PDA

View Full Version : Why Are the Irish Not Considered Germanic/Nordic?



Pages : [1] 2 3

Fionn
Tuesday, May 30th, 2006, 07:31 PM
I find it strange that countries such as France and Finland are considered to be Germanic on this site, but Ireland is not. I'm not trying to bash this site or anything in this post, simply trying to have an intelligent debate/discussion about this subject.

Let me begin with France which is under the "Western Germanic" section. The vast majority of French people speak a Romance language. France does have a minority of German speaking people, about 1,440,000 people (3.15% of population). But there are almost as many German speakers in France as there are Arab speakers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France Yes, the Franks did settle certain areas of France, but one cannot ignore the presence of Gallic and Latin influences as well. But still the whole country is considered Germanic.

Finland is under the "Northern Germanic" section. People from Finland are primarily Finno-Ugric and speak Uralic languages. Finland is of course adjacent to Sweden, but there was not much contact between the two groups in the Viking Age except for in the Åland Islands. Is it their high perecentage of blonde and blue-eyed people? Well through deductive reasoning we can clearly see that blonde hair and blue eyes is not just a Germanic trait. So how is it that Finland can be Germanic?

Now to start on Ireland.

Irish people primarily speak a Germanic language:
http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h317/Adalwulf/languagemap.gif



Vikings settled in Ireland and brought much trade and cultural exchange:
http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h317/Adalwulf/vikingireland.gif

Read at your own leisure:
http://www.ncte.ie/viking/listt.htm
http://www.rootsweb.com/~irlkik/ihm/ire900.htm

Anglo-Normans invaded Ireland and influenced it greatly: http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h317/Adalwulf/normanireland.gif

http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/history/norman_invasion.html

What else can be said about Ireland other than that they have been more or less assimilated into Germanic ways? Modern Ireland has almost become a reflection of Britain through many centuries of British dominance and rule. Now many of you would probably say that Ireland is very "pure" of outside influence and so on, but you cannot ignore these Germanic groups and their contributions to what Ireland has become. Tell me what you think of this matter.

Galaico
Tuesday, May 30th, 2006, 07:42 PM
There's a Finnish sub-forum in the Noth Germanic section because:


http://forums.skadi.net/images/flags/Finland.gif Finland (http://forum.forums.skadi.netdisplay.php?f=663)
Dedicated to general historical, social, linguistical, political and cultural topics pertinent to Germanic influences upon Finns and in Finland.

It isn't saying that Finns are Germanic, but that they have Germanic influence.

Now many of you would probably say that Ireland is very "pure" of outside influence and so on, but you cannot ignore these Germanic groups and their contributions to what Ireland has become. Tell me what you think of this matter.
Ireland has remained almost pure since prehistoric times. Some regions such as Connacht are almost R1b pure in 100%, what demonstrates the lack of admixture with foreign populations.

Mannerheim
Tuesday, May 30th, 2006, 08:03 PM
Finland is from its culture 100% like Sweden or north-Germany and i mean 100% alike and if that is not germanic culture then i dont know what is.

Also our nordid component is imho quite big and that is germanic race type.There is no country what would be 100% germanic from its race.

Imho only our language differs from germanic.So we are 2/3 germanic.


I think Irish are mainly germanic from its race just like england though its population is mainly celtic and iberic theres still strong viking composition.

I mean that celts may have been also example nordids and dalo-falids ?

Irish are beautiful,their accent is the best in english,they have great history and the land is magnificantly beautiful.

Fionn
Tuesday, May 30th, 2006, 08:06 PM
It isn't saying that Finns are Germanic, but that they have Germanic influence.

And the Irish don't?




Ireland has remained almost pure since prehistoric times. Some regions such as Connacht are almost R1b pure in 100%, what demonstrates the lack of admixture with foreign populations.

That's one region...

Jäger
Tuesday, May 30th, 2006, 08:09 PM
And the Irish don't?

That's one region...
If you find enough irish to ask for a sub-forum, you might get one.

