's not a Germanic word (or concept). I would also support the renaming of the Dutch and Germans to Netherlanders and Dutch anyway. I am not too concerned about what people want to call themselves (as long as it's not a black briton saying he's English, har har), and I am even less concerned about the term Germanic. The term is very rarely used in English outside of academic usage today, and most people you meet will think that English comes from Latin :(. Although I suppose half our modern words do.

Edit: Also you are right about the Germans forgetting the English. In most of my linguistics classes in Germany the professors/students were hesitant to consider English Germanic. It was actually insulting to me.

Wulfhere
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 08:07 AM
I use the word "Japhetic".


Unfortunately the Khazars are Japhetic too. lol

None the less, I think Japhetic is the most expressive to include all the peoples we intent (minus the Khazars of course).

Japhetic is far too Biblically orientated, and in any case means all Indo-Europeans.

Wulfhere
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 08:10 AM
We should use the word Germanic as that is what we are. We all belong to the Germanic language group whether we speak English, Swedish, German, Dutch, etc.

I don't feel any connection to the Celts as I don't share those blood lines or much of their language. The term white should not be used as that could be used for Slavs, meds, or other European races.

As far as people of English decent they were also part of the Germanic tribes and therefore are Germanics also. Even the Normans were a Germanic people.

We should encourage the use of the word Germanic and be proud of it. We should discourage the use of the term white.

That is my thoughts on the matter anyway.;)

That's exactly the point, because it's not the only word to describe it, and is too similar to German.

And the Normans were French speaking and therefore Romance, rather than Germanic.

Wulfhere
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 08:12 AM
No Englishman? I would think highly of any Englishman who could overcome the brainwashing that caused hatred of the Germans in the first place. You must remember that Britain entered both wars by choice, when they did not have to, and the leaders of Germany at the time were specifically Anglophiles who did not want war with the UK. Your leaders were tools, just like our leaders are today, and they led you astray into a war against your kinsmen. We have to learn to refocus on the real enemy, but that requires spitting in the face of propaganda and being TRUE leaders, of first our own minds. The jew says being anti-semitic is evil and to hate Germans is good? Why did anyone listen to this?



Yes, whatever the word might be, it can always be manipulated by the masters of propaganda... if we pay attention to them. If we, however, laugh in their faces and tell them to go stuff themselves, the greater the victory for us.

It's not brainwashing that causes Englishmen to distrust the Germans, but rather the fact that they tried to destroy our country.

Wulfhere
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 08:15 AM
Actually, this would be a sub-ideal replacement. Because the German word for this is --- yes, you're right, deutsch < thiudisk < theodiscus. As such we'd just be removing an obstacle for the English native-speakers and create a new one in the same vein for German native-speakers.

This would be against English interest ultimately, because most Germans with at least a half-ways decent upbringing enjoying a classical education will be aware of the fact that the Scandinavians and the Dutch are also Germanics, but many simply forget about the English. ;)

Many Englishmen of a previous generation might have wished very strongly that the Germans would just forget about them - a view shared, I know, by many of their descendants today.

Wulfhere
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 08:18 AM
:p I was thinking about that when I was writing what I said, but I was mainly considering English speakers, but technically this should be a word all groups call themselves. It would kind of be like in other ethno-linguistic groups where their word for their nation just means something like "people". Germanic languages have always lacked a word for this type of thing, but according to some article I've read (which I have upstairs atm, I'm too lazy to pull it out) the origin of the use of the word Deutsch to signify the people in Germany traces its roots back to English ecclesiastical usage of the word to signify the vernacular language/ the local inhabitants (aka, not Germans as we know them today).

Teutonic is also a problem as it just refers to one tribe, the Teutons :S.

I don't think it would add too much confusion, we could refer to the Germans as Dutch, the Dutch as Netherlandic, and the whole group as Theodish. Of course, I don't care what the Germans or Danes want to call everyone, they can call the Germanics Swahili if it pleases them, it doesn't really matter what we say of ourselves as long as we all understand that it might be different in another language :p. Of note, my idea is not that outrageous as there already were lands other than Deutschland referred to as theod in English and still in Icelandic Swēoþēod / Svíþjóð.

Also, as I said I alread think Germanic is a fine word, I just found it odd that it's not a Germanic word (or concept). I would also support the renaming of the Dutch and Germans to Netherlanders and Dutch anyway. I am not too concerned about what people want to call themselves (as long as it's not a black briton saying he's English, har har), and I am even less concerned about the term Germanic. The term is very rarely used in English outside of academic usage today, and most people you meet will think that English comes from Latin :(. Although I suppose half our modern words do.

Edit: Also you are right about the Germans forgetting the English. In most of my linguistics classes in Germany the professors/students were hesitant to consider English Germanic. It was actually insulting to me.

Perhaps they are hesitant to consider English Germanic because it's the one Germanic language that's more important than German.

SpearBrave
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 10:41 AM
That's exactly the point, because it's not the only word to describe it, and is too similar to German.

And the Normans were French speaking and therefore Romance, rather than Germanic.

Do you feel more connected with the Celtic or Germanic culturally?

The Normans were speaking French to some extent, but culturally were Germanic people. They were desended from the Norse (vikings). The point being they added much to English culture making it a Germanic culture.

I really don't think changing the name will help anything, we will still be loved by ourselves and hated by others.:shrug

On a second thought why should we even worry about what other races feel about us? Should we really even care.;)

Huginn ok Muninn
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 11:03 AM
It's not brainwashing that causes Englishmen to distrust the Germans, but rather the fact that they tried to destroy our country.

Really, why don't you tell us HOW they tried to "destroy your country?" You sound like a propaganda poster, which is why I brought up brainwashing.

You have not responded to the points I made, that the UK was the one to declare war upon a Germany that did not want war with the UK, and did so TWICE. Do you expect a country to sit there and do nothing when you declare war upon them and set up armies on their doorstep?

This really never was a war between Germans and Englishmen, but rather a war brought upon a Germany that was free of jewish control, by the most jewish-controlled nation at that time, the UK. Don't you think it's about time we all stopped fighting each other and concentrated upon the real enemy? Don't you know how they laugh at you behind your back when they have convinced you to slay your Germanic kinsmen?

Wulfhere
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 11:57 AM
Do you feel more connected with the Celtic or Germanic culturally?

The Normans were speaking French to some extent, but culturally were Germanic people. They were desended from the Norse (vikings). The point being they added much to English culture making it a Germanic culture.

I really don't think changing the name will help anything, we will still be loved by ourselves and hated by others.:shrug

On a second thought why should we even worry about what other races feel about us? Should we really even care.;)

As a Mercian, and therefore an Angle, I obviously feel more connected with Germanic (though I don't particularly like the term). I do not feel Celts to be alien though, having lived alongside them for 1500 years.

In what way were Normans culturally Germanic? By the 11th century they had adopted all elements of French culture and fully participated in it. Only a small proportion of them had Norse ancestry in any case, and these had long since been fully assimilated. And I really cannot see how the Normans could have made English culture more Germanic - they did indeed add a lot to English culture, and in so doing probably made it less Germanic if anything.

I don't care what other races think of us, but if we are to persuade more people of our own race, we need a better word than Germanic, which is too much like German.

Wulfram
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 12:01 PM
It's not brainwashing that causes Englishmen to distrust the Germans, but rather the fact that they tried to destroy our country.

Wow, that is about as ignorant as it gets.
Please read the following.
It is an essay written by Goebbels in 1939:


England's Guilt

It is a major error to assume that England’s plutocrats slipped into the war against their will or even against their intentions. The opposite is true. The English warmongers wanted the war and used all the resources at their disposal over the years to bring it about. They surely were not surprised by the war. English plutocracy had no goal other than to unleash war against Germany at the right moment, and this since Germany first began to seek once again to be a world power.

Poland really had little to do with the outbreak of war between the Reich and England. It was only a means to an end. England did not support the Polish government out of principle or for humanitarian reasons. That is clear from the fact that England gave Poland no help of any kind whatsoever when the war began. Nor did England take any measures against Russia. The opposite, in fact. The London warring clique to this day has tried to bring Russia into the campaign of aggression against Germany.

The encirclement of Germany long before the outbreak of the war was traditional English policy. From the beginning, England has always directed its main military might against Germany. It never could tolerate a strong Reich on the Continent. It justified its policy by claiming that it wanted to maintain a balance of forces in Europe.

Today there is still another reason. The English warmongers conceal it. It is crassly egotistic. The English prime minister announced the day the war began that England’s goal was to destroy Hitlerism. However, he defined Hitlerism in a way other than how the English plutocracy actually sees it. The English warmongers claim that National Socialism wants to conquer the world. No nation is secure against German aggression. An end must be made of the German hunger for power. The limit came in the conflict with Poland. In reality, however, there is another reason for England’s war with Germany. The English warmongers cannot seriously claim that Germany wants to conquer the world, particularly in view of the fact that England controls nearly two thirds of the world. And Germany since 1933 has never threatened English interests.

There are lords and City men in England who are in fact the richest men on earth. The broad masses, however, see little of this wealth. We see in England an army of millions of impoverished, socially enslaved, and oppressed people. Child labor is still a matter of course there. They have only heard about social welfare programs. Parliament occasionally discusses social legislation. Nowhere else is there such terrible and horrifying inequality as in the English slums. Those with good breeding take no notice of it. Should anyone speak of it in public, the press, which serves plutocratic democracy, quickly brands him the worst kind of rascal. They do not hesitate to make major changes in the Constitution if they are necessary to preserve capitalist democracy.

Capitalism democracy suffers from every possible modern social ailment. The lords and City people can remain the richest people one earth only because they constantly maintain their wealth by exploiting their colonies and preserving unbelievable poverty in their own country.

Germany, on the other hand, has based its domestic policies on new and modern social principles. That is why it is a danger to English plutocracy. It is also why English capitalists want to destroy Hitlerism. They see Hitlerism as all the generous social reforms that have occurred in Germany since 1933. The English plutocrats rightly fear that good things are contagious, that they could endanger English capitalism.

That is why England declared war on Germany. Since it was accustomed to letting others fight its wars, it looked to the European continent to find those ready to fight for England’s interests. France was ready to take on this degrading duty, since the same kind of people ruled France. They too were ready for war out of egotistic reasons. Western European democracy is really only a Western European plutocracy that rules the world. It declared war on German socialism because it endangered their capitalist interests.

A similar drama began in 1914. England had more luck during those four and a half years than it is having today. Europe’s nations had no chance to see what was happening. The nations of Europe today have no desire to play the same role they played during the World War. England and France stand alone. Still, England is trying once again to wage war without making any personal sacrifice. The goal is to blockade Germany, to gradually bring it to submit by starvation. That is longstanding English policy. They used it successfully in the Napoleonic wars, and also during the World War. It would work now as well, if the German people had not been educated by National Socialism. National Socialism is immune to English temptations. English propaganda lies no longer work in Germany. They have gradually lost their effectiveness in the rest of the world as well, since German propaganda today reaches far beyond its borders. This time, English plutocracy will not succeed in driving a wedge between the German people and their leadership, though that is their goal.

The German nation today is defending not only its honor and independence, but also the great social accomplishments it has made through hard and untiring work since 1933. It is a people’s state built on the foundation of justice and economic good sense. In the past, England always had the advantage of facing a fragmented Germany. It is only natural that English plutocracy today seeks to split the German people and make it ripe for new collapse.

English lying propaganda can no longer name things by their proper names. It therefore claims that it is not fighting the German people, only Hitlerism. But we know this old song. In South Africa, England was not fighting the Boers, only Krugerism. In the World War, England wanted to destroy Kaiserism, not the German people. But that did not stop English plutocracy from brutally and relentlessly suppressing the Boers after that war or the Germans after our defeat.

A child once burned is twice shy. The German people were once victims of lying English war propaganda. Now it understands the situation. It has long understood the background of this war. It knows that behind all English plutocratic capitalism’s fine words, its aim is to destroy Germany’s social achievements. We are defending the socialism we have build in Germany since 1933 with every military, economic and spiritual means at our disposal. The bald English lies have no impact on the German people.

English plutocracy is finally being forced to defend itself. In the past, it always found other nations to fight for it. This time, the English people must themselves risk their necks for the lords and City men. They will meet a unified German people of workers, farmers, and soldiers who are prepared to defend their nation with every means at their disposal.

We did not want war. England inflicted it on us. English plutocracy forced it on us. England is responsible for the war, and it will have to pay for it.

The whole world is waking up today. It can no longer be ruled by the capitalist methods of the 19th century. The peoples have matured. They will one day deal a terrible blow to the capitalist plutocrats who are the cause of their misery.

It is no accident that National Socialism has the historical task of carrying out this reckoning. Plutocracy is collapsing intellectually, spiritually, and in the not too distant future, militarily. We are acting consistently with Nietzsche’s words: “Give a shove to what is falling

Wulfhere
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 12:02 PM
Really, why don't you tell us HOW they tried to "destroy your country?" You sound like a propaganda poster, which is why I brought up brainwashing.

