PDA

View Full Version : The New World Identity: White, Germanic or Anglo-Colonial?



Nachtengel
Wednesday, December 9th, 2009, 01:33 PM
I made a thread some time ago, called Who Can Become an American? (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=112292) and some people voted that only Germanics or even more strictly Anglo-Saxons can be true Americans. Some people are more inclusive and accept non-Germanic whites.

Many people from the New World seem to be keen on expressing a different ethnic identity, closer to the one of their ancestors in Europe than the one in the New World.

What identity would you prefer for the New World? The New World is predominantly English, or Anglo-Colonial, at least by language/culture. Do you prefer this identity and do you think other Germanics, like Germans, or other whites, like Italians, can fit in? If not, what should be done about them? Incorporate them in the wide Anglo-Colonial identity? Live segregated? Secede? Please discuss civilly and vote.

Ingwë
Wednesday, December 9th, 2009, 01:46 PM
Speaking for Australia I believe Australia would have prospered under its continual "White Australia Policy" and maintaining its close ties with Britain. I believe Australia could have been a hub for Germanic expression to world contribution in the name of conquest. Therefore it should have only accepted Anglo-Saxon and to a lesser extent other Northern European migration.

Resist
Wednesday, December 9th, 2009, 01:57 PM
I voted Anglo-Colonial, because this is what I prefer for Canada, as I said before. I would like it if the French-Canadians were independent from us, and we maintained a mono-cultural country.

However I don't think it's the case for every other New World nation. It probably is for Australia and New Zealand, maybe even for the USA with some effort, but not for South Africa.

Hauke Haien
Wednesday, December 9th, 2009, 02:00 PM
The facts on the ground point to an Anglo-colonial identity, which is often only implicit by considering all those who fail to conform to be "ethnics". All ethnic consciousness is derivative, retrofitted into a framework of individualism-statism with international racism added as an afterthought among white "nationalists". On top of that, Americanism serves as a global blanket.

How this can be changed advantageously depends on context. A Boer might want to emphasise his own Germanic identity as well as its Germanic character without accepting other Germanics incompatible with it or even hostile to it. An Australian might prefer an ethnogenesis that involves all Australians, while recognising the need to maintain a Germanic, preferably Anglo-Saxon, culture and to sort out unwanted racial types as a matter of national demographic policy, working continuously over time.

Old Winter
Wednesday, December 9th, 2009, 02:10 PM
As a ethnic Dutch i voted Germanic.

Ćmeric
Wednesday, December 9th, 2009, 02:50 PM
I voted for Anglo-Colonial. The English were the founders of the US, they created & shaped its institutions until the mid 20th century, they have been the largest contributor to the genetic stock of the Euro-American population. I also think this is best for Australia & New Zealand.

In Canada there is the Canadiens but they are concentrated in Quebec & part of neighboring New Brunswick. Outside of that area, Anglo-Colonial or Anglo-Celt Colonial would fit.

Sturmbaon
Wednesday, December 9th, 2009, 03:03 PM
I would prefer a pure(!) Germanic one, but I know, it is an impossible demand.

Méldmir
Wednesday, December 9th, 2009, 03:16 PM
If it was to be Anglo-Colonial, wouldn't 99,999% of the American population have to reorientate, and be replaced by Anglo-Saxons who were born in England in modern times? Maybe the English of today could create a new USA under British control, and make sure the culture and loyalty do not change or disappear. But America today and its culture is not Anglo-Saxon, so where would all of them go?

What America realistically could do would be to change the immigration laws, so that they in the future only accept English people, who could fill all the important roles in society, and pull America to English values and culture, and to assimilate all mixed-ancestry Americans toward that. Because it is true that almost all Americans are mixed-ancestry, and really have no other home nation than the New World colonies. To me, the New World is very little "Anglo", it's actually more just "White". But I do believe there could be an American ethnicity.

The question is what the American ethnicity should be, which is what this thread is about. Anglo, Germanic or White. Anglo is not possible without a major "extermination" of almost every single American. Germanic is more realistic. North-West European is even more realistic, it would include both Celts and Germanics. White is of course even more realistic, but is it wanted to include all southern Europeans as Americans?

baroqueorgan
Wednesday, December 9th, 2009, 05:47 PM
Honestly I think the US is kind of a lost cause in this regard - the cities are all extremely nonwhite, not to mention germanic, and frankly there is such a mixture of people that it's almost impossible to sort out without splitting up the country, which is what may up happening in the future.

Some areas of the country like New England (northeast) still have many very English towns, and a lot of places midwest have a lot of Germans still. But different parts of the country are now so different that it's really hard to sort out any sort of identity at all (especially since almost all of the cities are lost.)

rainman
Wednesday, December 9th, 2009, 06:49 PM
A country should have its own identity. The days of colonies are over.

I see Germanic more as a history- as roots. I want to forge a new people- new culture etc. that is better than the people around me and that lives up to higher standards and more evolved ethics and cultural practices.