Afterall speaking about meta-ethnicities you belong to them if your are accepted by them :)

Weg
Tuesday, May 30th, 2006, 08:10 PM
France does have a minority of German speaking people, about 1,440,000 people (3.15% of population). But there are almost as many German speakers in France as there are Arab speakers.

No way. There are much more Arab speakers than German ones in France.

Mannerheim
Tuesday, May 30th, 2006, 08:18 PM
What defines germanicity

1.Culture - well,all know what is germanic culture.;)

2.Race - nordid,dalo-falid

3.Language - germanic language(german,swedish,holland...etc)

4.Religion - Asatru

What i think is the most purest from all of these is Holland,Sweden and Norway, if we dont count religion.All so called Germanic countries lacks someway in germanicity.




Btw: Finnish ancient pagan religion was almost the same as asatru though im not expert in this field.

fms panzerfaust
Tuesday, May 30th, 2006, 08:53 PM
Why not count religion?

Mannerheim
Tuesday, May 30th, 2006, 09:13 PM
Why not count religion?

If we not count Hollands,Swedens and Norways religion what is christianity.

Christianity is not germanic imo.

Bulair
Tuesday, May 30th, 2006, 09:39 PM
So what's the big deal, everyone wants to be Germanic? Shouldn't you be proud of your country's unique culture.

Galaico
Tuesday, May 30th, 2006, 09:42 PM
And the Irish don't?
Germanicity was imposed over the Irish. Ask any Irish if they want to be considered Germanic.

That's one region...
Irish in general, and according to the Y Chromosome, to whom are more genetically close is to the Basques.


Christianity is not germanic imo.
Well, that's very relative. In origin it is obviously non-Germanic, but aswell Norse Pantheism in part is non-Germanic, for expample Valhalla has its origins in Celtic paganism. The same happens with most religions, for example the Greek War God, Hares, is not originally Greek but Thracian, Hera, Zeus' wife, is allegedly of Paleolithic origin, the Magna Mater.

Germanics, such as the Franks and the Normans, started the Crusades in order to protect the Christian faith. Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope as Romanum gubernans Imperium, and started the Holy Roman-Germanic Empire aswell in order to protect the Christian faith.

Austrians fought the Ottoman invaders to protect the Christian faith.

Christianism is definitely non-European in origin, but it is in adoption. It is part of Europe's culture, and helped to unify our continent.

Idun
Tuesday, May 30th, 2006, 09:49 PM
Finland is from its culture 100% like Sweden or north-Germany and i mean 100% alike and if that is not germanic culture then i dont know what is.

Sure, Sweden and Finland has a similar culture,but it´s definitely not 100%!

Glynd Eastŵd
Tuesday, May 30th, 2006, 10:09 PM
While we're at it, why isn't Wales considered Germanic enough to warrant its own subforum?

Mannerheim
Tuesday, May 30th, 2006, 10:13 PM
Sure, Sweden and Finland has a similar culture,but it´s definitely not 100%!

Dear Idun - I would be more than happy if i would see your definition from culture.

I dont mean different languages.

Sweden and Finland are almost as wealthy.

Both have welfare state

Both have same kind of politics and policies.

Both are in EU

Both are not in Nato what is very important if we look at this culturally.

In both countries there is relatively high suicide ratio cause of cold and dark climate.

Both share samekind of climate

Finnish and swedish army are practicly the same.

Our history is tided together.We were once the same nation.

And when i think fastly differences between finns and swedes.

Sauna is one of the biggest differences.

Finns also drink more though this have started to decrese.

Of course racial composition is different though many people tend to exaggerate the difference.



Of course,i would say that there is differnces.There is finnish nationalist in Finland who prefer only finnish language aka fennomans.

And in Sweden there is svekomans who prefer only things what is swedish.




I consider that we are at least very close to each other though maybe not 100%.I correct myself,70% :D




So what's the big deal, everyone wants to be Germanic? Shouldn't you be proud of your country's unique culture.

Germanics are superior to other imo.