You have not responded to the points I made, that the UK was the one to declare war upon a Germany that did not want war with the UK, and did so TWICE. Do you expect a country to sit there and do nothing when you declare war upon them and set up armies on their doorstep?

This really never was a war between Germans and Englishmen, but rather a war brought upon a Germany that was free of jewish control, by the most jewish-controlled nation at that time, the UK. Don't you think it's about time we all stopped fighting each other and concentrated upon the real enemy? Don't you know how they laugh at you behind your back when they have convinced you to slay your Germanic kinsmen?

Germany attacked our allies, those whom we had agreed to protect. It would have been dishonourable to stand by and do nothing. It would also have been dishonourable to lie, as Hitler did many times. Why on earth should we have trusted him?

Wulfhere
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 12:09 PM
Wow, that is about as ignorant as it gets.
Please read the following.
It is an essay written by Goebbels in 1939:

You won't persuade many Englishmen to your cause by quoting Goebbels and defending Hitler. You may argue till you're blue in the face that they've been misled, but it won't make any difference.

This is similar to the point I was making about the word Germanic being too much like German for comfort.

Wulfram
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 12:15 PM
You won't persuade many Englishmen to your cause by quoting Goebbels and defending Hitler. You may argue till you're blue in the face that they've been misled, but it won't make any difference.

This is similar to the point I was making about the word Germanic being too much like German for comfort.

You didn't even bother to read the essay, did you?
Perhaps if I had not written that Goebbels wrote it would you have taken it more seriously?
I think that maybe you started out to read it, but saw the truth that it contained.
You are just close-minded and ignorant as those English plutocrats.

Wulfhere
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 12:19 PM
You didn't even bother to read the essay, did you?
Perhaps if I had not written that Goebbels wrote it would you have taken it more seriously?
I think that maybe you started out to read it, but saw the truth that it contained.
You are just close-minded and ignorant as those English plutocrats.

As it happens, I read it very carefully, and didn't disagree with all of it.

You don't seem to understand the point I'm making. Whatever you may think, the majority of Englishmen - and I suspect of many other Germanic nations too - will never become part of any sort of movement that defends Hitler and quotes Goebbels.

Wulfram
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 12:21 PM
As it happens, I read it very carefully, and didn't disagree with all of it.


Would you mind quoting those passages you did agree with, along with an explanation?

Wulfhere
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 12:27 PM
Would you mind quoting those passages you did agree with, along with an explanation?

Nah got better things to do than write a detailed critique of a piece of ancient Goebbels propaganda - and it has nothing to do with the point I'm making, which you haven't addressed in any way.

Huginn ok Muninn
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 12:37 PM
Nah got better things to do than write a detailed critique of a piece of ancient Goebbels propaganda - and it has nothing to do with the point I'm making, which you haven't addressed in any way.

I'll address it. People will believe what they are led to believe, and the propaganda against Germany began before WWI and continues to this day. It takes better minds to rise above this. Are you one of those?

Wulfhere
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 12:41 PM
I'll address it. People will believe what they are led to believe, and the propaganda against Germany began before WWI and continues to this day. It takes better minds to rise above this. Are you one of those?

You have missed it I'm afraid. It's not about me, or what I think, but about my fellow countrymen.

And in any case, having looked at all the evidence myself, I can safely say that the Nazis were bad. Their socialist policies were a step in the right direction, but their warmongering and attacks on civil liberties were evil.

Mouse Shadow
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 12:42 PM
Perhaps it's time to start thinking outside the box, how about we associate ourselves to 'descriptive' elements instead.

Perhaps it might be respectful, and a little bit devious if we start refering to our people, all of them as the Great Northern Tribe.

There could be other descriptors, but how else can we associate a bond with our kind?

I chose these terms for 3 reasons, 'Great' because we are the only race qualified to take that title.
'Northern', as it associates where all of us originally came from, but we can be as selective as we want. ;)
'Tribe', because I think in terms of Avatar (yes the movie), reinvigourating tribal ethic and empathic society. Maybe, folk, people, culture could potentially be used here too.

We of the Great Northern Tribe. :)

Huginn ok Muninn
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 12:50 PM
You have missed it I'm afraid. It's not about me, or what I think, but about my fellow countrymen.

I find it amusing that you think I don't get your profoundly simplistic assertion, and that I did not address it in my post.


And in any case, having looked at all the evidence myself, I can safely say that the Nazis were bad. Their socialist policies were a step in the right direction, but their warmongering and attacks on civil liberties were evil.

How old are you? Really, I get the impression you are about twelve.

Wulfhere
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 12:53 PM
I find it amusing that you think I don't get your profoundly simplistic assertion, and that I did not address it in my post.



How old are you? Really, I get the impression you are about twelve.

Just because I happen to disagree with you, and am not pro-Nazi?

Huginn ok Muninn
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 12:55 PM
Just because I happen to disagree with you, and am not pro-Nazi?

Not at all. It is your depth of reasoning that gives me this impression.

Sigurd
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 12:56 PM
Perhaps it might be respectful, and a little bit devious if we start refering to our people, all of them as the Great Northern Tribe.

Perhaps it might be respectful and a little bit devious if we started referring to our people, all of them as "our folk" or "our kin" or "our people". Between each other you don't need anything else. A label for the entirety of our folk is just needed when describing who and what we are to outsiders. ;)

I see where you're coming from, as a lack of humility is where the Slavs take their name from: Old Church Slavic словъ < I.E. *kleu- "to hear"; forenames on "-slav" = "-fame". It's where the Bashkir people take their name from (baş "head" + qort "wolf"), etc.

If we wished to be equally arrogant, then we might just as well pick the term Aryan. This would actually point at our origin, as it is likely composed from the IE root *ar- which is basically in everything to do with agriculture; dating back right at the point of even pre-Germanic IE ethnogenesis. :D

So far I don't like any term for its entirety, but TBH it doesn't matter what we call ourselves to outsiders. If we called ourselves "Germanics" and they understood that to be synonymous with "Germans" then that's to their detriment, because they'd underestimate us gravely. :P

For ourselves, "our folk" will do. That way we also don't have the problem of dealing with the issue as to who falls into a certain nomenclature and who doesn't; people will themselves decide who they consider as their folk and at some point a general maxim/span would settle.

This would likely resolve automatically around including most/all Germanics by design, I guess I've all told you the story before about the Italian boy and the Swedish girl at school, and who was taken as the foreigner despite being more geographically proximate. ;)

Wulfhere
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 12:56 PM
Not at all. It is your depth of reasoning that gives me this impression.

And yet you have shown none at all.

Mouse Shadow
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 01:07 PM
And in any case, having looked at all the evidence myself, I can safely say that the Nazis were bad. Their socialist policies were a step in the right direction, but their warmongering and attacks on civil liberties were evil.

Oh no you haven't!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nazi's were never bad. Jew's painted them as bad. Evidence PROVES that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh crap, I think I'm going to sneeze again! *Ah AH AHH CHOOO-TROLL-B*LLSHIT!*

*Sniffles*

*Wipes nose*

Oh that's a big piece of retard that fell out of my nose.

Mouse Shadow
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 01:15 PM
Perhaps it might be respectful and a little bit devious if we started referring to our people, all of them as "our folk" or "our kin" or "our people". Between each other you don't need anything else. A label for the entirety of our folk is just needed when describing who and what we are to outsiders. ;)

I see where you're coming from, as a lack of humility is where the Slavs take their name from: Old Church Slavic словъ < I.E. *kleu- "to hear"; forenames on "-slav" = "-fame". It's where the Bashkir people take their name from (baş "head" + qort "wolf"), etc.

If we wished to be equally arrogant, then we might just as well pick the term Aryan. This would actually point at our origin, as it is likely composed from the IE root *ar- which is basically in everything to do with agriculture; dating back right at the point of even pre-Germanic IE ethnogenesis. :D

So far I don't like any term for its entirety, but TBH it doesn't matter what we call ourselves to outsiders. If we called ourselves "Germanics" and they understood that to be synonymous with "Germans" then that's to their detriment, because they'd underestimate us gravely. :P

For ourselves, "our folk" will do. That way we also don't have the problem of dealing with the issue as to who falls into a certain nomenclature and who doesn't; people will themselves decide who they consider as their folk and at some point a general maxim/span would settle.

This would likely resolve automatically around including most/all Germanics by design, I guess I've all told you the story before about the Italian boy and the Swedish girl at school, and who was taken as the foreigner despite being more geographically proximate. ;)

But 'Our Folk' is sooooo uninspiring. Aryan has been slandered by the spew media/propaganda engine for decades. Well, to the average Aussie at least, Aryan means, elite, snobby, want's to kill inferior, etc, etc. Conotative elements to the general public are pretty negative sorry to say.

Even the German name is too, to a much lesser degree. So long as the word holocaust keeps appearing 'anywhere', Germany, Germanic, etc will still be negatively associated by the spew hate machine.

Come on, what else can we add then? What are we really famous for? Apart from Isaac Newton (my hero!)

Sigurd
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 01:24 PM
But 'Our Folk' is sooooo uninspiring.

I don't know - I find it very inspiring every time a speaker talks of "our folk". It reinforces me with the two important points: That there is a common bond - our FOLK, and that it is not any folk but - OUR folk. This is inspiring enough for me. :)


Come on, what else can we add then? What are we really famous for? Apart from Isaac Newton (my hero!)

Giving the world fear, culture and superiority since 9CE. :P

Mouse Shadow
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 01:34 PM
I don't know - I find it very inspiring every time a speaker talks of "our folk". It reinforces me with the two important points: That there is a common bond - our FOLK, and that it is not any folk but - OUR folk. This is inspiring enough for me. :)
For some reason, I've just pictured you as a doting old grandma. But still, 'our folk' could reference a small township and potentially no other. It's not generally used in a global context. For instance, someone over in Germany could be saying, 'our folk', but no one in Australia would be remotely interested. If something like Great Northern Tribe was used, it makes you wonder, eh,. Northern? Tribe? I'm (probably English etc) Does that mean, (to the observer), me? Simply because it's using a universal term.

Agriculture, yeah, to a point. But not anymore.


Giving the world fear, culture and superiority since 9CE. :PGer-maniac then. :D

Sigurd
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 01:43 PM
For some reason, I've just pictured you as a doting old grandma. But still, 'our folk' could reference a small township and potentially no other. It's not generally used in a global context.

Well, that's what I like about the concept of "our folk" --- it can be seen both on a local level, but also on a regional, national and global level. It can be seen as applying at every level, because those around you who're from the same background - whether referring to the village, the tribe, the nation or the whole meta-ethnicity can be "your folk" at the same time, they are just different instances of the same thing. :)



Ger-maniac then. :D

Well, our ancestors were fond of using spears (or: gars), so well... :D

Thyriusz
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 02:01 PM
Well, that's what I like about the concept of "our folk" --- it can be seen both on a local level, but also on a regional, national and global level. It can be seen as applying at every level, because those around you who're from the same background - whether referring to the village, the tribe, the nation or the whole meta-ethnicity can be "your folk" at the same time, they are just different instances of the same thing. :)


I do not see other nations of our meta-ethnicity as 'my folk'.
I also do not see a reason to do so, Nation/Volk is allready the widest concept of our folk, isn't it?

velvet
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 03:07 PM
Germany attacked our allies, those whom we had agreed to protect. It would have been dishonourable to stand by and do nothing. It would also have been dishonourable to lie, as Hitler did many times. Why on earth should we have trusted him?

Let's put some things straight here. Britain was one of the main originators of the Versaille Treaty, that deprived Germany of much its fringe areas (Prussia, Schlesien, etc) for the sole reason that "Germany becomes too powerful" for the taste of Britain, who itself wanted to take that role (Britain's empire was the one where the sun never goes down, just to point out the megalomania of Britain). "Evil" Germany had no big ambitions to form a global reich, but it simply became most powerful on the European mainland and therefore was an obstacle for Britain's own ambitions there.

So, after WWI Britain and its envy allies set up the Versaille treaty, to make Germany small and redistribute her areas to other people. Britain swore alliance to "Poland" (a not yet existing country, just wishful thinking at this time) and promised the (btw largely Jewish) people there all the fine German cities (Danzig etc) including access to the sea (originally all German areas, ie East Prussia). And Britain promised the Jews Palastine as well. Britain tricked Germany into "attacking" Poland (not that it werent Polish and British soldiers who attacked first), and that was the excuse to bomb Germany into the ground. (And a Mr Thatcher keeps saying: Cant believe it, we bombed them twice to pieces, and now they're back).

So Britain acted on grounds of a treaty, that stamped over the Völkerrecht on various, if not all levels, built up alliances from this illegal, criminal and despiseable treaty to break German (and Austrian K&K) power and steal her areas, and swore loyalty to foreign folks (Jews, Poles/Slavs, French) against their kinfolk.

Sounds not very honorable, really. Actually, its first class treason. Also, and this is really what you should understand, that all this was not in the interest of English / British people. The British people are just as much deceived as German people. Look around you, Germany has never been a threat to England, it were and are the peoples Britain swore loyalty to that are.