Nations today are not racial nations. Other than maybe some parts of Europe it is useless to think otherwise at this point. To create a racial nation for Germanics in the New World one would have to start a whole new nation and secede from the union.

The U.S. and other nations are multicultural political governing bodies. I would rather form my own identity within those larger nations and seek to form some sort of small seperatist nation- like an Israel for modern whites or Germanics. Most Anglo-Saxons, whites etc. that I see are a disgrace. They shame their race and have no cultural/racial pride. I have don't feel a kinship with them nor a desire to preserve their flawed ways.

Méldmir
Wednesday, December 9th, 2009, 07:10 PM
Well all colonies are bound to create their own identities. It's rather impossible to have a strong conncetion with a region on the other side of the world. Remember that places like the USA and Australia have only been around some hundred years, and alreday we see separate identities like "Aussie". It is only natural that they create their own identities over time. Even if the US was fully Germanic, and after 1000 years they would still be a Germanic nation, but they would be a complete different Germanic group from those in Europe, they would be "American Germanics", just like there are "Scandinavian Germanics" or "British Germanics". To still be German or Anglo-Saxon after 1000s of years of isolation is impossible and even unnatural. People that live isolated will become different from others, even though they could stll be Germanic, just another unique sort. The Germanic German and Anglo-Saxon will disappear in the New World, I do not see how they could not to be honest.

Segestan
Wednesday, December 9th, 2009, 07:24 PM
Speaking for Australia I believe Australia would have prospered under its continual "White Australia Policy" and maintaining its close ties with Britain. I believe Australia could have been a hub for Germanic expression to world contribution in the name of conquest. Therefore it should have only accepted Anglo-Saxon and to a lesser extent other Northern European migration.
That's true... and throughout the Western World. But bankers and Church doctrine tells us it's wrong! I predict bankers will fail and churches too.

Bradford
Wednesday, December 9th, 2009, 08:12 PM
Well all colonies are bound to create their own identities. It's rather impossible to have a strong conncetion with a region on the other side of the world. Remember that places like the USA and Australia have only been around some hundred years, and alreday we see separate identities like "Aussie". It is only natural that they create their own identities over time. Even if the US was fully Germanic, and after 1000 years they would still be a Germanic nation, but they would be a complete different Germanic group from those in Europe, they would be "American Germanics", just like there are "Scandinavian Germanics" or "British Germanics". To still be German or Anglo-Saxon after 1000s of years of isolation is impossible and even unnatural. People that live isolated will become different from others, even though they could stll be Germanic, just another unique sort. The Germanic German and Anglo-Saxon will disappear in the New World, I do not see how they could not to be honest.

Well if that's how you see it, then the Germanic group itself is only an isolated group that broke off from another ultimately Indo-European group. Where does it end?

Méldmir
Wednesday, December 9th, 2009, 08:26 PM
Of course if they do not speak a Germanic language, they are not. It ends when they no longer speak a Germanic language, or are not descendants of these old Germanic tribes.

Bradford
Wednesday, December 9th, 2009, 08:32 PM
No, you miss my point. Those "Old Germanic tribes" as you put it, descend from an older group, I mean, even if you don't believe that all Germanics descended from the west-moving indo-european, and rather just inherited their language as an indigenous people, the people had to have come from somewhere, right?

Méldmir
Wednesday, December 9th, 2009, 08:38 PM
Yes, of course. But they only became Germanic when they started to speak these languages and when these people started to identify as a common people separated from other I-E peoples. Just the same with humans, at one point they were some pre-homo sapien creature, and the humans of today identify as homo sapien/humans even though there were other groups that predated homo sapien. Thus it ends when we began speaking this language and became a separate people. I might have missed your point again, sorry if that's the case.

Bradford
Wednesday, December 9th, 2009, 08:48 PM
I do realize that, but why do we identify with these "tribes", more than we identify with being an American Protestant, in my case, or simply being White? Is this Germanic group a good balance, in that it only encompasses the good, and not so much the bad, and thus is a more like a prestigious club for adolescence and young adults seeking acceptance? I feel very little kinship with people (Even if they are White, or "Germanic") outside the Eastern Seaboard, as their behaviors and ideals differ greatly from my own, as well even their language and culture a good percent of the time. Is it perhaps a way to justify speaking English, as English is a Germanic language? A way to not feel guilty for submitting to the will of the powers that be?


p.s. I'm in no way trying now, to insult those of you that frequent this board, I am simply questioning some of your ideals, a true "Germanic" can respect that, I think.

Méldmir
Wednesday, December 9th, 2009, 09:03 PM
I do realize that, but why do we identify with these "tribes", more than we identify with being an American Protestant, in my case, or simply being White? Is this Germanic group a good balance, in that it only encompasses the good, and not so much the bad, and thus is a more like a prestigious club for adolescence and young adults seeking acceptance? I feel very little kinship with people (Even if they are White, or "Germanic") outside the Eastern Seaboard, as their behaviors and ideals differ greatly from my own, as well even their language and culture a good percent of the time. Is it perhaps a way to justify speaking English, as English is a Germanic language? A way to not feel guilty for submitting to the will of the powers that be?


p.s. I'm in no way trying now, to insult those of you that frequent this board, I am simply questioning some of your ideals, a true "Germanic" can respect that, I think.