Well, that's very relative. In origin it is obviously non-Germanic, but aswell Norse Pantheism in part is non-Germanic, for expample Valhalla has its origins in Celtic paganism. The same happens with most religions, for example the Greek War God, Hares, is not originally Greek but Thracian, Hera, Zeus' wife, is allegedly of Paleolithic origin, the Magna Mater.

Germanics, such as the Franks and the Normans, started the Crusades in order to protect the Christian faith. Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope as Romanum gubernans Imperium, and started the Holy Roman-Germanic Empire aswell in order to protect the Christian faith.

Austrians fought the Ottoman invaders to protect the Christian faith.

Christianism is definitely non-European in origin, but it is in adoption. It is part of Europe's culture, and helped to unify our continent.


Thanks for the info

This would be great subject to be its own thread.

Asatrians and christians could debate on this matter.

Unfortunately i have little to say on this matter cause im nothing.Im not asatrian,im not christian,im not atheist,im just ...well,i dont know yet :D

Theudiskaz
Tuesday, May 30th, 2006, 10:22 PM
I think Irish are mainly germanic from its race just like england though its population is mainly celtic and iberic theres still strong viking composition.

I mean that celts may have been also example nordids and dalo-falids ?
The Irish are mainly Atlantid and Cromagnid the way I understand it, not mainly Nordid, and certainly not mainly Germanic Nordid(Skandonordid, Troender, Anglo-Saxon). However there is certainly Viking blood in the major cities like Dublin and Limmerick, und thus some Skandnordids and Troenders are bound to be there. In Ulster there is certainly some Germanic blood from the English and "Ulster-Scots" (who are for all intents and purposes Anglo-Saxon)

Although England is fully Germanic in culture, even it is not mostly Germanic by Race. It probably is majority Nordid, when the Keltic type is included. The Germanic Nordid types are common only in Eastern England, where Anglo-Saxon and Viking settlement was the heaviest. But I think they may have been wider-spread during the Medieval period.

I read at some point, that among the Irish, the Keltic Nordid component was never very strong to begin with (although certanily more so than Germanic types). The Faelid type is not common in Ireland but the other Cromangnid types like the Paleo-Atlantid and Bruenn, of course, are.

As far as culture goes, I only know that Ulster is culturally English, and thus Germanic, and that south-eastern Ireland has had strong English influence even longer.

Idun
Tuesday, May 30th, 2006, 10:34 PM
Dear Idun - I would be more than happy if i would see your definition from culture.

I dont mean different languages.

When I was younger I spend much time in Finland,and the culture there is not like here in Sweden,not in my opinion.

We have our culture,and you have yours,like all the countries has.

But I like Finland, no doubt about that.

Eberhardt
Tuesday, May 30th, 2006, 10:37 PM
So what's the big deal, everyone wants to be Germanic? Shouldn't you be proud of your country's unique culture.

That's not the point Adalwulf is stressing. He's trying to pass the point that since the majority of Ireland's population speak a Germanic language it is influenced by that distinct culture. I'm a friend of his and I know he's proud of being Irish, but he's of the broader Germanic stock as well. So in saying that he isn't proud of the bulk of his heritage is ridiculous.


There's a Finnish sub-forum in the Noth Germanic section because:

Quote:
http://forums.skadi.net/images/flags/Finland.gif Finland (http://forum.forums.skadi.netdisplay.php?f=663)
Dedicated to general historical, social, linguistical, political and cultural topics pertinent to Germanic influences upon Finns and in Finland


Well as stated by Adalwulf, aren't Irish influenced by Germanic culture?

Mannerheim
Tuesday, May 30th, 2006, 10:44 PM
When I was younger I spend much time in Finland,and the culture there is not like here in Sweden,not in my opinion.

We have our culture,and you have yours,like all the countries has.

But I like Finland, no doubt about that.

How did it differed ? Just curious.

Its not the matter of life and death to me if finnish and swedish cultures would differ but its just my personal opinion when beeing in Sweden quite much that the cultures would be pretty much same type.


Edit

Ok Idun, all clear.