Honorable would be to admit it and change attitude. And you really arent honorable with executing treaties that are made to steal and gain something that you neither deserve nor have a right to, because you did not make it, you didnt even earn it in honorable war. Remember that it took the entire military power of the world to crush Germany. Despite it being almost halfed by treaty, despite it being forced to obey to criminal treaties, despite that the imposed Communist Weimar Republic almost managed to drive Germany into the ground.
And look what became of the areas that were stolen from Germany. The now French areas, far from their old glory, Danzig, a city of ruins when it was one of the greatest cultural centers, all the smaller cities that are now Polish, decayed.

Maybe you should rethink your understanding of "honor". Because what you said would be dishonorable actually would have been the only honorable thing Britain could have done.

Svartljos
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 03:45 PM
Do you feel more connected with the Celtic or Germanic culturally?

The Normans were speaking French to some extent, but culturally were Germanic people. They were desended from the Norse (vikings). The point being they added much to English culture making it a Germanic culture.

I really don't think changing the name will help anything, we will still be loved by ourselves and hated by others.:shrug

On a second thought why should we even worry about what other races feel about us? Should we really even care.;)

I feel more Germanic than Celtic, but thanks to the Normans I think we've all become to feel a bit more Romantic :S. The Normans were partially the decendants of Norse people who settled in France, but they spoke French and attacked and raped the British Isles.

Before their influence England was a lot more Germanic, in fact it was a lot more like a Germanic/Scandinavian country than it is now, the Norman conquest brought it more inline with the continental countries, not to mention the fact destroyed our language.

Also @wwii people: if the regular British people were as deceived during the second world war, why bomb more than 40.000 civilians? Anyway, I don't really hold any animosity over WWII, as I've seen how subjegated Germans are now and I find it sad/unfair. But what should the British have done? Taken up arms agaisnt themselves while they were being bombed to bits by Germany to show loyalty to people across the Sea whom they've never met nor would understand even if they did? You can't blame any regular British person for fighting Germany, you can only blame some aristocrats and political leaders.

Wulfhere
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 04:10 PM
Let's put some things straight here. Britain was one of the main originators of the Versaille Treaty, that deprived Germany of much its fringe areas (Prussia, Schlesien, etc) for the sole reason that "Germany becomes too powerful" for the taste of Britain, who itself wanted to take that role (Britain's empire was the one where the sun never goes down, just to point out the megalomania of Britain). "Evil" Germany had no big ambitions to form a global reich, but it simply became most powerful on the European mainland and therefore was an obstacle for Britain's own ambitions there.

So, after WWI Britain and its envy allies set up the Versaille treaty, to make Germany small and redistribute her areas to other people. Britain swore alliance to "Poland" (a not yet existing country, just wishful thinking at this time) and promised the (btw largely Jewish) people there all the fine German cities (Danzig etc) including access to the sea (originally all German areas, ie East Prussia). And Britain promised the Jews Palastine as well. Britain tricked Germany into "attacking" Poland (not that it werent Polish and British soldiers who attacked first), and that was the excuse to bomb Germany into the ground. (And a Mr Thatcher keeps saying: Cant believe it, we bombed them twice to pieces, and now they're back).

So Britain acted on grounds of a treaty, that stamped over the Völkerrecht on various, if not all levels, built up alliances from this illegal, criminal and despiseable treaty to break German (and Austrian K&K) power and steal her areas, and swore loyalty to foreign folks (Jews, Poles/Slavs, French) against their kinfolk.

Sounds not very honorable, really. Actually, its first class treason. Also, and this is really what you should understand, that all this was not in the interest of English / British people. The British people are just as much deceived as German people. Look around you, Germany has never been a threat to England, it were and are the peoples Britain swore loyalty to that are.

Honorable would be to admit it and change attitude. And you really arent honorable with executing treaties that are made to steal and gain something that you neither deserve nor have a right to, because you did not make it, you didnt even earn it in honorable war. Remember that it took the entire military power of the world to crush Germany. Despite it being almost halfed by treaty, despite it being forced to obey to criminal treaties, despite that the imposed Communist Weimar Republic almost managed to drive Germany into the ground.
And look what became of the areas that were stolen from Germany. The now French areas, far from their old glory, Danzig, a city of ruins when it was one of the greatest cultural centers, all the smaller cities that are now Polish, decayed.

Maybe you should rethink your understanding of "honor". Because what you said would be dishonorable actually would have been the only honorable thing Britain could have done.

Germany started WW1 and lost, and the Versailles Treaty was a fair punishment. British actions were completely honourable at all times, and cannot have been treasonous since we owed Germany no fealty whatsoever.

The actions of Hitler and the Germans have set back the Germanic cause centuries. So if you're looking for a regime controlled by those secret Jewish masters you're apparently so fond of blaming, look no further than the Nazis.

velvet
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 04:36 PM
Germany started WW1 and lost, and the Versailles Treaty was a fair punishment. British actions were completely honourable at all times, and cannot have been treasonous since we owed Germany no fealty whatsoever.

Where do you take your "facts" from, school history books? :wsg
Ever thought about that most of it is lies (including the forged incident that is said to have caused WWI)? History is written by the victors, to make them look more glorious and to wipe some facts under the carpet, and someone else once said "what is history other than a story commonly agreed upon".

Anyway, when you owed Germany no fealty (not that this term in this context isnt appropiate anyway), why do you think you owed the Poles fealty (think about that almost 50 percent of nowadays Poland once were German)?
Or why do think you owed the Jews Palastine (back then partly occupied by Britain)? Ever thought about to stay neutral in a conflict that were none of your business?

And why do you think Germany deserved a punishment? For being productive and strong? And why do you think Britain was entitled to carry out this punishment? Britain is not the European mainland, Britain has no business whatsoever here. And still, in its arrogance and blindness, it thinks it could freely redistribute areas that arent Britain's in the first place. Please explain what is "honorable" about that.

And maybe you should also think about that the British Empire is the same empire that subjugates its own ethnicities, the Irish, the English, the Welsh, the Mercians, the Scots and what there is. The British Empire is as much your enemy as it is anyone else's.

Wulfhere
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 04:41 PM
Where do you take your "facts" from, school history books? :wsg
Ever thought about that most of it is lies (including the forged incident that is said to have caused WWI)? History is written by the victors, to make them look more glorious and to wipe some facts under the carpet, and someone else once said "what is history other than a story commonly agreed upon".

Anyway, when you owed Germany no fealty (not that this term in this context isnt appropiate anyway), why do you think you owed the Poles fealty (think about that almost 50 percent of nowadays Poland once were German)?
Or why do think you owed the Jews Palastine (back then partly occupied by Britain)? Ever thought about to stay neutral in a conflict that were none of your business?

And why do you think Germany deserved a punishment? For being productive and strong? And why do you think Britain was entitled to carry out this punishment? Britain is not the European mainland, Britain has no business whatsoever here. And still, in its arrogance and blindness, it thinks it could freely redistribute areas that arent Britain's in the first place. Please explain what is "honorable" about that.

And maybe you should also think about that the British Empire is the same empire that subjugates its own ethnicities, the Irish, the English, the Welsh, the Mercians, the Scots and what there is. The British Empire is as much your enemy as it is anyone else's.

What you're really complaining about is the fact that Britain was more powerful than Germany and able to put its policies into practice. Funny that, because that's exactly why people didn't like the Germans.

velvet
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 05:10 PM
What you're really complaining about is the fact that Britain was more powerful than Germany and able to put its policies into practice. Funny that, because that's exactly why people didn't like the Germans.

Cheap polemic. And now answer the questions.

Britain needed the help of the entire world to "put its policies (of criminal conduct) into place". I dont think this arrogance is appropiate.

Wulfhere
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 05:26 PM
Cheap polemic. And now answer the questions.

Britain needed the help of the entire world to "put its policies (of criminal conduct) into place". I dont think this arrogance is appropiate.

I've already answered the questions. Germany started an aggressive war and lost, and then did so again, and lost a second time. The Germans obviously believed in the principle of "might is right" so they can hardly complain when others turned out to be mightier than they were. It's just sour grapes I'm afraid. Germany, since its bigger, has had a bigger economy than Britain ever since it was unified in the 19th century - but Britain has always had superior armed forces, which was proved in war. And whilst almost any nation on earth may well have the right to call the British arrogant, the Germans aren't one of them.

velvet
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 05:36 PM
You didnt answer anything. You just repeated school-book "history" and media lies.


But, do we actually expect anything else from someone who builds his "religion" on the Ora Lind book, a well known forgery? :wsg

EQ Fighter
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 05:48 PM
Just because I happen to disagree with you, and am not pro-Nazi?

I think I would be more worried about being associated with Communist and Marxist, than I would be with Nazis, at this point in history.

Wulfhere
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 05:52 PM
I think I would be more worried about being associated with Communist and Marxist, than I would be with Nazis, at this point in history.

Or how about, not being associated with any of them?

EQ Fighter
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 06:04 PM
What you're really complaining about is the fact that Britain was more powerful than Germany and able to put its policies into practice. Funny that, because that's exactly why people didn't like the Germans.

I Beg to differ on that one.

Germany was fighting a two front war in WW2, and It was the USA that gave Britain the materials, and weapons to survive. They were barely able to hold off the German Air Power in the Battle of Britain. Had we not conceded to the Lend Lease Act, Britain and Russia would have both been creamed.

My personal regrets though is that we did not let them finish off the USSR once and for all this would have of course have ended in a Cold War with Germany such as we had with Russia. Still, this might have been better than the current multicultural and socialist world takeover situation.

One thing the Germans were never really very good at though it seems is lying, which the western and eastern grease ball communist were always very good at.

Wulfhere
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 06:08 PM
I Beg to differ on that one.

Germany was fighting a two front war in WW2, and It was the USA that gave Britain the materials, and weapons to survive. They were barely able to hold off the German Air Power in the Battle of Britain. Had we not conceded to the Lend Lease Act, Britain and Russia would have both been creamed.

My personal regrets though is that we did not let them finish off the USSR once and for all this would have of course have ended in a Cold War with Germany such as we had with Russia. Still, this might have been better than the current multicultural and socialist world takeover situation.

One thing the Germans were never really very good at though it seems is lying, which the western and eastern grease ball communist were always very good at.

Another thing that Britain has always been good at is cultivating allies.

As for lying Germans, Hitler made a career out of it. And he was quite successful too, which means that he clearly managed to dupe the Germans themselves, if not the rest of the world.

Svartljos
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 06:12 PM
One thing the Germans were never really very good at though it seems is lying, which the western and eastern grease ball communist were always very good at.

Well there was the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact...

Drottin
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 06:18 PM
The past is the past...

If one where to find a name for us all we will have to find a new name, its pretty clear isnt it?

Wulfhere
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 06:19 PM
The past is the past...

If one where to find a name for us all we will have to find a new name, its pretty clear isnt it?

Yes, I think so.

SaxonPagan
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 06:28 PM
Wulfhere, I'm beginning to wonder what your motives are on here. If you aren't a troll then you certainly don't seem to be getting on with any other Germanic groups, which in practice amounts to the same thing!

You've been winding up the Americans on another thread. Now you have a major issue with Germans, probably based on some war comics you've been reading, and I'm afraid all this tripe about "Mercia independence" is just an embarrassment to other Brits (none of whom, I note, have shown any support for you!)

I can only assume you found that damn silly cartoon logo - that gives me the impression you're about 14 years old - in the same book you learnt about European history because I've never read such utter cr*p in all my life :oanieyes All I will say is that if Germany had won WW2 then your beloved Mercia would still be full of Anglo-Saxons instead of 3rd-World riff-raff that has now infested the whole region.

Enjoy your gloating ... ;)

Wulfhere
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 06:35 PM
Wulfhere, I'm beginning to wonder what your motives are on here. If you aren't a troll then you certainly don't seem to be getting on with any other Germanic groups, which in practice amounts to the same thing!

You've been winding up the Americans on another thread. Now you have a major issue with Germans, probably based on some war comics you've been reading, and I'm afraid all this tripe about "Mercia independence" is just an embarrassment to other Brits (none of whom, I note, have shown any support for you!)

I can only assume you found that damn silly cartoon logo - that gives me the impression you're about 14 years old - in the same book you learnt about European history because I've never read such utter cr*p in all my life :oanieyes All I will say is that if Germany had won WW2 then your beloved Mercia would still be full of Anglo-Saxons instead of 3rd-World riff-raff that has now infested the whole region.

Enjoy your gloating ... ;)

I have been merely expressing my opinions, not winding anyone up. If Germany had won WW2 then all our ancient Germanic freedoms would have been lost. I can't understand why people don't understand this - the Nazis caused more damage to the Germanic cause than anyone else in history. And they were in league with the Muslims too, be it noted.

EQ Fighter
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 06:38 PM
Another thing that Britain has always been good at is cultivating allies.

As for lying Germans, Hitler made a career out of it. And he was quite successful too, which means that he clearly managed to dupe the Germans themselves, if not the rest of the world.

So did Stalin, Trotsky, Lenin, Mao Zedong, and the rest of the Left wing socialist garbage.

I would say that Hitler was no worse than any modern politician, and no where near as bad as our current "So Called" president Barack Hussein Obama.