Well, of course identification is not just at the Germanic level. The German users here probably identify most with other Germans (or even Bavarians with Bavarians f ex). the English identify most with other English, Norwegians with Norwegians etc. But the next step of identification for us is identifying as Germanics. Why? Because I believe we are not as different as you write. We might not all understand each others languages, but they are very similar comparing them with the world's other languages. We often have similar overall charectaristics, some of them could be honesty, shyness/stiffness, good discipline. These things could be both positive or negative in different people's views, but most Germanics think they are good.

Our similarities are much more obvious to non-Germanics, we who are Germanics mostly see the differences between us, even though the similarities far outweigh the differences compared to most non-Germanics.. Then you ask, why do we not identify as "white" or European, or humans? Some people on here probably do, but I choose not to because I think most whites are too different from me, I have to draw the line somewhere. I think the Germanic identification fits very well, but before that most people of course identify with their home country, region or city/town.

So to sum it up, Germanic is a good identfication for me, because of our similar cultures, tradition, history and languages. Beyond that I find identification difficult, such as with most other Europeans.

VergesEngst
Thursday, December 10th, 2009, 12:45 AM
Identity requires some level of homogeneity, right?

That's the big problem with the United States (well.... one of the big problems): lack of any kind of homogeneity. That's why a step in the right direction (for the U.S.) would be more of a focus on state individuality: a real federation of states that function primarily as separate countries. That way they can more effectively promote within-group homogeneity.

There is no way to effectively try to promote an identity that encompasses all of the states. It may be easier to promote identity for Pennsylvania, identity for Texas, identity for Ohio, and so on and so forth. Maybe. At least, it could be encouraged, because of them has more of a "dominant identity" that could be identified in order to "strive for", at least. Viewing the U.S. globally, there is nothing to even "strive for".

Neophyte
Thursday, December 10th, 2009, 01:16 AM
No, you miss my point. Those "Old Germanic tribes" as you put it, descend from an older group, I mean, even if you don't believe that all Germanics descended from the west-moving indo-european, and rather just inherited their language as an indigenous people, the people had to have come from somewhere, right?

I think that there is quite some support for the Paleolithic Continuity Theory -- or some version thereof; i.e. that we are, basically, the offspring of ice age survivors. There seems to have existed three major European refuges during the Ice Age, and we Germanics, seem to stem from the people in the central one (in modern Italy). When you look at genetic variety in Europe all the major trends are in an North-South orientation, and overall there seems to have been very little movement on the East-West axis -- something that we would have seen if there had been a massive IE-invasion from the East.

Since the Germanic tribes started to branch out from Scandinavia -- a place relatively untouched by any "IE-invasion" -- at the earliest around 1000 BCE, I think that we can put the origins of the Germanic tribes far further back than any recorded history goes.

Nordischkelt
Thursday, December 10th, 2009, 03:23 AM
I'd call the descendents of the early settlers of what's now the United States Anglo Colonial. The vast majority of many of these people( of which I consider myself a part) are descended from early English and Scottish settlers, with regional infusions of Dutch, French, Swedish and German elements, depending on the area.

Ingwë
Thursday, December 10th, 2009, 05:48 AM
Perhaps "White Australia Policy" was not enough too secure effective homogenity as they should of been more specific in their intentions therefore it was short lived, perhaps "Germanic or Anglo Australia Policy" would have been more beneficial as the intention of the policy is clearly shown in the title and racial criteria would automatically be implied.

Siebenbürgerin
Thursday, December 10th, 2009, 05:49 AM
I voted Anglo-Colonial too. As I've written in the other thread you speak about, in my view the veritable American culture is the WASP culture. The old stock American one. The peoples who preserve the German culture and language of their ancestors in the USA are a different category. They're ethnic Germans, just like the Transylvanian Saxons. But many peoples assimilated and now they're Anglo-Americans of German descent.

Canada, Australia and New Zealand are English nations too. South Africa is a mix between several cultures. I think where there is multiculturalism there should be a partition. For example an Afrikaner state in South Africa, an independent Quebec in Canada.

Bradford
Thursday, December 10th, 2009, 03:54 PM
I voted Anglo-Colonial too. As I've written in the other thread you speak about, in my view the veritable American culture is the WASP culture. The old stock American one. The peoples who preserve the German culture and language of their ancestors in the USA are a different category. They're ethnic Germans, just like the Transylvanian Saxons. But many peoples assimilated and now they're Anglo-Americans of German descent.

German Americans are not Anglo-Americans, however much they wish they were.