Zagas
Tuesday, May 30th, 2006, 10:47 PM
I think France and Finland forums are in the wrong position though their description says they are not germanic but to comment about the germanic influence in that country/ race.
I think France and Finland should not be in Western or Northern Germanics but maybe in Germanic Settlements, since those countries are not Germanic but have a lot of Germanic influence in culture or race.
Or if not in Germanic Settlements, open a new forum called "Germanic Influenced Countries" or something like that. So then you could put France, Finland, Ireland, etc.

I don't know very much about Scotland, but I heard they are Celtic and their blood is not Germanic but Celtic. I already read a genetic study that said Irish, Wales, Scotland and Cornwall were Celtic people that came from Gallaecia or somewhere. So I think it is weird to see Scotland as a Germanic Country too.

I think the most important thing to be Germanic is the blood, only then it is the culture, language and others things.





What i think is the most purest from all of these is Holland,Sweden and Norway, if we dont count religion.All so called Germanic countries lacks someway in germanicity.


So and Germany isn't one of the most purest too? :s
Sweden and Norway have a lot of Sami mix specially in the North of those countries while Germany has much less sami mix.

Galaico
Tuesday, May 30th, 2006, 11:05 PM
Well as stated by Adalwulf, aren't Irish influenced by Germanic culture?
Many countries are influenced at a higher or lower level by Germanic culture but that doesn't mean they are Germanic.

So, what do you really want, Irish to be considered Germanic, or an Irish sub-forum?

Mannerheim
Tuesday, May 30th, 2006, 11:19 PM
So and Germany isn't one of the most purest too? :s
Sweden and Norway have a lot of Sami mix specially in the North of those countries while Germany has much less sami mix.

Of course Germany is also quite pure but Germany is so big country from its population compared to my other examples.

I think this sami mix is exaggerated when we talk about Sweden and Norway.

Fionn
Tuesday, May 30th, 2006, 11:25 PM
Many countries are influenced at a higher or lower level by Germanic culture but that doesn't mean they are Germanic.

So, what do you really want, Irish to be considered Germanic, or an Irish sub-forum?

Well, I would propose eliminating Scotland, Finland, and France from the "Germanic sub-forums". The way I see it is that if Ireland is not included then why include other countries that are somewhat influenced by Germanics but aren't really all that Germanic? It's only fair that way. But on the otherhand I would like some of the people on this site to realize that Ireland is influenced by Germanics just as much as Scotland, Finland, etc.

Milesian
Wednesday, May 31st, 2006, 03:09 PM
I find it strange that countries such as France and Finland are considered to be Germanic on this site, but Ireland is not.
That's because it is primarily a Celtic country.
The great mass of Ireland's people never spoke a Germanic language, particularly as their first tongue, until the last couple of centuries & only under great socio-political-economic pressure, nor was Wotan or Thor ever worshipped within it's borders except for a short time by some rowdy Norse immigrants who decided to do a bit of unwelcome squatting for a while ;)

On the other hand, Ireland has been shaped by thousands of years of Celtic culture and language.

If it isn't Celtic, then it certainly can't be Germanic


Now to start on Ireland.

Irish people primarily speak a Germanic language:
http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h317/Adalwulf/languagemap.gifSo do Jamaicans, are they West Germanics as well?
English only really became the first tongue in Ireland during the Famine in the 19th century. Before that catastrophic event, the first language of the great majority was a Celtic tongue.


Vikings settled in Ireland and brought much trade and cultural exchange:
http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h317/Adalwulf/vikingireland.gifBut ultimately they were a minority who settled in a couple of urban centres before losing their independence at the Battle of Clontarf, at which point they became assimilated into Gaelic (Celtic) society.


Anglo-Normans invaded Ireland and influenced it greatly: http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h317/Adalwulf/normanireland.gifDefine greatly? All they really influenced was the politics.
They attempted to inport their own language, Norman French, but it was so unsuccesful that they had to enact The Statute of Kilkenny to try and preserve it. Even then, it died out while the Irish language continued to thrive.

They tried to import Norman culture as well, but eventually their feudal systems fell by the wayside & the Anglo-Norman families simply became Clans/Septs in the Gaelic tradition and life continued on much as it did before. Like the Vikings before them, it was the Normans who were assimilated and not the other way about.