As far as duping the People, that is pretty much a fundamental aspect of "Leadership".

Also Britain did not cultivate the Americans as allies, Americans are primarily of English decent and speak the same Language. More or less.

So it was logical who the US would side with in that aspect.

EQ Fighter
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 07:07 PM
I have been merely expressing my opinions, not winding anyone up. If Germany had won WW2 then all our ancient Germanic freedoms would have been lost. I can't understand why people don't understand this - the Nazis caused more damage to the Germanic cause than anyone else in history. And they were in league with the Muslims too, be it noted.

They were arming the Muslims as a guerrilla force against the ailed forces, just as the US used them to defeat the USSR. Muslims have only become a problem because "Liberals" have allowed them to take over other nations as opposed to killing or deporting them.

That depends on what you call "WIN". It seems to me that the Germans once they had received control of Russia, they would have been forced to conduct a mop up operation. That would have ended WW2.


In any case does anyone believe we would be in the situation we are currently in without the envy based politics propagated by Marxist Leftist? Does anyone think that there would have been the massive influx of aliens into every Germanic, country to prop up these leftist in the voting process.

Mouse Shadow
Saturday, July 17th, 2010, 11:34 PM
W****** (you know who I mean), GermanicWarrior, Bradford, all pumping the same hatred and lies. Oh wasn't the f***ed up retard -> Germanic Warrior <- a *laugh* historian. More like a useless -> liar <-.

Looks to me the pathetic, spew hate-machine can't leave us alone.

So I was wondering, why do trolls 'have' to unsettle people, driving that chaos stick in and making disharmony. They must be soooooo majestically retarded that they must instigate -> hate <- , their brains are so deformed that they cannot fathom -> love <-.

I couldn't think of any better dipsh*ts to exterminate.

*Makes Darlek noise* 'Exterminate! Exterminate! Exterminate!

Funny how one appears immediately after the 'other' gets banned....

(By the way, the angelfire domain is an age old spam-terd-faker holding site) [For anyone that doesn't know] :)

Wulfhere
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 12:00 AM
W****** (you know who I mean), GermanicWarrior, Bradford, all pumping the same hatred and lies. Oh wasn't the f***ed up retard -> Germanic Warrior <- a *laugh* historian. More like a useless -> liar <-.

Looks to me the pathetic, spew hate-machine can't leave us alone.

So I was wondering, why do trolls 'have' to unsettle people, driving that chaos stick in and making disharmony. They must be soooooo majestically retarded that they must instigate -> hate <- , their brains are so deformed that they cannot fathom -> love <-.

I couldn't think of any better dipsh*ts to exterminate.

*Makes Darlek noise* 'Exterminate! Exterminate! Exterminate!

Funny how one appears immediately after the 'other' gets banned....

(By the way, the angelfire domain is an age old spam-terd-faker holding site) [For anyone that doesn't know] :)

You've spelt dalek wrong. As for the rest, I was under the impression that a great Germanic tradition was speaking one's mind, so as to come to a consensus.

Huginn ok Muninn
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 12:10 AM
I have been merely expressing my opinions.

Children should shut up and listen before they go spewing opinions formed by playing Battlefield Heroes with their equally ignorant friends.

If you are a genuine GERMANIC, you would benefit from listening at least as much as opining here (and no, we don't need a new name, we just need to get rid of the propaganda that creates ignorant, manure-spewing anuses like yourself.)

Wulfhere
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 12:14 AM
Children should shut up and listen before they go spewing opinions formed by playing Battlefield Heroes with their equally ignorant friends.

If you are a genuine GERMANIC, you would benefit from listening at least as much as opining here (and no, we don't need a new name, we just need to get rid of the propaganda that creates ignorant, manure-spewing anuses like yourself.)

"Children should shut up and listen"

I agree. How old are you? And what are Battlefield Heroes, by the way?

Huginn ok Muninn
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 12:18 AM
As for the rest, I was under the impression that a great Germanic tradition was speaking one's mind, so as to come to a consensus.

Yep, a complete troll.

Wulfhere
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 12:21 AM
Yep, a complete troll.

Just because I disagree with you?

Roemertreu
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 12:26 AM
I think Troth makes the most sense to me. The word troth simply means tribe, so any geman tribe is a troth. It avoids the problems of being confused as German only (as could happen with Teutonic or Germanic), while still being specific enough to say "German Tribes"

So Trothen, Guten Teg!

Drottin
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 12:28 AM
One must be able to ask questions in this forum? Germanic or Teutonic fits both equally bad for me... But I do not care that Germanic is used, I have more important things to think about:) It never happened that someone has collected all the "people" in the "barbarian" Europe, and given them the common name that has been accepted by all:)

The question is if it's worthwhile to find a common name?

Bty the way, the question was good!

Wulfhere
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 12:35 AM
One must be able to ask questions in this forum? Germanic or Teutonic fits both equally bad for me... But I do not care that Germanic is used, I have more important things to think about:) It never happened that someone has collected all the "people" in the "barbarian" Europe, and given them the common name that has been accepted by all:)

The question is if it's worthwhile to find a common name?

Bty the way, the question was good!

I prefer Teuton because although it was simply the name of a tribe, that tribe no longer exists (same with Celt, apparently). And to use Celt again as an analogy, we can say "Celt" and "Celtic" but we can't say "German" and "Germanic" - and have to resort to turning an adjective into a noun.

Angus
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 02:18 AM
Yep, a complete troll.

He reminds me of german islander, except for not typing "RESPECT!!" at the bottom of every post.

SpearBrave
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 02:54 AM
I like Sigurd's view on this, we should refer to ourselves as " our folk " when we converse amongst ourselves.

Otherwise we should refer to ourselves as Germanic people to outsiders.

I still don't like the term white.;)

Svartljos
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 03:45 AM
The only problem with saying "our folk" is that an italian/irishman/french/japanese could be talking about his folk and use the same term (in English, German, whatever), unless we changed the usage of the term in all English/German/whatever languages to mean specifically Germanic, which I think would be hard.

I think it would also be hard to get people to associate folk with a group of people outside their own ethnicity as someone said earlier, and also you'd have to get rid of the negative connotations of the word Volk in Germany. I don't know if it's that bad anymore, but it does have a third reichisch ring to me.

Of course, we could just not have a word for ourselves and call everyone else Welsh :p

Thorolf
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 06:18 AM
The only problem with saying "our folk" is that an italian/irishman/french/japanese could be talking about his folk and use the same term (in English, German, whatever), unless we changed the usage of the term in all English/German/whatever languages to mean specifically Germanic, which I think would be hard.

I think it would also be hard to get people to associate folk with a group of people outside their own ethnicity as someone said earlier, and also you'd have to get rid of the negative connotations of the word Volk in Germany. I don't know if it's that bad anymore, but it does have a third reichisch ring to me.

Of course, we could just not have a word for ourselves and call everyone else Welsh :p

First, didnt mean to thank the post. I accidently clicked that since im really tired and kinda failing right now.

Anyways,I was thinking bout what you said. If a japanese/italian etc said our folk, would you think he means you? i mean if a japanese guy starts talking bout his folk i dont think there should be any confusion. Im not japanese, so im not his folk.

GroeneWolf
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 07:51 AM
Germany started WW1 and lost, and the Versailles Treaty was a fair punishment. British actions were completely honourable at all times, and cannot have been treasonous since we owed Germany no fealty whatsoever.

Actually the treaty of Versailles was not fair punishment and Germany was not allowed to negotiate with the Allies about the peace terms, but they where dictated to them. And they where blackmailed into accepting them under treat of continuing economic blockade.

Second it is pure propaganda to state that they started WOI. WOI was started because the Habsburgs Empire used military force against Serbia in retaliation for the assassination of heir to throne Frans Ferdinand by Serbian terrorists. The mistake made kaiser Wilhelm II was to give Austria unconditional support in what ever measures they might choose in retaliation for this murder.

Also he tried to keep this war as limited as possible. And also tried to forge closer ties with the UK. However he did not have the talent of Bismarck, nor did he had some under his command with the talent, to successfully play the diplomatic game that Bismarck had played under the reign of his father and grandfather.

Also the German defense plan could be summed as the following : Strike first in case of mobilization, because they could not afford to sit back and wait since they where surrounded by the Allies.

I can recommend that you read this book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Churchill-Hitler-Unnecessary-War-Britain/dp/030740515X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279435735&sr=1-3) about the subject, you might learn something from it.


Well there was the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact...

Which most likely should be viewed as an attempt to prevent a two-front war.


The only problem with saying "our folk" is that an italian/irishman/french/japanese could be talking about his folk and use the same term (in English, German, whatever), unless we changed the usage of the term in all English/German/whatever languages to mean specifically Germanic, which I think would be hard.

Like zacht had pointed out there is really no confusion possible. If some talk about our family, that does not also causes confusion. Same thing for saying our folk. People will know what you mean with it. Even if it is not in complete detail.

Svartljos
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 07:57 AM
First, didnt mean to thank the post. I accidently clicked that since im really tired and kinda failing right now.

Anyways,I was thinking bout what you said. If a japanese/italian etc said our folk, would you think he means you? i mean if a japanese guy starts talking bout his folk i dont think there should be any confusion. Im not japanese, so im not his folk.

Well, in the sense that Lewis Hamilton might think he is English, I think one might. But I was really more relating this to non-germanic whites. Not every white is Germanic, even ones that really really look like it. And not everyone who fluently speaks a language has to be from an ethnic group that is associated with it, aka, French/Italian/Irish/whatever Americans mostly speak English, just as many people of Polish or Sorbian ancestry might speak German. It might get confusing if they didn't specify.

But what I was really getting at is that it's ambiguous. Saying our folk is okay for us, but then what if an Irishman wants to write an article about Germanic people? What would he write? "The meta-ethnic folk group related to the English folk?"

But thanks for the thanks!

Svartljos
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 08:01 AM
Which most likely should be viewed as an attempt to prevent a two-front war.

I was kind of referring to the fact that they signed a non-agression pact with the USSR then attacked them was kind of sneaky :S But I don't care about wwii anyway, I am not dwelling in the past over something that I can't do anything about :p.

Mouse Shadow
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 12:26 PM
Well, that's what I like about the concept of "our folk" --- it can be seen both on a local level, but also on a regional, national and global level. It can be seen as applying at every level, because those around you who're from the same background - whether referring to the village, the tribe, the nation or the whole meta-ethnicity can be "your folk" at the same time, they are just different instances of the same thing. :)

Well, our ancestors were fond of using spears (or: gars), so well... :D
Ok Gran-Gran, :D

I'm trying to think of a sexy name people would want to be associated with. Because the jew hate machine wants to 'divide and conquer' us, so we primarily need something to bind each other as one big clongomerate. Emotionally speaking it would go a long way for unity and inspiration.

White doesn't work anymore, it's another hate term activated by the jews, and everyone else now, including our own kind.

I suppose one could say, 'my genetic identity' when refering to race, but it's so sterile.

*Sigh* What's a fantastic name that we'd all want to gravitate toward..?.? *thinking, thinking....*

Hmmmm, tough one..........

velvet
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 12:56 PM
I prefer Teuton because although it was simply the name of a tribe, that tribe no longer exists (same with Celt, apparently). And to use Celt again as an analogy, we can say "Celt" and "Celtic" but we can't say "German" and "Germanic" - and have to resort to turning an adjective into a noun.

Okay, you hate Germans and do not want to associate with us. In that case the question must be allowed what you are doing on this board, because it is a "Germanic Online Community", for all people of Germanic (that is North West European) descend and includes from Germans/Austrians/Swiss over Scandinavians to Netherlands/Belgium to American, New Zealand and Australia and English people all Germanic ethnicities (with some of the British subethnicities not included, so maybe it would be wiser to shut a little bit up your nonsense, because chances are good that you are one of those who are indeed not Germanic).

You can't kick out one ethnicity for that media-lie rubbish you spouse here and your personal taste and instilled hate that you reproduce without even wanting to rethink it.

And btw, the two terms German and Germanic dont have much to do with each other. It is a shortcoming of the English language and the inability of some of its users to make the proper distinction. In German this confusion does not exist, we refer to the meta-ethnicity as "Germanen" and to ourselves as "Deutsch". It's really not our problem when English people call us a wrong term :shrug

Wulfhere
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 01:02 PM
Okay, you hate Germans and do not want to associate with us. In that case the question must be allowed what you are doing on this board, because it is a "Germanic Online Community", for all people of Germanic (that is North West European) descend and includes from Germans/Austrians/Swiss over Scandinavians to Netherlands/Belgium to American, New Zealand and Australia and English people all Germanic ethnicities (with some of the British subethnicities not included, so maybe it would be wiser to shut a little bit up your nonsense, because chances are good that you are one of those who are indeed not Germanic).

You can't kick out one ethnicity for that media-lie rubbish you spouse here and your personal taste and instilled hate that you reproduce without even wanting to rethink it.