Méldmir
Thursday, December 10th, 2009, 04:10 PM
I voted Anglo-Colonial too. As I've written in the other thread you speak about, in my view the veritable American culture is the WASP culture. The old stock American one. The peoples who preserve the German culture and language of their ancestors in the USA are a different category. They're ethnic Germans, just like the Transylvanian Saxons. But many peoples assimilated and now they're Anglo-Americans of German descent.

Canada, Australia and New Zealand are English nations too. South Africa is a mix between several cultures. I think where there is multiculturalism there should be a partition. For example an Afrikaner state in South Africa, an independent Quebec in Canada.

No they are self-govenerned and independent, altough part of the British Commonwealth. So is Jamaica and Bahamas, but do you consider them to be English? Is Scotland also an English nation? The English/British founded a lot of nations throughout the world, including the USA, but to me only England is an English nation, it's more than just some consitution written by some persons 100s of years ago. Of course I pay respect to the English for what they have accomplished in the past, like the ability to govern and conquer so many vast areas. But that isn't the same as saying that Jamaica or Canada is still "English", because the English more or less gave them away.

NormanRollo
Thursday, December 10th, 2009, 07:25 PM
To me, ideally, the american continents should have been a sort of miror image of western Europe, with anglo-germanic nations (Canada, USA), French nation (Quebec) and spanish ones (Argentina, Uruguay). The countries in between are just too multi-racial to include here and it would be too optimistic to think we could reverse the tide and make them white nations. I say let the mestizos have them. But the other nations mentioned here should stay white, and each should have a distinct identity defined by the racial origins of the majority.

Ward
Thursday, December 10th, 2009, 08:21 PM
German Americans are not Anglo-Americans, however much they wish they were.

In a cultural sense 99.9999% of them are. It might sound paradoxical, but we have actually reached a stage in which some of the most ardent defenders of traditional Anglo-American culture lack any traditional Anglo-American ancestry themselves. Pat Buchanan, a Catholic of Irish-German ancestry, is a prime example of this development in American society.

I really could not care less that I have no old-stock Anglo-colonial blood in me. In fact, I appreciate the fact that I'm better able to trace my ancestry than many old-stock Americans, and as such I don't have to ponder the significance of any potential or confirmed Indians in the family woodpile.



If it was to be Anglo-Colonial, wouldn't 99,999% of the American population have to reorientate, and be replaced by Anglo-Saxons who were born in England in modern times?

Not if we speak of "Anglo-American" only in a cultural sense.

In modern times, "Anglo-American" culture is probably best viewed as an amalgamation of several different Celtic and Germanic cultures, forged together in the crucible of the American experience. So while the foundations of Anglo-American culture are of course English, its survival is not really dependent on the continued presence of pure-blooded Englishmen, if you know what I mean.


Maybe the English of today could create a new USA under British control, and make sure the culture and loyalty do not change or disappear.

That's out of the question. ;)

Bradford
Thursday, December 10th, 2009, 08:36 PM
I find that if people's lineage lies outside the United States prior to the 1850s then it's time to draw the line. You're not a WASP. Hey you know what? If you have a drop of Native blood as an Anglo-American, which is totally possible (if not, likely) in my case, then that just further illustrates the fact that we're different from other European Americans. Frankly, I just think the prestige of the group draws "Germanics" who trace their ancestry to the lesser "Germanic" nations, German Americans are not and never will be Anglo-Americans, I don't even like to consider English Americans who's families migrated recently, Anglo-Americans, they're simply put, a different breed.

The way I see it is, you're a WASP or Anglo-Colonial, or whatever term you'd like to use, if your family predominantly has been protestant since they've arrived in the Americas, and if you are Dutch, English, Scottish, Scots-Irish, or French Americans since colonial times. Otherwise please just accept that this is one group that you do not belong to, within the Germanic community.

Ward
Thursday, December 10th, 2009, 08:55 PM
I find that if people's lineage lies outside the United States prior to the 1850s then it's time to draw the line. You're not a WASP.

I never claimed to be a WASP, but technically speaking I'm part of the broader Anglo-American culture. I don't care to argue about semantics, however. Whatever the case, I certainly am American.


The way I see it is, you're a WASP or Anglo-Colonial, or whatever term you'd like to use, if your family predominantly has been protestant since they've arrived in the Americas, and if you are Dutch, English, Scottish, Scots-Irish, or French Americans since colonial times. Otherwise please just accept that this is one group that you do not belong to, within the Germanic community.

You break my heart. :P

Bradford
Thursday, December 10th, 2009, 09:20 PM
I never claimed to be a WASP, but technically speaking I'm part of the broader Anglo-American culture. I don't care to argue about semantics, however. Whatever the case, I certainly am American.

"Technically speaking"? Since when has there been technical definition to the term Anglo-American outside of being American of English Descent?

Ward
Thursday, December 10th, 2009, 09:30 PM
"Technically speaking"? Since when has there been technical definition to the term Anglo-American outside of being American of English Descent?

Read my words again, and take note of where I say CULTURE:


"I never claimed to be a WASP, but technically speaking I'm part of the broader Anglo-American culture."


