PDA

View Full Version : Rhodesia/Zimbabwe/Namibia...



Nachtengel
Monday, December 28th, 2009, 08:50 PM
Where to post articles and videos about these places? In the South Africa section, is that acceptable?

Siebenbürgerin
Monday, December 28th, 2009, 08:59 PM
Hmm, I suggest the creation of new section named "Other Germanic Lands" or something like this. It could include articles about other lands like Greenland, Orkney Islands, Aland Islands and more, to whom dedicating a section for each would be too much.

Hauke Haien
Monday, December 28th, 2009, 09:29 PM
Germanic Enclaves & Influences (http://forums.skadi.net/forumdisplay.php?f=836) should be fine.

Thusnelda
Tuesday, December 29th, 2009, 01:32 AM
Hmm, I suggest the creation of new section named "Other Germanic Lands" or something like this.
Rhodesia, Zimbabwe or Namibia are no Germanic lands by any means. :-O

It could include articles about other lands like Greenland, Orkney Islands, Aland Islands and more, to whom dedicating a section for each would be too much.
I think our "Germanic Enclaves" section is the perfect place for such articles.

Nachtengel
Tuesday, December 29th, 2009, 03:19 AM
Rhodesia, Zimbabwe or Namibia are no Germanic lands by any means. :-O
Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) used to be similar to what South Africa is today, and South Africa is included as a Germanic land as far as I see. Unfortunately, the Negroes took power over the Whites and turned it into a cesspoll.

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=131056


I think our "Germanic Enclaves" section is the perfect place for such articles.
An enclave is a Germanic community present within a country/territory/land which is predominantly and usually officially non-Germanic, where germanics have the status of ethnic minorities. These are territories where Germanic languages and cultures are on the same level with the others, just that in some cases, like Greenland, the Germanic population is outnumbered by the Inuit one. But it's not as though Afrikaners outnumber Negroes in South Africa either.

If no independent section for "other" is made, I think they would belong in the respective sections like Denmark (Greenland), Scotland (Orkney Islands), Sweden (Aland Islands), etc., but Germanic enclaves is inappropriate to place them in, with maybe the exception of Rhodesia and Namibia, if you count the New World as rightfully aboriginal and the settlers immigrants/diaspora. But saying the Orkney Islands or Greenland are Germanic enclaves is like saying Germany is suddenly a 'Germanic enclave' if the Muslim population outnumbered the German one. Not only ridiculous, but also offensive.

Sigurd
Tuesday, December 29th, 2009, 07:59 AM
If no independent section for "other" is made, I think they would belong in the respective sections like Denmark (Greenland), Scotland (Orkney Islands), Sweden (Aland Islands), etc.,

Greenland's Germanic community supposedly essentially died out in the 16th century, reasons unknown. Those that remain are largely 19th and 20th century additions and usually scientists, or there for another dedicated reason. Studies about them should go into Extinct Germanic Groups.

I don't see a reason why Orkney and Shetland should not be placed with Scotland. So they used to be part of Denmark until gifted to Scotland more than a few centuries ago. There is however not really the idea of an Orcadian or Shetlander national identity. They feel like particularly Norse-influenced Scots, and if they relocate it's usually to the Scottish mainland. And for the Norse and Saxon influences, that exists on the entire East Coast as well. The only ones who actually believe Orkney or Shetland should be particularly seperate are oft those who believe in the myth of "All-Celtic Scotland", which we of course don't. And we certainly don't have the Scotland section for the Celtic part of its heritage. As such, the distinction is artificial IMHO. Threads should go into Scotland

Aaland is actually part of the Finnish state since 1923, League of Nations be "thanked". Therefore it should either be put with Sweden to make an ethnic statement, or alternatively indeed into the Germanic Enclaves section, certainly put it where you would put information on (other) Finlandswedes, IMHO.

Resist
Tuesday, December 29th, 2009, 09:45 AM
By the way, I'm confused seeing threads about South Tyrol in the German Lands section rather than in the Germanic Enclaves one. I find South Tyrol to be the most obvious example of an enclave, fully fitting its definition:
"an enclosed territory that is culturally distinct from the foreign territory that surrounds it".

Since the sections are styled after countries and their provinces, I think it would be correct to stick to the respective criteria.

Nachtengel
Tuesday, December 29th, 2009, 10:32 AM
If you want to make an ethnic statement what's the point of a Germanic enclaves section to begin with? Then move all the threads about ethnic Germans, about Alsace-Lorraine, the Sudetenland, East Prussia and others to the German section too.