And btw, the two terms German and Germanic dont have much to do with each other. It is a shortcoming of the English language and the inability of some of its users to make the proper distinction. In German this confusion does not exist, we refer to the meta-ethnicity as "Germanen" and to ourselves as "Deutsch". It's really not our problem when English people call us a wrong term :shrug

I don't hate Germans at all, but many of my fellow countrymen do - which, once again, is the point I was trying to make.

velvet
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 01:44 PM
I don't hate Germans at all, but many of my fellow countrymen do - which, once again, is the point I was trying to make.

You reproduced media-lies, hate and despise for Germans, and you pointed out more than once that you "just state your opinion", not that of your fellow countrymen, who now have to serve as a strawmen for you.

And you have never ever answered any question directed at you, you just countered with the next hate tirade. Many people asked you to elaborate (f.e. why YOU think that the Versaille Treaty was a deserved punishment, or why you defend the British Empire so much, the empire that will not allow you to form your independent Mercian state btw) and many other questions many people asked.

You dont discuss, you troll. And that really is the only point that you made more than clear.

Thorolf
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 02:25 PM
Well, in the sense that Lewis Hamilton might think he is English, I think one might. But I was really more relating this to non-germanic whites. Not every white is Germanic, even ones that really really look like it. And not everyone who fluently speaks a language has to be from an ethnic group that is associated with it, aka, French/Italian/Irish/whatever Americans mostly speak English, just as many people of Polish or Sorbian ancestry might speak German. It might get confusing if they didn't specify.

But what I was really getting at is that it's ambiguous. Saying our folk is okay for us, but then what if an Irishman wants to write an article about Germanic people? What would he write? "The meta-ethnic folk group related to the English folk?"

But thanks for the thanks!


I see your point here. I imagine if i went and said our folk than every white would think hes a part of it. Though that could happen with germanic somewhat too. For the people in germany, there are plenty of non whites who think they are germans. I think for those who want to say our folk, it works as long as they explain it to the other whites who may be around at the time.

Wulfhere
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 03:56 PM
You reproduced media-lies, hate and despise for Germans, and you pointed out more than once that you "just state your opinion", not that of your fellow countrymen, who now have to serve as a strawmen for you.

And you have never ever answered any question directed at you, you just countered with the next hate tirade. Many people asked you to elaborate (f.e. why YOU think that the Versaille Treaty was a deserved punishment, or why you defend the British Empire so much, the empire that will not allow you to form your independent Mercian state btw) and many other questions many people asked.

You dont discuss, you troll. And that really is the only point that you made more than clear.

What you really hate is the fact that most English people don't like the Germans, and certainly don't look up to them. And this is my whole point. Most English people would never identify themselves as Germanic, so we need another word for it.

velvet
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 04:11 PM
blah

Okay, you proved that you are unable to take part in a discussion or contribute anything useful.

It makes no sense to quote a post and then not with one word refering to what was said, and this is what you did in each and every thread that you trolled so far. Usually this sort of conduct is just shown by gov-paid agent provocateurs.



I suggest to have a look into the Misdemeanors 14 and 15 (trolling and retardism respectively) :wsg

Wulfhere
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 04:16 PM
Okay, you proved that you are unable to take part in a discussion or contribute anything useful.

It makes no sense to quote a post and then not with one word refering to what was said, and this is what you did in each and every thread that you trolled so far. Usually this sort of conduct is just shown by gov-paid agent provocateurs.



I suggest to have a look into the Misdemeanors 14 and 15 (trolling and retardism respectively) :wsg

But it's you who keep shouting foul - almost as if the accusation of being anti-German has the same effect as the accusation of racism, and is enough to end debate. I've answered all your points, but you appear completely unable to grasp what any of mine are.

velvet
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 04:32 PM
blubb

Okay, one more try.

You state your opinion. That is fine, everyone can have his opinion.

Now, the problem is, that your opinion often bases in wrong information, which many people here tried to point out to you. And you ignored each and every single one of these tries.

You see, opinions aren't "facts", and when the information, in which your opinion bases, is shown to be wrong, then you should rethink your opinion. If you consider your opinion the highest point in the hierarchy and reject every information that does not fit in, then this is everything between retardism and ignorance, or even intended trolling and extends probably to (religious) fanatism. But either way, you make a fool of yourself when you are unable to question, in the light of new / other informations, your opinion.

Wulfhere
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 04:35 PM
Okay, one more try.

You state your opinion. That is fine, everyone can have his opinion.

Now, the problem is, that your opinion often bases in wrong information, which many people here tried to point out to you. And you ignored each and every single one of these tries.

You see, opinions aren't "facts", and when the information, in which your opinion bases, is shown to be wrong, then you should rethink your opinion. If you consider your opinion the highest point in the hierarchy and reject every information that does not fit in, then this is everything between retardism and ignorance, or even intended trolling and extends probably to (religious) fanatism. But either way, you make a fool of yourself when you are unable to question, in the light of new / other informations, your opinion.

The opinion I have stated, based on intimate knowledge of my countrymen, is that most English people dislike the Germans. Do you think this is incorrect?

velvet
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 04:56 PM
The opinion I have stated, based on intimate knowledge of my countrymen, is that most English people dislike the Germans. Do you think this is incorrect?

I think the real problem is, that you abuse your countrymen, who dislike Germans for the same wrong informations and media bs lies, as a strawman to spouse your own anti-German hate and then hide behind that strawman.

And btw, that this is allegedly your countrymen's opinion is just one page of this thread old. Before that you insisted that you want to state your opinion and not be critisized for it (dont know how often I've read from you something like "just because I dont agree with you?" as defense against critique of your opinion, where the circle closes as this opinion obviously bases in wrong information).

Huginn ok Muninn
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 04:59 PM
I am ashamed of those of you who want to abandon terms that have been demonized by the jews. We are WHITE, we are GERMANIC, and NO APOLOGIES NECESSARY!

That's what they love, you know... to see people cower in fear because of words. You know who's my hero? Horst Mahler. He stood up and spoke fearlessly, knowing he would face prison for it. We all need to learn a lesson from this... if we all stood in defiance of this crap it would melt away and we would be free of it. The jew has no power that is not ceded to him.

And if some Englishmen have a problem with being Germanic, the problem is not with the word, but with them. I have no respect for those who hate their kindred at the behest of the jew.

Wulfhere
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 05:00 PM
I think the real problem is, that you abuse your countrymen, who dislike Germans for the same wrong informations and media bs lies, as a strawman to spouse your own anti-German hate and then hide behind that strawman.

And btw, that this is allegedly your countrymen's opinion is just one page of this thread old. Before that you insisted that you want to state your opinion and not be critisized for it (dont know how often I've read from you something like "just because I dont agree with you?" as defense against critique of your opinion, where the circle closes as this opinion obviously bases in wrong information).

Whatever their reasons, the fact is that most English people dislike Germans. You won't change that by insulting their intelligence.

Huginn ok Muninn
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 05:03 PM
Those English who dislike Germans and blame them for the wars HAVE no intelligence.

Wulfhere
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 05:11 PM
Those English who dislike Germans and blame them for the wars HAVE no intelligence.

So what? The fact remains that they do, and if no accord can be reached between the Germans and the Anglo-Saxons, the two most influential cultural groups of the Germanic peoples, then we're all doomed.

Huginn ok Muninn
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 05:12 PM
So what? The fact remains that they do, and if no accord can be reached between the Germans and the Anglo-Saxons, the two most influential cultural groups of the Germanic peoples, then we're all doomed.

Well, since you have come here and learned better, perhaps you should make it your mission to educate them.

Wulfhere
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 05:14 PM
Well, since you have come here and learned better, perhaps you should make it your mission to educate them.

And maybe the Germans too? The way some of them tell it, they were wholly innocent of WW2, which is clearly rot that won't fly with the English.

Huginn ok Muninn
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 05:29 PM
At least the Germans did not seek to make their kinsmen their enemies, which is the true problem I see here with the British actions in both wars. I also have a problem with anyone saying the Versailles treaty was just and the Germans were solely to blame for WW1. If the Brits had stayed out of it, WW1 would have been over with in a few weeks in the West, but the Rothschild masters of your "leaders" would not have that. They wanted the fittest young Germanic men on both sides DEAD, so they had to achieve a "balance of power" which would ensure years of pointless bloodshed while they raked in the cash loaning money for armaments.

How many fewer bullets it would have taken simply to shoot all the Rothschilds instead of the innocent youth of both nations...

velvet
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 05:31 PM
And maybe the Germans too? The way some of them tell it, they were wholly innocent of WW2, which is clearly rot that won't fly with the English.

Maybe it is more understanding that we were all betrayed in that war, from one single common enemy?

And after all, we Germans can say that we tried to get rid of them, and that the solving of this common problem, maybe even a problem of the entire world, was hindered by that betrayal?

But anyway. You know that both the Angeln and Saxons are GERMAN tribes, yes? Its a little paradox to hate your own people, as you seem wholeheartly to do :shrug

Wulfhere
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 05:36 PM
At least the Germans did not seek to make their kinsmen their enemies, which is the true problem I see here with the British actions in both wars. I also have a problem with anyone saying the Versailles treaty was just and the Germans were solely to blame for WW1. If the Brits had stayed out of it, WW1 would have been over with in a few weeks in the West, but the Rothschild masters of your "leaders" would not have that. They wanted the fittest young Germanic men on both sides DEAD, so they had to achieve a "balance of power" which would ensure years of pointless bloodshed while they raked in the cash loaning money for armaments.

How many fewer bullets it would have taken simply to shoot all the Rothschilds instead of the innocent youth of both nations...

The British were dragged into WW1 by the French, not anyone else. I agree we should have stayed out of it, and maybe then Hitler would never have been anything more than a penniless, second-rate postcard painter.

Wulfhere
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 05:39 PM
Maybe it is more understanding that we were all betrayed in that war, from one single common enemy?

And after all, we Germans can say that we tried to get rid of them, and that the solving of this common problem, maybe even a problem of the entire world, was hindered by that betrayal?

But anyway. You know that both the Angeln and Saxons are GERMAN tribes, yes? Its a little paradox to hate your own people, as you seem wholeheartly to do :shrug

They were Germanic, but not German - and you've just highlighted precisely why the term "Germanic" is misleading. In fact, the Anglo-Saxons were speakers of North Sea Germanic, whereas modern German is descended from High German, a different branch entirely. North Sea Germanic - as one would expect, given its location - had elements in common with Scandinavian.

Bittereinder
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 05:39 PM
So what? The fact remains that they do, and if no accord can be reached between the Germans and the Anglo-Saxons, the two most influential cultural groups of the Germanic peoples, then we're all doomed.

And why should the Germans seek an accord with people who wrongfully blame them for wars that they profited from? It was the British and the Americans who doomed Germany in the first place... Now the Germans must accept it and strike an accord, or at least as I understand what you are saying... Look if they have anything against Germans they are part of the problem and can never be part of the solution.

Wulfhere
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 05:46 PM
And why should the Germans seek an accord with people who wrongfully blame them for wars that they profited from? It was the British and the Americans who doomed Germany in the first place... Now the Germans must accept it and strike an accord, or at least as I understand what you are saying... Look if they have anything against Germans they are part of the problem and can never be part of the solution.

You are proving my point. The Anglo-Saxons are the most successful branch of the Germanic people, so they cannot simply be ignored, much as many Germans may like to.

Svartljos
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 05:49 PM
I am ashamed of those of you who want to abandon terms that have been demonized by the jews. We are WHITE, we are GERMANIC, and NO APOLOGIES NECESSARY!

That's what they love, you know... to see people cower in fear because of words. You know who's my hero? Horst Mahler. He stood up and spoke fearlessly, knowing he would face prison for it. We all need to learn a lesson from this... if we all stood in defiance of this crap it would melt away and we would be free of it. The jew has no power that is not ceded to him.

And if some Englishmen have a problem with being Germanic, the problem is not with the word, but with them. I have no respect for those who hate their kindred at the behest of the jew.

I think this is oversimplifying things, and I don't know why "the jew" needs to get involved here (it's a little ubiquitous if you ask me), as it's not the source of my opinion. I think the first term, white, just needs to be clarified. All Germanics are white, but not all whites are Germanic. It's like all Africans are humans, but not all humans are Africans. I don't think anyone is ashamed to call him or herself white, that's certainly not a problem with anyone Ive ever met.

I don't have any problem with the term Germanic either other than the fact that it's a foreign word and not a concept from our own languages. Whether or not it sounds like Germans is inconsequential, the fact is we shouldn't be calling Germans "German" at all anyway. But I think the fact that a lot of people who speak English don't call themselves Germanic is that they just haven't learnt a whole lot about it, and the fact that it is a really loose idea (a collection of peoples whose allegiances lie to their own countries, and the collection of peoples is not a political group but rather a hypothetical ethno-linguistic grouping with little relevance today, especially linguistically for the English).

I think a bigger problem is people in Austria and Germany refusing to believe that Austrians are Deutsch. That is a lot more mind boggling than an average English person having anything against Germans (though I don't particularly think many younger people care that much anymore :S besides making stereotypical jokes).

That said, I'd rather use the term Germanic, as Teutonic is the name of a particular tribe and it's also sometime synonymous with just "German".

Bittereinder
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 05:52 PM
You are proving my point. The Anglo-Saxons are the most successful branch of the Germanic people, so they cannot simply be ignored, much as many Germans may like to.