Anglo-American can be used as a broad term to define American culture in general, as I explained previously.

Bradford
Thursday, December 10th, 2009, 10:13 PM
Well indeed, I think all White Americans can make that claim. I can actually respect that, but I would appreciate it if it were given another term, that term causes confusion, the culture has very little do with "Anglo-Saxon" philosophies, as it is a culture characterized by hedonism and indecency, and exists all throughout the modern and industrialized world. What I view as the "Anglo-American culture" is something separate and unrelated, a culture of xenophobia, strong familial values and quiet affluence rather than boastful poverty and blatant aggressive racism.

Ward
Friday, December 11th, 2009, 01:31 AM
Well indeed, I think all White Americans can make that claim.

Yes, Anglo-American culture is basically synonymous with "White American" culture.

However, as I think most folks would agree, "White" is not exactly the most meaningful of cultural descriptors. "White" American culture has English origins and speaks an English tongue. Not Polish. Not French. Not German.

It therefore follows that "White American" culture can be more accurately described as "Anglo-American."


I can actually respect that, but I would appreciate it if it were given another term, that term causes confusion, the culture has very little do with "Anglo-Saxon philosophies"

Actually, the philosophical underpinnings of Anglo/White-American culture have never strayed too far from the English. For instance Americans have always been much more at home with English empiricism than continental European idealism.


as it is a culture characterized by hedonism and indecency, and exists all throughout the modern and industrialized world.

The roots of this decadent cosmopolitan culture are to be found in the establishment of the multicultural banking cartel known as Great Britain. America is actually an offshoot of this.

Anyway, hopefully America can someday regain the healthy spirit that swept the nation during the War of Independence and held the forces of internationalism at bay for roughly the first 100 years of its existence.


What I view as the "Anglo-American culture" is something separate and unrelated, a culture of xenophobia

Not xenophobic enough, evidently.


strong familial values and quiet affluence rather than boastful poverty and blatant aggressive racism.

You mean inbreeding, base materialism, and blatant aggressive racism towards other Germanics? :P

Mostly kidding here, but there is an element of truth to it. ;)

Bradford
Friday, December 11th, 2009, 02:33 AM
Not xenophobic enough, evidently.


What are you implying?



You mean inbreeding, base materialism, and blatant aggressive racism towards other Germanics? :P

Mostly kidding here, but there is an element of truth to it. ;)

The "racism" toward other "Germanics" comes only from other Germanic's tendency to dwell too close for the Anglo-American's liking, if I may speak for myself. I place a Scandinavian American (Or Scandinavian period.) in no higher esteem than I do an Asian when at school or another public institution, and in matters of neighborhood, as long as my neighbor is a kind, quiet, polite and unimposing neighbor, I will view him in no lower esteem than a "Germanic" even if he is black or Muslim. Fact is however, when I meet an Anglo-American, which in the places I would be found they are not uncommon, I treat them usually far better than I do others, this is a true feeling of kinship, that kinship that members of this forum boast about, I feel almost no kinship with you (I mean this in the nicest way possible.) Furthermore purity is not much an issue when it comes to being an "Anglo-American" I feel, as long as your family has RSF, Mayflower, Virginia Colony or some such, roots, and as long as you are tracing this from at least 2 grandparents, remained within the Eastern Seaboard, and identify with and recognize the ethnic group, then you are an Anglo-American, and of course you have to be White racially, if this is the case, then even a half-Pole or even, hesitantly a half-Italian, can be considered Anglo-American. Otherwise, concerning German-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans and all other manner of eastern Germanic, American you may be, but Anglo-Colonial/Anglo-American/WASP whatever other terms you'd use to fit into this ethnic group, you are not.

That said, I also DO sometimes feel a slight kinship with other White Americans, and I at times feel pity for the narrow-mindedness that seems to plague a lot of them, and it usually translates into deep hatred of others and just an overall unpleasant presence. (This is especially true in the south.) But that's a discussion for another thread.

Einarr
Friday, December 11th, 2009, 05:55 AM
Yes, Anglo-American culture is basically synonymous with "White American" culture.

However, as I think most folks would agree, "White" is not exactly the most meaningful of cultural descriptors. "White" American culture has English origins and speaks an English tongue. Not Polish. Not French. Not German.

It therefore follows that "White American" culture can be more accurately described as "Anglo-American."


This is how I am using or thinking of the term. More on a cultural line, though I am part English. My last name is even Anglo-Saxon, but I am not overwhelmingly English, therefore on an ancestral or "ethnic" question, I may not fit as an "Anglo-American." In all honesty I view the Celto-Germanic term as a better one to describe what I am.