Sigurd
Tuesday, December 29th, 2009, 10:34 AM
By the way, I'm confused seeing threads about South Tyrol in the German Lands section rather than in the Germanic Enclaves one.

It's not enclosed in another country, it's simply a bordering area which was unrightfully capped from German lands. It's no more an enclave than if let's say Michigan was given to Canada. It fails by the international definition of an Enclave.

For example, San Marino would be an enclave of Italy; the municipality of Büsingen both an exclave of Germany and an enclave of Switzerland. However, the municipality of Jungholz would not be an exclave of Tyrol or an enclave of Bavarian Swabia, even though it's only connected at one imaginarily small point.

South Tyrol also, did not exist as such before 1919. The point to distinguish between Nordtirol, Osttirol and Südtirol only arose after this division. Welschtirol for granted was already named that before, because that's where the Italians lived pre-1919 already. Before that, Südtirol was a part, actually the heartland of the Gefürstete Grafschaft Tirol since 1200-something. Schloß Tirol is actually in South Tyrol.

Of course one could argue that proper enclaves, such as Siebenbürgen Saxons were once in a Germanic-governed country. Here, however the difference is, that there is no continuous settlement, you're essentially there speaking of pockets enclosed fully by another ethnicity, and at this stage, fully enclosed by another state. They're not bordering a Germanic state.

Bärin
Tuesday, December 29th, 2009, 10:40 AM
As if Prussia was rightfully capped. :oanieyes None of the stolen German territories were rightfully given to their occupants. So why differentiate and treat preferentially? As Todesengel said, put them all in the German section, simple.

White Africa
Tuesday, December 29th, 2009, 10:53 AM
Rhodesia, Zimbabwe or Namibia are no Germanic lands by any means. :-O
Rhodesia is a Germanic creation. The land was acquired by the British South Africa Company and the name was given after Cecil John Rhodes, an Englishman.

White farmers in Zimbabwe suffer a cruel fate from the blacks, like in in South Africa, but the situation is worse. What Rhodesia became is the danger that could threaten South Africa in future. Both countries have been taken over by blacks.

English farmers from Zimbabwe

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00447/news-graphics-2007-_447206a.jpg

http://www.mugabeandthewhiteafrican.com/resources/The+Heroes+and+Heroines.jpg

Nachtengel
Tuesday, December 29th, 2009, 11:50 AM
One can still find Germanic people in Greenland although the majority is Inuit. According to statistics, 12% of the population are of European descent, mainly Danish.

http://galen-frysinger.com/graphics/greenland31.jpg

http://www.rudyfoto.com/grl/karenandanne.jpg

Bittereinder
Tuesday, December 29th, 2009, 06:27 PM
I would suggest the creation of a section ‘Germanic minorities in Africa’ (or something to that effect), though at this point in time it would by connection be rather difficult to justify the South African section if viewed in the same light.

I do however feel that South Africa has the longest separate history of all lands south of the equator with regards to Germanic influence and precedes Australia by 100+ years. If viewed along with our richly unique history and the attempts made in South Africa to create a environment healthy for Germanics and the culture founded here which most other Germanic people in Africa emulated and drew from to a large extent, we exerted much influence within our region for a long time and it would be hard to level the playing field for all Germanic southern Africans into one section.

I also think that the port of trade that was founded in South Africa made trade possibilities for other Germanic lands more accessible and thus the founding of South Africa at least for a time had beneficial implications for these countries, such as the Netherlands.

When these things are considered IMO it justifies the South Africa Section. However the other Germanics in the region do face their own unique threats and a place to note and discuss these things are surely needed, we as Germanics cannot let anyone who shares our common ancestry be forgotten no matter how small the number in the grand scheme of things.

Sigurd
Tuesday, December 29th, 2009, 06:34 PM
As if Prussia was rightfully capped. :oanieyes None of the stolen German territories were rightfully given to their occupants. So why differentiate and treat preferentially? As Todesengel said, put them all in the German section, simple.

That was no snide side-remark, I am not sure where you saw that, if that's what you mean. :shrug

Of course Prussia east of the Oder-Neiße line was unrightfully capped from Germany, no disputing that. Also no disputing that it deserves to be returned to Germany by rights, and that it should be settled by Germans, preferably by those who have majority or at least some ancestry going back to there. :)

The German communities of Silesia however do qualify as an Enclave nonetheless. Ideally, they shouldn't be separated from the German heartland but as a matter of fact they are. They are enclosed entirely by Polish settlement. In South Tyrol, there is no Italian belt in between, there's almost 100% Germans in Gossensaß, just as much as there is iin Gries am Brenner. That's where the difference between the two IMHO lies. ;)

Sigurd
Tuesday, December 29th, 2009, 06:43 PM
One can still find Germanic people in Greenland although the majority is Inuit. According to statistics, 12% of the population are of European descent, mainly Danish.