Be that as it may, if they are hell bent to run after their jewish finance masters every command and the utter destruction of the Germanic races how does it benefit Germanics? Their perceptions would be the place to start working on a solution.

Wulfhere
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 05:56 PM
Be that as it may, if they are hell bent to run after their jewish finance masters every command and the utter destruction of the Germanic races how does it benefit Germanics? Their perceptions would be the place to start working on a solution.

For a start off, Anglo-Saxons are far less likely to believe in far-fetched conspiracy theories than Germans, it seems. We take a far more practical approach.

velvet
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 06:08 PM
They were Germanic, but not German - and you've just highlighted precisely why the term "Germanic" is misleading. In fact, the Anglo-Saxons were speakers of North Sea Germanic, whereas modern German is descended from High German, a different branch entirely. North Sea Germanic - as one would expect, given its location - had elements in common with Scandinavian.

LOL, holy crap. We have "high German" since the 17th/18th century here, but this of course did not replace the Frisian, Angel and Saxon people, only changed their language. A very slow process on top btw.

Just like English overwrote Anglo-Saxon. The Angeln came from the area that is today the border between Germany and Denmark and the Saxons held more or less entire North Germany. And they were indeed German tribes (what nowadays make up the racial spectrum of north Germany (in contrast to south Germany, where it is a little different spectrum), not just "Germanic" ones.

Bittereinder
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 06:09 PM
For a start off, Anglo-Saxons are far less likely to believe in far-fetched conspiracy theories than Germans, it seems. We take a far more practical approach.

The ranting of the I'll informed masked by a shady insult, I see that often enough on Skadi. Good luck mate.

Wulfhere
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 06:11 PM
LOL, holy crap. We have "high German" since the 17th/18th century here, but this of course did not replace the Frisian, Angel and Saxon people, only changed their language. A very slow process on top btw.

Just like English overwrote Anglo-Saxon. The Angeln came from the area that is today the border between Germany and Denmark and the Saxons held more or less entire North Germany. And they were indeed German tribes (what nowadays make up the racial spectrum of north Germany (in contrast to south Germany, where it is a little different spectrum), not just "Germanic" ones.

What do you mean by English overwrote Anglo-Saxon? One evolved into the other. And yes, north Germany was indeed once inhabited by North Sea Germanic speakers, but apart from a few pockets of Frisian they've largely been assimilated.

Svartljos
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 06:18 PM
LOL, holy crap. We have "high German" since the 17th/18th century here, but this of course did not replace the Frisian, Angel and Saxon people, only changed their language. A very slow process on top btw.

Just like English overwrote Anglo-Saxon. The Angeln came from the area that is today the border between Germany and Denmark and the Saxons held more or less entire North Germany. And they were indeed German tribes (what nowadays make up the racial spectrum of north Germany (in contrast to south Germany, where it is a little different spectrum), not just "Germanic" ones.

The High German dialects underwent the Zweite Lautverschiebung (High German Consonant Shift) between the 3rd and 5th centuries AD, which English and other West Germanic languages didn't (English and Frisian were pretty much the same language at this point). High German as it means now is different, but there is something called Althochdeutsch which is a lot older than the 17th century :p.

Besides, there wasn't really a Germany around 450AD so none of those tribes were "German" so to speak anyway.

Huginn ok Muninn
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 06:40 PM
You are proving my point. The Anglo-Saxons are the most successful branch of the Germanic people, so they cannot simply be ignored, much as many Germans may like to.

Because they are lucky enough to live on an island instead of on a flat plain between France and Russia.

velvet
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 06:47 PM
What do you mean by English overwrote Anglo-Saxon? One evolved into the other. And yes, north Germany was indeed once inhabited by North Sea Germanic speakers, but apart from a few pockets of Frisian they've largely been assimilated.

Anglo-Saxon:

Gewat ða neosian, syþðan niht becom,
hean huses, hu hit Hringdene
æfter beorþege gebun hæfdon.
Fand þa ðær inne æþelinga gedriht
swefan æfter symble; sorge ne cuðon,

wonsceaft wera. Wiht unhælo,
grim ond grædig, gearo sona wæs,
reoc ond reþe, ond on ræste genam
þritig þegna, þanon eft gewat
huðe hremig to ham faran,

mid þære wælfylle wica neosan.
ða wæs on uhtan mid ærdæge
Grendles guðcræft gumum undyrne;
þa wæs æfter wiste wop up ahafen,
micel morgensweg. Mære þeoden,

(from Beowulf)

This is more old (northern) German and Scandinavian than English. :shrug



Besides, there wasn't really a Germany around 450AD so none of those tribes were "German" so to speak anyway.

As well as there wasnt an "England" (nor an English language) between the 3d and 5th century CE ;)

I agree, the German language is way more complex than just that. Doesnt change anything on that Angeln and Saxons were both German tribes, who spoke a German tongue and had German customs (not surprising as they were closely related to Frisians... unless you want to say Frisians arent German either).

Bittereinder
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 06:55 PM
And maybe the Germans too? The way some of them tell it, they were wholly innocent of WW2, which is clearly rot that won't fly with the English.

I would love to see what Godwinson, Florian Geyer, Reinwen etc. may have to say about this presumptuous claim...;)

Bernhard
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 07:12 PM
Doesnt change anything on that Angeln and Saxons were both German tribes, who spoke a German tongue and had German customs (not surprising as they were closely related to Frisians... unless you want to say Frisians arent German either).

Modern-day Frisians are German because they are part of the German ethnicity, an ethnicity which has come to existence mainly by the unifying politics of the Frankish empire, which unified distinct Germanic tribes. Before this the German ethnicity did not exist. There were only Germanic tribes, which could be subdivided in Northsea germanic, North germanic, Rhein-Weser germanic etc. The Northsea germanics lay at the origin of multiple Germanic ethnicities: Danish, English and German-Dutch. So the Angles and the Saxons who lived in what is now northern Germany before the migration towards the British island were Germanics and, more specifically, Northsea Germanics; the ones who didn't leave, became part of the German ethnicity later on.

Svartljos
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 07:18 PM
Anglo-Saxon:

Gewat ða neosian, syþðan niht becom,
hean huses, hu hit Hringdene
æfter beorþege gebun hæfdon.
Fand þa ðær inne æþelinga gedriht
swefan æfter symble; sorge ne cuðon,

wonsceaft wera. Wiht unhælo,
grim ond grædig, gearo sona wæs,
reoc ond reþe, ond on ræste genam
þritig þegna, þanon eft gewat
huðe hremig to ham faran,

mid þære wælfylle wica neosan.
ða wæs on uhtan mid ærdæge
Grendles guðcræft gumum undyrne;
þa wæs æfter wiste wop up ahafen,
micel morgensweg. Mære þeoden,

(from Beowulf)

This is more old (northern) German and Scandinavian than English. :shrug




As well as there wasnt an "England" (nor an English language) between the 3d and 5th century CE ;)

I agree, the German language is way more complex than just that. Doesnt change anything on that Angeln and Saxons were both German tribes, who spoke a German tongue and had German customs (not surprising as they were closely related to Frisians... unless you want to say Frisians arent German either).

Actually, most common words in English derive from old English words. In fact, one of the main reasons that seems unintelligible is due to our change in orthography and the great vowel shift and our change in pronunciation, as well as a loss of inflection thanks to the Scandinavians who strongly influenced our language.

The name England is first attested at the end of the 9th century, but I'm sure it probably occured earlier than that in unwritten sources. Also, the name of the language was Englisc in Old English (pronounced Eng-Lisch) not Deutsch ;).

I don't really know what you are trying to prove that I've already said though. There was no England between the 3rd and 5th centuries because it hadn't been settled by various Germanic tribes (not Germans, as Germany didn't exist) such as the Jutes, Angles, Saxons, and Frisians from Jutland and the Frisian parts of modern day Germany and the Netherlands yet. The ones who went to England wouldn't have been "Deutsch" because they hadn't undergone the second vowel shift, but rather they would be þéodisc.

Suffice to say, 1500 years of separation and influence by French and Scandinavians as well as a language which is 90% unintelligible (and compared to old High German, most likely always was rather different) probably is enough to count as a separate ethnic group (if you still did consider them to be Deutsch :D). If not then all Germans must be Danes/Swedes and all Danes/Swedes would be Indo-Europeans who originate in the Ukraine.

Edit: Some other Examples

Old English circa 1020:

Cnut cyning gret his arcebiscopas and his leod-biscopas and Þurcyl eorl and ealle his eorlas and ealne his þeodscype, twelfhynde and twyhynde, gehadode and læwede, on Englalande freondlice.

Old High German in Bavaria circa 9th Century:

Fater unser, du pist in himilum.
Kauuihit si namo din.
Piqhueme rihhi din,
Uuesa din uuillo,
sama so in himile est, sama in erdu.
Pilipi unsraz emizzigaz kip uns eogauuanna.
Enti flaz uns unsro sculdi,
sama so uuir flazzames unsrem scolom.
Enti ni princ unsih in chorunka.
Uzzan kaneri unsih fona allem sunton.

Wulfhere
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 08:08 PM
Because they are lucky enough to live on an island instead of on a flat plain between France and Russia.

Yes, correct. But we weren't here simply by accident. We took it for ourselves.

Wulfhere
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 08:12 PM
Anglo-Saxon:

Gewat ða neosian, syþðan niht becom,
hean huses, hu hit Hringdene
æfter beorþege gebun hæfdon.
Fand þa ðær inne æþelinga gedriht
swefan æfter symble; sorge ne cuðon,

wonsceaft wera. Wiht unhælo,
grim ond grædig, gearo sona wæs,
reoc ond reþe, ond on ræste genam
þritig þegna, þanon eft gewat
huðe hremig to ham faran,

mid þære wælfylle wica neosan.
ða wæs on uhtan mid ærdæge
Grendles guðcræft gumum undyrne;
þa wæs æfter wiste wop up ahafen,
micel morgensweg. Mære þeoden,

(from Beowulf)

This is more old (northern) German and Scandinavian than English. :shrug




As well as there wasnt an "England" (nor an English language) between the 3d and 5th century CE ;)

I agree, the German language is way more complex than just that. Doesnt change anything on that Angeln and Saxons were both German tribes, who spoke a German tongue and had German customs (not surprising as they were closely related to Frisians... unless you want to say Frisians arent German either).

Old English evolved into modern English.

Anglo-Saxons and Frisians were only German in the sense that "German", when used historically for this period, is equivalent to "Germanic". Another very good reason for using a different term. English is descended from Ingaevone, or North Sea Germanic. Modern German is descended from something else. So to answer your question, of course the Frisians aren't German. They're an ethnic minority in Germany and the Netherlands.

velvet
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 08:21 PM
Bavarian in that sense is just as "ungerman" as Anglo-Saxon from that point.

What about the Hildebrandslied?

her furlaet in lante luttila sitten
prut in bure, barn unwahsan,
arbeo laosa: her raet ostar hina.
des sid Detrihhe darba gistuontun
fateres mines: dat uuas so friuntlaos man.

25 her was Otachre ummet tirri,
degano dechisto miti Deotrichhe.
her was eo folches at ente: imo was eo fehta ti leop:
chud was her..... chonnem mannum.
ni waniu ih iu lib habbe".....

30 "wettu irmingot obana ab hevane,
dat du neo dana halt mit sus sippan man
dinc ni gileitos".....
want her do ar arme wuntane bauga,
cheisuringu gitan, so imo se der chuning gap,

35 Huneo truhtin: "dat ih dir it nu bi huldi gibu".
Hadubrant gimahalta, Hiltibrantes sunu:
"mit geru scal man geba infahan,
ort widar orte. ...............
du bist dir alter Hun, ummet spaher



or the Merseburger spells:

I
Eiris sazun idisi
Sazun hera duoder
Suma hapt heptidun
Suma heri lezidun
Suma clubodun
Umbi cuoniouuidi:
Insprinc haptbandun
Invar vigandun

II
Phol ende Uuodan uuoron zi holza.
du uuart demo Balderes uolon sin uuoz birenkit.
thu biguol en Sinthgunt, Sunna era suister;
thu biguol en Friia, Uolla era suister;
thu biguol en Uuodan, so he uuola conda:
sose benrenki, sose bluotrenki,
sose lidirenki:
ben zi bena, bluot zi bluoda,
lid zi geliden, sose gilimida sin.



What today speaks German did not always, and the point I was trying to make is anyway that all Germanics are one people and that this stupid hate on Germans helps noone except our well known enemies.

Svartljos
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 09:49 PM
Bavarian in that sense is just as "ungerman" as Anglo-Saxon from that point.

What about the Hildebrandslied?

her furlaet in lante luttila sitten
prut in bure, barn unwahsan,
arbeo laosa: her raet ostar hina.
des sid Detrihhe darba gistuontun
fateres mines: dat uuas so friuntlaos man.

25 her was Otachre ummet tirri,
degano dechisto miti Deotrichhe.
her was eo folches at ente: imo was eo fehta ti leop:
chud was her..... chonnem mannum.
ni waniu ih iu lib habbe".....