I didn't vote on this one, but I accept anyone of Germanic or NW/Northern descent, and yes I know many here hate this term but I will accept most other whites as well. It may sound petty, but I do judge by appearance often. If someone visibly looks nonwhite to me, say an ambiguous Southern European, or an asiatic looking Slav, I am going to have to drawn the line there. (I am not saying that either of those two groups are all nonwhite, just some)

I am different from Bradford too; any Germanic-American in general, whether their ancestry is Scandinavian, German, Dutch, etc, or any "Celt-American" (quoted because I am undecided on what Celt means exactly, cultural or ancestral), and so on, I would and do feel very close kinship with assuming they are not stupid liberals (which would be hard to find). The people who I regard as white in general are the people I would want around me. You must also understand that barely any whites in North America for example can say that their family is of one ethnic descent (such as "just German"), almost everyone is ancestrally mixed. Again, I know many here dislike the term white, but I think it is especially valid outside of Europe.

Ward
Friday, December 11th, 2009, 06:19 AM
What are you implying?

You stated that "xenophobia" is/was a cultural practice of old-stock Anglo-Americans.

If this were truly the case, would old-stock Anglo-Americans find themselves in the predicament they are right now? Would I even be around to debate you on this issue right now?

Obviously, they weren't "xenophobic" enough to be able to preserve Anglo-Saxon purity in the U.S.



The "racism" toward other "Germanics" comes only from other Germanic's tendency to dwell too close for the Anglo-American's liking, if I may speak for myself.

Many non-American Germanics probably see this matter quite differently.

In any case, if you don't like other Germanics living in your proximity, you only have your own ancestors to curse for letting them in the country in the first place.


That said, I also DO sometimes feel a slight kinship with other White Americans, and I at times feel pity for the narrow-mindedness that seems to plague a lot of them, and it usually translates into deep hatred of others and just an overall unpleasant presence.

:rollsmile

Grimsteinr
Friday, December 11th, 2009, 12:53 PM
A country should have its own identity. The days of colonies are over.

I see Germanic more as a history- as roots. I want to forge a new people- new culture etc. that is better than the people around me and that lives up to higher standards and more evolved ethics and cultural practices.

Nations today are not racial nations. Other than maybe some parts of Europe it is useless to think otherwise at this point. To create a racial nation for Germanics in the New World one would have to start a whole new nation and secede from the union.

The U.S. and other nations are multicultural political governing bodies.

Most Americans, White, Black, Yellow, Brown or Red........See themselves as "Americans".
We are not part of a Commonwealth of English Nations.......
We threw off that Yoke in the American Revolution.
We will never be again a part of that Commonwealth.
Canada, Australia, Northern Ireland, New Zealand,(Did I miss anyone?),
all choose to be part of that Commonwealth, subject to that rulership.
Anglo-Colonial........Not anymore. We are American.
OBTW, India threw off the Yoke, in a slightly different way than we did.

We do speak a language similar to English. But it is distinctly different than the English spoken in the UK.

The United States is one of the few, 2 or 3, Major Military Powers in the World today.
We have Our Own Culture, that varies a bit as you cross our Large Country.
Many of Our States are Larger than the "Countries of Europe", which in the past held great power.
As of this Point, our 50 States are United under one Flag and One Constitution.
I think Americans are too Proud to ever be Subject to the Power of another, smaller Nation.
That's the way I see it... And Feel it.

runder
Monday, December 14th, 2009, 03:03 PM
I find that if people's lineage lies outside the United States prior to the 1850s then it's time to draw the line. You're not a WASP. Hey you know what? If you have a drop of Native blood as an Anglo-American, which is totally possible (if not, likely) in my case, then that just further illustrates the fact that we're different from other European Americans. Frankly, I just think the prestige of the group draws "Germanics" who trace their ancestry to the lesser "Germanic" nations, German Americans are not and never will be Anglo-Americans, I don't even like to consider English Americans who's families migrated recently, Anglo-Americans, they're simply put, a different breed.

The definition of WASP includes Germans, Dutch, and Scandanavians.

Regardless, I don't agree with your position that other white Americans care to be Anglo-Americans or WASPs. My English-American roots date back to the 17th Century, but I identify more with my German-American roots (which are similarly as old).

runder
Monday, December 14th, 2009, 03:05 PM
The roots of this decadent cosmopolitan culture are to be found in the establishment of the multicultural banking cartel known as Great Britain. America is actually an offshoot of this.


Well said.

Bradford
Monday, December 14th, 2009, 03:35 PM
The definition of WASP includes Germans, Dutch, and Scandanavians.

The definition of WASP does not include Germans or Scandinavians, albeit some people would like it to, perhaps edit a wiki entry just to feed into their desire to be called a WASP. With regards to your statement about your German ancestry, I find that people with German ancestry often falsify their lineage concerning early Colonial settlers. My old boss, Cy Schoppman, an obvious German American with potentially some Jew ancestry, used to claim to be of Mayflower descent, yet only claimed to be of German descent, probably didn't know that those on the Mayflower were exclusively English, ignorant jerk. As well, I do believe Hugh Hefner, another German-American lied about being a Mayflower descendant, and was discovered by the Mayflower society, I also have a half Polish, half German friend who made a similar claim, I didn't actually prove him wrong or anything, but I doubt if he's telling the truth, so either his German father lied to him, or he himself is lying. Fact is, my past experiences indicate an innate desire by many other Germanic-Americans, to be of Anglo-American descent.