Alright, I was unaware that the numbers were that high. However, this is not people of original Norwegian-Icelandic stock who settled there from approx. 980 onwards.

Those people are, as already stated a later settlement, and since they are mainly Danish this settlement is probably to be understood as coming from Danish sovereignty over the island. As such they are clearly a Germanic majority in a largely non-Germanic environment, but I wouldn't call them an enclave.

Danes living within Danish territory are not living in an Enclave. To point out the differentation: Up until 1809, Finland Swedes did not live in an enclave. When they moved there much earlier, this was rightful Swedish soil. When it was given to Russia first and then to the later independent Finland, it could already be argued that they were living in an enclave.

Though technically they are living in an exclave (no continuous land or water territory under Swedish sovereignty), but very few of them are living in an enclave (territory fully enclosed by another state), since most Finland Swedes live on the coastline. Much like f.ex. Ceuta and Melilla are exclaves of Spain, but not enclaves of the respective countries (Morocco and I believe Libya). That distinction is however of a purely semantic nature, factually they represent much the same.

Either way, by assessment, the term "ethnic enclave" thus means: Living in another state and being surrounded fully by the other ethnicity's settlement. Both are required IMO to class it as an enclave, one alone will not suffice.

Nachtengel
Tuesday, December 29th, 2009, 07:45 PM
Alright, I was unaware that the numbers were that high. However, this is not people of original Norwegian-Icelandic stock who settled there from approx. 980 onwards.
Yeah, they're mostly Danish.


Those people are, as already stated a later settlement, and since they are mainly Danish this settlement is probably to be understood as coming from Danish sovereignty over the island. As such they are clearly a Germanic majority in a largely non-Germanic environment, but I wouldn't call them an enclave.
Me neither, that's why I said I wouldn't place them in the Germanic Enclaves forum.

Siebenbürgerin and Grimner touched on two important issues:

1. Some Germanic territories don't have sections of their own and don't quite fit in the current ones.

2. There are threads about Germanic minorities in other lands, which aren't always enclaves.

A resolution could be to create an Other Germanic Lands section like it was suggested, to cover Greenland and the like, and to rename the Germanic Enclaves & Influences section to Germanic Enclaves, Minorities & Influences or Germanic Diaspora & Influences, something along those lines, which would eliminate these arguments about which is an enclave and which isn't.

Sigurd
Tuesday, December 29th, 2009, 09:09 PM
Germanic Enclaves, Minorities & Influences or Germanic Diaspora & Influences, something along those lines, which would eliminate these arguments about which is an enclave and which isn't.

With some, it would breed other problems. Using the South Tyrol issue again, I believe the newbie would be very confused to find German threads about this question in a different section than English-language threads about the issue.

Tyrol is not divided in people's heads. It goes as far as even sometimes (increasingly rarely, but it still happens) hearing TV commentators say: "Three Austrians are leading the race, ahead of a South Tyrolese skiier, a Norwegian and three Italians". Even the university for people from South Tyrol is in Innsbruck. It's a more complex question than meets the eye.

To us Tyrolese lumping South Tyrol with a section entitles "Germanic Englaves, Minorities & Influences" would seem particularly odd. When we take a trip to Brixen or Meran, it's like taking a trip to Kufstein or Schwaz. We don't feel like we're entering another country. It's much like people travelling between the FRG and the GDR when that option was still as freely available.

It's not as with Elsaß-Lothringen which has been a German-speaking area handed back and forth as a trophy throughout history. There wasn't even much of a "South-Tyrolese consciousness" until about 15 years ago. For all intents and purposes, people didn't (and mostly still don't) feel that they belonged anywhere but back with Austria. There is largely no real perception north or south of the Brenner that it's much different here or there.

People in Elsaß-Lothringen don't always see themselves as "Germans proper". Many see themselves as a "German minority in France". Don't know if it makes that much sense what I'm saying here, but get what I mean? It would sound artificial to any non-liberal-leftie Tyrolean, whether North, South or East to draw a distinction. :shrug

Nachtengel
Tuesday, December 29th, 2009, 09:19 PM
What do you understand by "German proper"? Wanting to reunite with Germany?

Anyway I was talking about territories like Greenland, or what about Argentina? Is that an enclave? Lancaster County, Pennsylvania? Hungary? Hardly. What about those places with just a few hundreds or thousands of Germans living there? I think it's more of a case of diaspora than enclave there.