30 "wettu irmingot obana ab hevane,
dat du neo dana halt mit sus sippan man
dinc ni gileitos".....
want her do ar arme wuntane bauga,
cheisuringu gitan, so imo se der chuning gap,

35 Huneo truhtin: "dat ih dir it nu bi huldi gibu".
Hadubrant gimahalta, Hiltibrantes sunu:
"mit geru scal man geba infahan,
ort widar orte. ...............
du bist dir alter Hun, ummet spaher



or the Merseburger spells:

I
Eiris sazun idisi
Sazun hera duoder
Suma hapt heptidun
Suma heri lezidun
Suma clubodun
Umbi cuoniouuidi:
Insprinc haptbandun
Invar vigandun

II
Phol ende Uuodan uuoron zi holza.
du uuart demo Balderes uolon sin uuoz birenkit.
thu biguol en Sinthgunt, Sunna era suister;
thu biguol en Friia, Uolla era suister;
thu biguol en Uuodan, so he uuola conda:
sose benrenki, sose bluotrenki,
sose lidirenki:
ben zi bena, bluot zi bluoda,
lid zi geliden, sose gilimida sin.



What today speaks German did not always, and the point I was trying to make is anyway that all Germanics are one people and that this stupid hate on Germans helps noone except our well known enemies.

I'm not anti-German. I like Germans (and speak German (to an extent) and have lived in Germany). I just don't consider the Anglo-Saxons who went to England as German in the sense of Deutsch, and they wouldn't have considered themselves that either, even if their decendents eventually began to speak High German in more recent centuries and to identify as Deutsch.

Also, there were various High German dialects in that period. The High German that Luther and the Kanzleien used was an amalgamation of several dialects which were standardised. It doesn't prove that English was the same as the dialects of High German in southern Germany though. English was never a dialect of Hoch Deutsch. The Merseburger spells look perfectly Old High German to me, and they look nothing like Englisc. Your examples look to be the same language or dialects of the same language though. I should add that Old English and Old High German dialects didn't even have some of the same sounds after the 2. Lautverschiebung :S

A further fact to consider: The only groups who wrote with Futhorc were the English and the Frisians. I don't really get what we are arguing about here though: are you saying the English are Germans for reals? Or are you saying the English are no longer Germanic because their language is so messed up? I don't really get it here :S. I think we can agree on facts, though, can't we?

Edit: oh yeah, I forgot. Don't forget that the Englisc word for the equivealent of Deutsch is þéodisc, not Deutsch or German. I guess that although they referred to Germany eventually as Þēodscland and themselves not as þéodiscland is good enough for me.

Edit again: I actually just found out that Þēodscland would be a modern calque, not an original term, but matches with every other Germanic language. Hmm I wonder what it was called back then (or if they had a concept for it at all?) Does anyone know here?

Wulfhere
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 10:11 PM
I'm not anti-German. I like Germans (and speak German (to an extent) and have lived in Germany). I just don't consider the Anglo-Saxons who went to England as German in the sense of Deutsch, and they wouldn't have considered themselves that either, even if their decendents eventually began to speak High German in more recent centuries and to identify as Deutsch.

Also, there were various High German dialects in that period. The High German that Luther and the Kanzleien used was an amalgamation of several dialects which were standardised. It doesn't prove that English was the same as the dialects of High German in southern Germany though. English was never a dialect of Hoch Deutsch. The Merseburger spells look perfectly Old High German to me, and they look nothing like Englisc. Your examples look to be the same language or dialects of the same language though. I should add that Old English and Old High German dialects didn't even have some of the same sounds after the 2. Lautverschiebung :S

A further fact to consider: The only groups who wrote with Futhorc were the English and the Frisians. I don't really get what we are arguing about here though: are you saying the English are Germans for reals? Or are you saying the English are no longer Germanic because their language is so messed up? I don't really get it here :S. I think we can agree on facts, though, can't we?

Edit: oh yeah, I forgot. Don't forget that the Englisc word for the equivealent of Deutsch is þéodisc, not Deutsch or German. I guess that although they referred to Germany eventually as Þēodscland and themselves not as þéodiscland is good enough for me.

Edit again: I actually just found out that Þēodscland would be a modern calque, not an original term, but matches with every other Germanic language. Hmm I wonder what it was called back then (or if they had a concept for it at all?) Does anyone know here?

The English called their language English (Englisc) from the earliest known records, and it seems likely that the stem is the same as that found in the word Ingaevone.

Svartljos
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 10:44 PM
I think we have strayed a lot off topic here and I'm not going to discuss the Germanness of the English anymore :p. But yeah anyway as I've said Germanic is an okay word :).

Ullrson
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 11:20 PM
I don't mind Germanic but Teutonic has a more archaic, cool sound to it.

Mouse Shadow
Monday, July 19th, 2010, 03:45 AM
Perhaps, when I refer to Germanics, English, Swedes, Nordics etc, I will call them my 'Great Northern Family' from now on. :)

I can appreciate the 'ballsy' attitude of some to retain 'White' and that, but what happens if I wanted to start an enterprise or something which catered specifically for White People, Nazis and Nazi supporters. Everybody would be attacking you left right and centre, no matter how much you try to defend yourself. Defensive is wrong! Television sheeple will turn against you in a big way.

In today’s' spew run governments, the thieves want to make sure you have no unity. Which is why I believe it is so important to forge power and cohesiveness with the right buzz-word. The spews protect themselves by making a false religion around their 'name'. Soooo un PC to offend a religion now. Jew = Religious faction = Subhuman = Hate machine.

As far as I want to say, we require an amorphous term to instill a collective 'emotional' representation of our people, with the distinct and express notion to exclude non-Germanics. So no one can squeal 'racism' and bring you up on legal charges of discrimination. Without that, we have nothing! Bringing down the combined wrath of governments, courts, spews and tv-sheeple is a war that is already lost before being fought.

One does not walk into battle with your pants down around your ankles, your weapons left at home and a big bullseye sign on your butt sayng 'Kick My Ass! Please!!'.

Culture retainment is an absolutely necessity for separation, but 'White' isn't a specifically a cultural term anymore. Our culture has been rotted out by the spew interference, whilst others are polarized against it (namely us)

We need to think more viciously. Right now cunning is required where brute force is not.

Anyway.... … ….

Oh what, is that troll still here?

Here's a fundamental troll behavior. As they are so retarded, they won't supply any relevant data in conversation. They like nothing more to get people heated, argumentative and they only pip out a small nonsensical sentence to keep the angst flowing.

Ward
Tuesday, July 20th, 2010, 07:39 AM
I think I've commented on this before, but it bears repeating: "Teutonic" is not a term that can be applied willy-nilly to any of the designated Germanic peoples. It's a special term that has come to refer specifically to the German-speaking peoples of Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.

Furthermore, it has romantic connotations that invoke a sense of shared history and blood feeling: Visions of misty forests with proud warriors standing over legions of dead Romans; ancient Gods; Gothic cathedrals; tidy Alpine villages with smiling women and flower gardens; Wagner; blood and iron; the steady crack of jackboots goose-stepping through the Brandenburg Gate; soldiers in field-gray uniforms fanatically defending the bombed out ruins of their cities against all odds in defiance of internationalism; and so on.

It's those kinds of images that enter my mind when I think of "Teutonic," in any case. It's a powerful word that sums up the unique folkish qualities of the German people within the greater Germanic world that we in the Anglo-sphere destroyed. :|

Wulfhere
Tuesday, July 20th, 2010, 08:58 AM
I think I've commented on this before, but it bears repeating: "Teutonic" is not a term that can be applied willy-nilly to any of the designated Germanic peoples. It's a special term that has come to refer specifically to the German-speaking peoples of Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.

Furthermore, it has romantic connotations that invoke a sense of shared history and blood feeling: Visions of misty forests with proud warriors standing over legions of dead Romans; ancient Gods; Gothic cathedrals; tidy Alpine villages with smiling women and flower gardens; Wagner; blood and iron; the steady crack of jackboots goose-stepping through the Brandenburg Gate; soldiers in field-gray uniforms fanatically defending the bombed out ruins of their cities against all odds in defiance of internationalism; and so on.

It's those kinds of images that enter my mind when I think of "Teutonic," in any case. It's a powerful word that sums up the unique folkish qualities of the German people within the greater Germanic world that we in the Anglo-sphere destroyed. :|

Teutonic is a synonym of Germanic, and applies to all the Germanic peoples.

Florian Geyer
Tuesday, July 20th, 2010, 09:39 AM
If you ask me I´d say that "Teutonic" is too exclusive. "Germanic" is a more inclusive term and so I´m prefering "Germanic".

I'm with Thusnelda with this one. Germanic is the term that I personally use. No one has ever questioned my use of it in the UK so its meaning must be more understood and accepted than Wulfhere is making out.

As for the anti German feeling that Wulfhere says pervades the British Isles, all that I would say is that most of it stems from a fairly light hearted rivalry, after all no one that I am aware of, boycotts German products - which you would do if you were seriously anti German. In my experience, most British people see German products as highly desirable. Any real anti German thought - the kind stirred up in the British media, is born out of ignorance. If you challenge that opinion (I always do) you will find that those with the polarised views on the Germans haven't got a clue what they are talking about and are easily shot down.

Ward
Tuesday, July 20th, 2010, 09:40 AM
Teutonic is a synonym of Germanic, and applies to all the Germanic peoples.

Maybe amongst those with a substandard education.

Wulfhere
Tuesday, July 20th, 2010, 10:08 AM
Maybe amongst those with a substandard education.

It's your own education that appears to be substandard I'm afraid.

Teu·ton·ic
adj.
1. Of or relating to the ancient Teutons.
2. Of or relating to the Germanic languages or their speakers.
n.
Germanic.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Teutonic

Bittereinder
Tuesday, July 20th, 2010, 10:26 AM
It's your own education that appears to be substandard I'm afraid.

Teu·ton·ic
adj.
1. Of or relating to the ancient Teutons.
2. Of or relating to the Germanic languages or their speakers.
n.
Germanic.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Teutonic

Wikipedia:


The Teutons or Teutones (from Proto-Germanic *Þeudanōz) were mentioned as a Germanic tribe

...

The terms Teuton and Teutonic have sometimes been used in reference to all of the Germanic peoples.

...

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

Using Teutons when referring to Germanics was probably not their choice... Similarly if I refer to all the blacks in SA as Zulu's you will know what I am talking about, however that won't make all the Blacks in SA Zulu's...

Wulfhere
Tuesday, July 20th, 2010, 10:31 AM
Wikipedia:



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

Using Teutons when referring to Germanics was probably not their choice... Similarly if I refer to all the blacks in SA as Zulu's you will know what I am talking about, however that won't make all the Blacks in SA Zulu's...

Yep, I'm fully aware that the Teutons were once a single tribe, but that their name was later extended to all Germanic speakers. This has happened with many other language families too.

kaneslater
Tuesday, July 20th, 2010, 10:36 AM
I prefer Germanic as Teutonic seems to be much more limiting... and I would not be able to trace my ancestors back to Germany proper...

Bittereinder
Tuesday, July 20th, 2010, 10:39 AM
Yep, I'm fully aware that the Teutons were once a single tribe, but that their name was later extended to all Germanic speakers. This has happened with many other language families too.

That still doesn't mean it is a more applicable than the term Germanic, The English language is your limitation, in Afrikaans Germaan = Germanic and Duits = German, similarly in Dutch and German, While Dutch = Nederlander in Afrikaans, because the word Dutch (not the meaning we connect with it) would in actual fact be more applicable to Germans...

Wulfhere
Tuesday, July 20th, 2010, 10:50 AM
That still doesn't mean it is a more applicable than the term Germanic, The English language is your limitation, in Afrikaans Germaan = Germanic and Duits = German, similarly in Dutch and German, While Dutch = Nederlander in Afrikaans, because the word Dutch (not the meaning we connect with it) would in actual fact be more applicable to Germans...

Well, English isn't about to change its word for German.

Bittereinder
Tuesday, July 20th, 2010, 11:02 AM
Well, English isn't about to change its word for German.

Then why should we change what we call ourselves because of you, retard? ;)

Wulfhere
Tuesday, July 20th, 2010, 11:04 AM
Then why should we change what we call ourselves because of you, retard? ;)

I never asked you to, cretin.

Bittereinder
Tuesday, July 20th, 2010, 11:10 AM
They were Germanic, but not German - and you've just highlighted precisely why the term "Germanic" is misleading. In fact, the Anglo-Saxons were speakers of North Sea Germanic, whereas modern German is descended from High German.


I prefer Teuton because although it was simply the name of a tribe, that tribe no longer exists (same with Celt, apparently). And to use Celt again as an analogy, we can say "Celt" and "Celtic" but we can't say "German" and "Germanic" - and have to resort to turning an adjective into a noun.

The term is misleading in English only, not in any other Germanic language.

Why then are you debating this? to provoke?

Wulfhere
Tuesday, July 20th, 2010, 11:13 AM
The term is misleading in English only, not in any other Germanic language.

Why then are you debating this? to provoke?

I was referring to the English term, and its use in English.