If Scandinavians are White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestants then why aren't Estonians or Latvians or even Protestant French, Italians and Polish considered WASPs. Fact is, not only are Lutherans/PB's/Baptists/Anglicans/Pentecostals and SDA's(of course) not WASPs, simply because the only denominations that are included in the proper definition would be Methodists and Presbyterians, but even if you're an Anglo-American, if you just happen to be an Episcopalian or Lutheran, then guess what, you're not a WASP.

runder
Monday, December 14th, 2009, 03:53 PM
If Scandinavians are White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestants then why aren't Estonians or Latvians or even Protestant French, Italians and Polish considered WASPs.

The Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, Astors, Roosevelts, and Du Ponts, for example, are all considered to be WASPs. WASP is more of a geographical and class identity than a racial identity. The term WASP denotes upper class Northeasterners. Most people don't use it to describe poor people of English descent.

If there would have been a successful Protestant Estonian family in the Northeast during the 18th or 19th Century, then they probably would have been absorbed into the WASP framework just like the Vanderbilts and the Du Ponts.

My guess is that this class centered conception of WASP is also the reason why hedonistic materialists like Hugh Hefner might want to claim membership. He probably couldn't care less about the racial components; he's just a social climber who wants to further legitimize his aristocratic pretensions.

EDIT: Also note the fixation on the Mayflower. Jamestown, the first permanent English colony in North America, was settled 13 years before Plymouth Colony. If WASPism pertained to race more than to other factors, then the connection to New England wouldn't be emphasized as much.

EDIT 2: You don't consider Anglicans/Episcopals to be WASPs? Why not? They were the colonial upper crust- the WASPiest of WASPs.

Bradford
Monday, December 14th, 2009, 05:49 PM
I love how you use the wiki definition, on a board like this I'd assume people would learn to understand that wiki is probably not the most reliable source of information. Your remarks regarding Hugh Hefner, perhaps are true, but the fixation on the Mayflower usually has more to do with the fact that WASPs proper are those whose traditions are Puritan OR Quaker in origin. Jamestown was a crown colony.

runder
Monday, December 14th, 2009, 06:14 PM
...WASPs proper are those whose traditions are Puritan OR Quaker in origin...

Didn't you just write that true WASPs are Methodist or Presbyterian (which is more of a Scottish denomination than an English one)? Now they're Quaker and Puritan?

The WASP conception is a bit more inclusive than your restrictive (yet oddly amorphous) definition of it, and the salient points are social class and geographic location more so than strict racial definitions. I can find some citations for my position if you want (so long as you provide citations for your arguments), but in the end I don't really think its all that important.

Bradford
Monday, December 14th, 2009, 06:40 PM
Obviously you didn't read my statement, I said whose traditions are Puritan in origin, that obviously applies almost exclusively to the mainstream denominations, Methodism and Presbyterianism. The Scottish, Welsh, and sometimes Scots-Irish are the only people whom I consider WASP without being English, so the fact that Presbyterianism is Scottish in origin means nothing, Freemasonry is Scottish in origin too, I suppose the Masons' ranks don't include any WASPs then.

Svartljos
Monday, December 14th, 2009, 06:59 PM
Maybe it will sound weird, but I see people in Canada in a few groups. French, British, and other. I only feel any special sort of kinship with Canadians that are British or Irish in origin and who speak English. Obviously there are plenty of Germans and other various ethnic groups in Canada (officially 10% are Germans in the whole country. In the two provinces I live, one is a lot more multikulti, and one is probably more British than Britain and around maybe 90% or so.), but I feel that the core English Canadian is British Isles in origin. They are the biggest ethnic groups in the country still, although obviously we aren't the fastest growing demographic.

To me in Quebec if you aren't French then you are out of place as well, although I don't feel really much kinship at all with them, other than the fact that we are both from Canada. I am pro-separatism in Quebec, not from any real dislike of the French though, I do like them. I think a number of Irish settlers were assimilated into the French during the Famine, and clearly there are some English speakers there that probably want to feel like they are entitled to their culture in Quebec, although frankly I see it as a French place, not to belittle the other people who went to Quebec and lived there for generations.

So, I suppose that means that I don't see Canada as specifically White, Germanic, or entirely Anglo-colonial (the Scottish, Irish, and French aren't English or Germanic, besides peripheral influence). I hope I don't anger German Canadians or anything like that, they are obviously easily assimilable and I would rather get 100.000 Germans/Dutch/Danes/Whatever in a year than 100.000 people from Sri Lanka, quite obviously. I like them. I think I may have an eastern-Canada orientated bias though, I haven't spent very much time at all in western Canada (in the order of days) and I feel isolated from them. I know the Prairies got a lot of central European immigrants during the settlement era.

runder
Monday, December 14th, 2009, 07:20 PM
Obviously you didn't read my statement, I said whose traditions are Puritan in origin, that obviously applies almost exclusively to the mainstream denominations, Methodism and Presbyterianism.