Sigurd
Tuesday, December 29th, 2009, 10:18 PM
What do you understand by "German proper"? Wanting to reunite with Germany?

Yes...ish. Essentially, there is an identity of being Alsatian or Lotharingian, but it's only the Nationalists who oft wish to reunite with Germany. They've essentially adopted the position of being Volksdeutsche rather than Reichsdeutsche, if we can still make that distinction.

Personally, I would put topics about Elsaß-Lothringen into "Die Deutschen Länder" as well, but certainly one could make a convincing argument, one I couldn't see to be made for South Tyrol. When Tyroleans meet, it becomes largely a geographical distinction to mention which one you're from. Good to see that you didn't intend that, had me worried there for a second, lol. :P


Anyway I was talking about territories like Greenland, or what about Argentina? Is that an enclave? Lancaster County, Pennsylvania? Hungary?

Hungary I would consider numerous enclaves, much as is the case in Siebenbürgen. I would consider Danube Swabians, Banat Swabians, Siebenbürgen Saxons, Landler etc. as "enclavers", whilst I would consider Pennysilvania Germans, even where they live German culture and language "diaspora". Greenland I would likewise consider an enclave if it ceased to be Danish, currently not.

Though that distinction is probably made by the idea that those in enclaves live in enclaves because that strip of land was separated from what was once a continuous entity, at least as far as statehood was concerned. It used to be "continous territory" short of an enclave, but became an enclave during history. With diaspora this was not the case, Argentina and Pennysilvania were never rightful German soil.

Does that sort of make sense? ;)

Stormraaf
Friday, January 1st, 2010, 04:32 AM
As far as our collection of discrete, defensible arguments to have an own regional section goes, there's actually no less reason to have one for Namibia than for South Africa. South West Africa (later Namibia) was a Germanic creation, and her descendants are today outnumbered in about the same ratio as Afrikaners & Anglos vs Bantus in SA. Even the same reasons for not calling us an enclave applies for SWA as well as it does for SA.

Alas, the SWA Germanics are a complacent, apolitical bunch, and they number but a few hundred thousand (< 300k, possibly around 200k - Namibia has an extremely low population density). That there hasn't been call for a SWA section is no surprise at all. That said, the lack of members from SWA doesn't mean there's nothing of pertinence to discuss about them.

For completeness's sake, let's also mention that the flag we use for the SA sections was flown above SWA for some time as well, during which many considered her SA's "fifth province" (a glorious expansionist sentiment). Since we're already using "historical" representation on the forum, it is technically sufficient for including SWA under the "South Africa" name. However, I'm under no illusions that people would intuitively make that connection, so this point may be disregarded.

All things considered, my proposition would be to change the name of the SA section from South Africa (Suid Afrika) to Southern Africa (Suidelike Afrika), with an "animated" flag (as for the Dutch and German sections), rotating at least between the old SA and old German SWA flags, possibly also the particular "ensign" flag used for Rhodesia (as symbolic mention of the Whenwes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whenwe) now living in SA). Problem solved, no new complications (except if I'm missing something), and no further action required to accommodate the change.

Nachtengel
Friday, January 1st, 2010, 01:24 PM
All things considered, my proposition would be to change the name of the SA section from South Africa (Suid Afrika) to Southern Africa (Suidelike Afrika), with an "animated" flag (as for the Dutch and German sections), rotating at least between the old SA and old German SWA flags, possibly also the particular "ensign" flag used for Rhodesia (as symbolic mention of the Whenwes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whenwe) now living in SA). Problem solved, no new complications (except if I'm missing something), and no further action required to accommodate the change.
Sounds like the best idea so far.

Blod og Jord
Friday, January 1st, 2010, 03:21 PM
I agree with Stormraaf's proposal too.
Like we have the German lands, or Netherlands & Flanders, or Australia & New Zealand.
Besides Afrikaans and English are spoken in those countries too, and they're similar aren't they? It makes more sense than a separate section.

Stormraaf
Sunday, January 3rd, 2010, 03:05 AM
Besides Afrikaans and English are spoken in those countries too, and they're similar aren't they?

Afrikaner settlement is continuous between SA and Namibia (though the dry, unnourishing landscape lends itself to a dissimilar population spread), and one used to be able to say the same for an Anglo-African presence extending over both SA and Rhodesia.

That's how we may link the regions, or rather define a Southern Africa chapter by these continuities, the history of Germanics in Africa covering a larger area than their present biological presence notwithstanding.

A word of caution: for all its similarities, there's a lot of room for false assumptions in calling these regions similar.