What else can be said about Ireland other than that they have been more or less assimilated into Germanic ways? Modern Ireland has almost become a reflection of Britain through many centuries of British dominance and rule.In what way?



Now many of you would probably say that Ireland is very "pure" of outside influence and so on, but you cannot ignore these Germanic groups and their contributions to what Ireland has become. Tell me what you think of this matter.It would be as wrong to say that there was no Germanic influence in Ireland in the same way as it would be to say there is no Germanic influence in Argentina. Most people don't consider Argentine to be Western Germanic, however.

It is important not to point to a measure of Germanic influence in countries so as to annexe them into some Germanic Meta-Ethnicity.

You have plenty of Germanic nations. You don't need little old Ireland too, do you? ;)

Milesian
Wednesday, May 31st, 2006, 03:25 PM
Well, I would propose eliminating Scotland, Finland, and France from the "Germanic sub-forums".
I wouldn't argue with that, but I guess it's upto the members on Skadi from those countries.


But on the otherhand I would like some of the people on this site to realize that Ireland is influenced by Germanics just as much as Scotland, Finland, etc.
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
What I would contend though is that the "influence" isn't to such a degree that it justifies including them as Germanics.
If we are to include countries with Germanic influence then we could include India and all the former British colonies too.

I think some degree of moderation and restraint is necessary to prevent the whole system from collapsing into the realms of fantasy

Milesian
Wednesday, May 31st, 2006, 03:37 PM
Sorry, I take it all back.
Someone has kindly made me aware via rep point that Ireland is in fact, Greek.

Touché :thumbup :D

Spjabork
Wednesday, May 31st, 2006, 04:15 PM
Finland is from its culture 100% like Sweden or north-Germany and i mean 100% alike and if that is not germanic culture then i dont know what is.
Also our nordid component is imho quite big and that is germanic race type.There is no country what would be 100% germanic from its race.

Imho only our language differs from germanic.So we are 2/3 germanic.

I think Irish are mainly germanic from its race just like england though its population is mainly celtic and iberic theres still strong viking composition.
Yes. We must evaluate:
1. "Blood" i.e. genetics. All matters inherited biologically.
2. "Tongue" i.e. linguistics. (e.g. Germanic linguists consider Finnish as the "deep freeze" of Proto-Germanic for its many loan words.)
3. "Faith" i.e. religion. Ancient Heathenry, Modern transformation (="reformation") of Christianity etc. The diversity of "churches" the Germanics are so fond of... --> seems to be a special trait of them.
4. "Way of Life" i.e. soft culture - customs, moral standards, law etc.
5. "Household" i.e. hard culture - architecture (house construction!), clothing (trousers are a Germanic invention), certain standards and notions of "hygiene" (soap and comb are Germanic inventions, Germanic people are squeemishly fond of detergents, like to blame others of being "dirty" etc.), also diet (do the Finns brew & drink beer/ale in quantities?) a.s.o.

All these things must be seen together to come to a judgement about "Germanicity" of a people...

I think the Finns are quite Germanic.:) Also the Irish, though less.(?)

Fionn
Wednesday, May 31st, 2006, 07:22 PM
It's funny, because I keep doing research on Finland and Ireland and I have yet to come across anything that suggests heavy Germanic influence. Linguistically, Finland has barely anyone speaking a Germanic language. Refer to the map that has been reposted umpteen times.

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h317/Adalwulf/languagemap.gif

I found these links interesting:

Linguistic connections between Irish Gaelic and German: http://www.gaeltacht.info/gael_deutsch.html#i

Connections between Celtic and Germanic religion:
http://www.runestone.org/cltgerm.html

Northern European warrior culture
http://www.cauldronfarm.com/asphodel/articles/Northern_European_Warrior_Cultures.html


You have plenty of Germanic nations. You don't need little old Ireland too, do you? ;)
Personally, I could care less if Ireland is considered Germanic, because really what would that prove? But the point I'm trying to make is that Ireland is influenced by Germanics, whether we would like to admit it or not. It would only make sense to include Ireland if Finland, Scotland, and France are included.