All Presbyterians are Calvinists, but not all Calvinists are Presbyterians. The Puritans were Calvinists who rejected Presbyterianism.

Methodism evolved from the Church of England, not from Puritanism.

Why don't you include Episcopals/Anglicans in your definition of true WASPs?

Bradford
Monday, December 14th, 2009, 07:36 PM
Methodism evolved from the Church of England, not from Puritanism.

What ARE you talking about? Methodists are Calvinistic, especially in the United States (Though I do believe a minority group of them are essentially Episcopalians so of course I do not include them). I probably should have said Calvinistic rather than Puritan, but regardless, COE is not even Protestant in my view.

runder
Monday, December 14th, 2009, 08:30 PM
We're getting a bit far afield, but...

Methodism started as a reform movement within the Church of England by John Wesley (an Anglican minister), Charles Wesley, and George Whitefield (also an Anglican minister) in the 1730s. This reform movement split off and became a new Protestant denomination. Wesley and others brought it to North America in mid to late 18th Century. Note that this is long after the arrival of the Pilgrims and the formation and dissolution of the English Commonwealth.

Methodists following Wesley are not Calvinsts, they are Arminians.

http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=4746355&content_id=%7B91402312-4784-4E11-9EB5-4F338E0C7F83%7D&notoc=1

http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/arminian/

There is a group of "Calvinistic Methodists." Apparently, George Whitefield, unlike John Wesley, was Calvinist. Calvinistic Methodistm is predominantly in Wales. The U.S. branch of Calvinistic Methodists joined with the U.S. Presbyterian Church in the 1920s.

I'm citing this from Nelson's Dictionary of Christianity.

Frau Holle
Friday, December 25th, 2009, 06:17 PM
It's true the language and culture are English, however the input from other Germanic nations can't be ignored. I speak English and respect the culture and traditions of the Anglo-Saxons, however, I also cherish my German heritage. I don't see anything wrong if people from the New World celebrate the traditions of their ancestors along with the newly acquired ones.

Ediruc
Sunday, December 27th, 2009, 11:08 PM
I think the New World should be termed as Anglo-Colonial. I think this because the first folkway to influence the New World among our Germanic race were the English. The Puritan Anglo-Saxons settled down in Massachusetts, claiming the land as their new Zion. New England lends all the place names to the eastern English counties that the Puritans hailed from.

The descendants of the Anglo-Colonialists from Massachusetts also founded many of the modern cities in America today such as Buffalo, Cleveland, St. Paul, Denver, Seattle, San Francisco, and even Salt Lake City! (Those Mormons were English-Americans too).

The western US was carved out by Anglo-Americans migrating in mass numbers westward. It is only appropriate we should term the New World for those who dominated it and brought the continent and its indigenous people to their knees.

Wyrd
Friday, September 1st, 2017, 02:16 AM
A Germanic one. Germanic Americans were among the first but it wasn't just WASPs. Norwegian Americans for example were among the oldest migrants to the US. America was also first discovered by the Vikings, the Norse were the first to colonize it in the late 10th century AD.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Monday, June 11th, 2018, 03:54 AM
White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, with Dutch and Swedish contigents, ought to be the recognized basis of American society. I'm willing to entertain a legally-enforced, trilingual Germanic society, to compete with and put to shame the half-Latin American abomination that Canada is. We need to counteract that influence with more Germanic heritage, to keep Canada on par with Australia and New Zealand.

Idis
Wednesday, August 22nd, 2018, 06:59 PM
A Germanic one. Germanic Americans were among the first but it wasn't just WASPs. Norwegian Americans for example were among the oldest migrants to the US. America was also first discovered by the Vikings, the Norse were the first to colonize it in the late 10th century AD.
Basically agree with this. The original identity was predominantly Germanic and still persists somewhat nowadays. Germans are the most numerous ethnicity in the US, our culture is WASP-descended, our language is English.

Aelfgar
Wednesday, August 22nd, 2018, 08:10 PM
Anglo-Colonial. A colony is not the same as its motherland. America has a different culture, though I would welcome white Americans of some British ancestry.

J.Yaxley
Thursday, August 23rd, 2018, 12:10 AM
I don't think it's accurate to describe the USA as a Germanic or Anglo nation, at least not circa 2018. According to the US Census the majority of children under 5 are non-White, the USA has one of the highest rates of interracial mixing, and a large portion of the White population is of Celtic, Latin, or Slavic descent. If I - as an American - had to describe the USA then I would say that it is a multiracial oligarchy in which most laymen identify as being part of a 'Nation of Immigrants.' I don't like these facts but they are undeniably true.

Aelfgar
Saturday, August 25th, 2018, 01:13 AM
Anglo-Colonial. A colony is not the same as its motherland. America has a different culture, though I would welcome white Americans of some British ancestry.

EDIT: I'd welcome fully Germanic Americans as well if they couldn't be bothered learning another language and going somewhere probably better than England :)