Mouse Shadow
Tuesday, July 20th, 2010, 11:16 AM
Then why should we change what we call ourselves because of you, retard? ;)

Funniest thing I've read al day! That deserves some points.

SpearBrave
Tuesday, July 20th, 2010, 11:24 AM
Then why should we change what we call ourselves because of you, retard


Funniest thing I've read al day! That deserves some points.

Oh, but you did not know that the world revolves around Wulfhere and his future kingdom of Mercia.:D:D:D

Mouse Shadow
Tuesday, July 20th, 2010, 11:27 AM
Oh, but you did not know that the world revolves around Wulfhere and his future kingdom of Mercia.:D:D:D

What that tragic porno site he peddles as the saviour of mankind? I think that hippy should go back to his bong. "Stop the hatin mannnnnnnnnnn"

Sigurd
Tuesday, July 20th, 2010, 11:33 AM
Cut the insults, guys. You can say all that without ad-hominems. I'm not going to say it a second time, so don't say you haven't been warned. ;)

PS: Cretin is a dialectal French word for a Christian, probably dating back to the Old French period as well. The same actually goes for English silly, back in the Old English period seliȝ, cognate to the German word of the same word; also used by the folk to describe the Christians. :P

Ward
Wednesday, July 21st, 2010, 03:04 AM
It's your own education that appears to be substandard I'm afraid.

Teu·ton·ic
adj.
1. Of or relating to the ancient Teutons.
2. Of or relating to the Germanic languages or their speakers.
n.
Germanic.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Teutonic


It's all about being able to distinguish nuances between terms that might have similar generic meanings on the surface. If Teutonic and Germanic were indeed interchangeable terms in the past, such usage has become archaic. I suspect they started diverging with the rise of German nationalism in the beginning of the 19th century, and it probably had something to do with the Order of the Teutonic Knights (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=962325&highlight=fitzgerald#post962325) that formed in Germany in the Middle Ages, long after the English had broken away from their cousins on the continent.

Thus, by the early 20th century, we begin to see passages like this (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0403/is_1_43/ai_56750469/pg_4/) crop up in Anglophone literature, in which the author (in this case F. Scott Fitzgerald) is obviously using Teutons and Anglo-Saxons to refer to, and distinguish between, Germans and English, respectively:

"God damn the continent of Europe. It is of merely antiquarian interest. Rome is only a few years behind Tyre and Babylon. The negroid streak creeps northward to defile the Nordic race. Already the Italians have the souls of blackamoors. Raise the bars of immigration and permit only Scandinavians, Teutons, Anglo-Saxons and Celts to enter. France made me sick. Its silly pose as the thing the world has to save. I think it's a shame that England and America didn't let Germany conquer Europe. It's the only thing that would have saved the fleet of tottering old wrecks.... (Letters 326)."

Those English speakers who choose their words carefully should also note that Teutonic is generally restricted to occasions when a speaker/writer wants to emphasize a unique quality of the German people.

Take this headline in the U.K. Telegraph for example: Blake no match for teutonic efficiency (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/australianopen/2394738/Blake-no-match-for-teutonic-efficiency.html)

There you have it. I rest my case. :)

Wulfhere
Wednesday, July 21st, 2010, 10:05 AM
It's all about being able to distinguish nuances between terms that might have similar generic meanings on the surface. If Teutonic and Germanic were indeed interchangeable terms in the past, such usage has become archaic. I suspect they started diverging with the rise of German nationalism in the beginning of the 19th century, and it probably had something to do with the Order of the Teutonic Knights (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=962325&highlight=fitzgerald#post962325) that formed in Germany in the Middle Ages, long after the English had broken away from their cousins on the continent.

Thus, by the early 20th century, we begin to see passages like this (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0403/is_1_43/ai_56750469/pg_4/) crop up in Anglophone literature, in which the author (in this case F. Scott Fitzgerald) is obviously using Teutons and Anglo-Saxons to refer to, and distinguish between, Germans and English, respectively:

"God damn the continent of Europe. It is of merely antiquarian interest. Rome is only a few years behind Tyre and Babylon. The negroid streak creeps northward to defile the Nordic race. Already the Italians have the souls of blackamoors. Raise the bars of immigration and permit only Scandinavians, Teutons, Anglo-Saxons and Celts to enter. France made me sick. Its silly pose as the thing the world has to save. I think it's a shame that England and America didn't let Germany conquer Europe. It's the only thing that would have saved the fleet of tottering old wrecks.... (Letters 326)."

Those English speakers who choose their words carefully should also note that Teutonic is generally restricted to occasions when a speaker/writer wants to emphasize a unique quality of the German people.

Take this headline in the U.K. Telegraph for example: Blake no match for teutonic efficiency (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/australianopen/2394738/Blake-no-match-for-teutonic-efficiency.html)

There you have it. I rest my case. :)

I'm afraid your case is flawed, because I could find many, many more examples where "Germanic" is used to mean "German". I won't bother doing so because everyone knows it's true, which is the whole problem.

I also can't let this pass without comment: "long after the English had broken away from their cousins on the continent." The English never broke away from anyone, and remained part of the Ingaevone/North Sea Germanic world, connected, as the name implies, by the North Sea. Only later, when the Ingaevones on the Continent were conquered and absorbed by Herminones/High Germanic speakers did the English become more insular.

Bernhard
Wednesday, July 21st, 2010, 10:29 AM
I also can't let this pass without comment: "long after the English had broken away from their cousins on the continent." The English never broke away from anyone, and remained part of the Ingaevone/North Sea Germanic world, connected, as the name implies, by the North Sea. Only later, when the Ingaevones on the Continent were conquered and absorbed by Herminones/High Germanic speakers did the English become more insular.

What historical evidence proves this?
The equation of Herminones with High Germanic speakers (what is High Germanic?) doesn't make any sense by the way. Even if your using the name Herminones for people who lived in a time (after the consonant shift) in which this term probably wasn't of any significance anymore, there are also Low German descendants of the Herminones and some High German speaking parts descend from the Istaevones.

velvet
Wednesday, July 21st, 2010, 11:24 AM
I'm afraid your case is flawed, because I could find many, many more examples where "Germanic" is used to mean "German". I won't bother doing so because everyone knows it's true, which is the whole problem.

I would like to see some of these "many examples". Please quote the relevant passage and source-link the article. Thanks.

Wulfhere
Wednesday, July 21st, 2010, 12:07 PM
What historical evidence proves this?
The equation of Herminones with High Germanic speakers (what is High Germanic?) doesn't make any sense by the way. Even if your using the name Herminones for people who lived in a time (after the consonant shift) in which this term probably wasn't of any significance anymore, there are also Low German descendants of the Herminones and some High German speaking parts descend from the Istaevones.

The evidence is linguistic that the Ingaevone group was clustered around the shores of the North Sea - which united them, rather than divided them.

Istaevone became the ancestor of Frankish dialects such as Dutch, and Herminone of what became - later - High German. I agree there was more mixing between those two though than there was between them and the Ingaevones.

Wulfhere
Wednesday, July 21st, 2010, 12:13 PM
I would like to see some of these "many examples". Please quote the relevant passage and source-link the article. Thanks.

Here's one - I can't be bothered to find any more, because I think we all know there will be thousands. It's also no use arguing this is incorrect usage, because that's the whole point of my argument - incorrect or not, it's still widely used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99_Red_Balloons

"Having achieved widespread success in Germanic Europe and Japan, plans were made for the band to take "99 Luftballons" international with an English version."

Sigurd
Wednesday, July 21st, 2010, 12:27 PM
Istaevone became the ancestor of Frankish dialects such as Dutch, and Herminone of what became - later - High German. I agree there was more mixing between those two though than there was between them and the Ingaevones.

That may well be the case and still wouldn't be possible to be linked. You speak of Frankish dialects - but Frankish dialects exist in both Low German and High German (Middle German variety of High German). Does the term Rheinischer Fächer mean anything to you at all? ;)

velvet
Wednesday, July 21st, 2010, 12:32 PM
Here's one - I can't be bothered to find any more, because I think we all know there will be thousands. It's also no use arguing this is incorrect usage, because that's the whole point of my argument - incorrect or not, it's still widely used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99_Red_Balloons

"Having achieved widespread success in Germanic Europe and Japan, plans were made for the band to take "99 Luftballons" international with an English version."

You notice that it says "Germanic Europe" and not "German" or "Germany", yes? Indeed it refers to the Germanic speaking part of Europe, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Switzerland etc., the countries in which German is spoken or at least understood. It does not refer to Germans or Germany only and insofar is indeed a correct usage of the term.

I'm afraid, you will be bothered to look up more examples to support your claim.

SpearBrave
Wednesday, July 21st, 2010, 12:50 PM
Here's one - I can't be bothered to find any more, because I think we all know there will be thousands. It's also no use arguing this is incorrect usage, because that's the whole point of my argument - incorrect or not, it's still widely used.

Oh, but please be bothered to post these sources. Some of us would like to know how you come to these conclusions. Since there are " thousands " of these sources it should not be that much trouble.:|

Bernhard
Wednesday, July 21st, 2010, 01:53 PM
The evidence is linguistic that the Ingaevone group was clustered around the shores of the North Sea - which united them, rather than divided them.


This linguistic evidence only shows their shared origins. To back up your claims you need historical evidence.

Wulfhere
Wednesday, July 21st, 2010, 05:08 PM
That may well be the case and still wouldn't be possible to be linked. You speak of Frankish dialects - but Frankish dialects exist in both Low German and High German (Middle German variety of High German). Does the term Rheinischer Fächer mean anything to you at all? ;)

No, the term Rheinischer Facher means nothing to me. I don't speak German.


You notice that it says "Germanic Europe" and not "German" or "Germany", yes? Indeed it refers to the Germanic speaking part of Europe, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Switzerland etc., the countries in which German is spoken or at least understood. It does not refer to Germans or Germany only and insofar is indeed a correct usage of the term.

I'm afraid, you will be bothered to look up more examples to support your claim.

So the UK isn't part of Europe then? And no, I won't be bothered.

velvet
Wednesday, July 21st, 2010, 05:35 PM
So the UK isn't part of Europe then? And no, I won't be bothered.

In the frame of Nena's success with a German lyric song, England was indeed not part of Europe. Interesting is that the German lyric version had success despite that fact in NZ, Australia and even the US.

Seems the English are way more fascist in their music taste :P


Well, since this example did not serve your point, and you won't bring others (most likely because there are none and a wiki article anyway is no good proof, since articles are user edited and not every user is an expert, not even necessarily in his own language), you failed to prove your point. :shrug

Wulfhere
Wednesday, July 21st, 2010, 05:56 PM
In the frame of Nena's success with a German lyric song, England was indeed not part of Europe. Interesting is that the German lyric version had success despite that fact in NZ, Australia and even the US.

Seems the English are way more fascist in their music taste :P


Well, since this example did not serve your point, and you won't bring others (most likely because there are none and a wiki article anyway is no good proof, since articles are user edited and not every user is an expert, not even necessarily in his own language), you failed to prove your point. :shrug

The English will very rarely, if ever, buy records with foreign lyrics or watch foreign films. The only song I can think of off hand was that French one in the 60s.

As for Nena, she was mostly famous in the UK for not shaving her armpits - yuck.

Ward
Wednesday, July 21st, 2010, 09:50 PM
The English will very rarely, if ever, buy records with foreign lyrics or watch foreign films. The only song I can think of off hand was that French one in the 60s.

Well, if trying to learn a foreign language is beneath you, you should at least try to master your own. You'll be at least one step closer towards reaching this goal if you learn how to appropriately apply the term "Teutonic" in your discourse.

Wulfhere
Thursday, July 22nd, 2010, 12:10 AM
Well, if trying to learn a foreign language is beneath you, you should at least try to master your own. You'll be at least one step closer towards reaching this goal if you learn how to appropriately apply the term "Teutonic" in your discourse.

I do. And I wonder if you're aware that "discourse" is not a synonym for "discussion"?

Ward
Thursday, July 22nd, 2010, 03:16 AM
I do. And I wonder if you're aware that "discourse" is not a synonym for "discussion"?

:oanieyes


dis·course (dĭs'kôrs', -kōrs')
n. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discourse)

1.

Verbal expression in speech or writing.
2.

Verbal exchange; conversation.
3.

A formal, lengthy discussion of a subject, either written or spoken.
4.

Archaic The process or power of reasoning.

v. (dĭ-skôrs', -skōrs') dis·coursed , dis·cours·ing , dis·cours·es

v. intr.

1.

To speak or write formally and at length. See Synonyms at speak.
2.

To engage in conversation or discussion; converse.

Svartljos
Thursday, July 22nd, 2010, 03:47 AM
Why is discourse defined twice on that page? The first one fits Wulhere's definition (communication, but not A communication), but the second definition fits yours (a discussion) :S Is it a British/American thing?

At the Cambridge dictionary it is more clearcut:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/discourse

SubtleCalmingFlow
Thursday, July 22nd, 2010, 07:11 AM
Japhetic is far too Biblically orientated, and in any case means all Indo-Europeans.

I thought they were looking for a name that means all Indo-Europeans?