Urho
Wednesday, May 31st, 2006, 09:13 PM
It's funny, because I keep doing research on Finland and Ireland and I have yet to come across anything that suggests heavy Germanic influence. Linguistically, Finland has barely anyone speaking a Germanic language. Refer to the map that has been reposted umpteen times.

..and which is somewhat erroneous, since the only Swedish speaking, non-bilingual area in Finland is Åland. ;)

Fionn
Saturday, June 3rd, 2006, 10:11 PM
If you get Milesian to agree that Ireland is Germanic, we shall add it. :fwink:

All joking aside, I concur that there have been important Germanic influences upon Ireland. We could create such a subforum if a few people really need one, but they usually just post such stuff in The Celtic Realm, Northern Germanics, Western Germanics, Heathenry, Thought and Memory, and so forth, depending on where it fits best.

There is also an excellent forum about the Irish (http://irish-nationalism.net/forum/), run by a former Skadi admin, where Germanic influences upon their nation can be discussed. :)

I support adding a subforum for Ireland. It seems a pretty fair and reasonable thing to do. Of course, it is all up to the admins who see it fit to be added. :)

Theudiskaz
Saturday, June 3rd, 2006, 10:16 PM
I support adding a subforum for Ireland. It seems a pretty fair and reasonable thing to do. Of course, it is all up to the admins who see it fit to be added. :) It's a slippery slope.:|

Idun
Saturday, June 3rd, 2006, 10:17 PM
Well if the Finns have a subforum, I really think that the Irish also should have one.

Fionn
Saturday, June 3rd, 2006, 11:04 PM
So is this the final verdict that we have come to? If so, I think it's a rather fair deal. However, there is still that Germanic influence on Ireland, and I daresay there is heck of a lot more than the ditched France or Finland ever had. Is there still a chance that Irish and people of Irish descent could have a subforum to discuss the Germanic influences and contributions to their culture, langauge, history and country? If there was one I think it would do more good than harm.

Fionn
Saturday, June 3rd, 2006, 11:17 PM
Thanks. ;)

Not at the moment. Maybe later on, if we ever restructure something. In the meantime, such influences can be discussed in the Germanic root forums.

You're very welcome and thank you, sir. :)

SuuT
Sunday, June 4th, 2006, 12:53 AM
Having read the whole thread, I have to admit that these are actually very good thoughts. Consequently, we dumped Finland and France. They are only creating never-ending confusion. Germanic influences upon these countries can be discussed in the Germanic root forums.

We keep the Scots, though. The Scots language is clearly Germanic (Scots is to English what Dutch is to German) and they have significant Germanic ancestry.

If we exclude the Scots based on their Briton heritage, we could as well exclude the English (http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2002-10/1034004109), but as Milesian said, some degree of moderation and restraint is necessary to prevent the whole system from collapsing into the realms of fantasy. :fwink:

Wise words. :)

You lost me at dumping France; to be Frank;) it creates a slippery-slope all its own. 'When' Germany (proper) is over-run linguistically, culturally, and spiritually, will it, too, be relegated to the Germanic root forums? It is very much its own reductio ad absurdum; and I think it demonstrative that it is the disadvantageous erasure of a drawn Germanic line.
The feudal system of the European Middle Ages evolved from Charlemagne's military organization and the way he imposed a central authority on his empire. At his direction, the Frankish (germanic Kingship) capital at Aachen became a cultural center marking the first revival of the arts since the fall of Rome. Beginning in a time when most of the people of Europe were illiterate and had little mathematics, he collected learned men from inside and outside his empire and set up schools for priests, administrators, and Frankish nobles. One result of this programe was the development of a clear and efficient style of handwriting that became the model for today's germanic printed letters. Another was the preservation of Latin learning that influenced the culture and languages of later Europe, including all of the countries that have arbitrarily, but not capriciously, been retained as Germanic under your rubric. French, Spanish, and Italian all evolved from the Latin thus preserved. The enduring legacy of the Franks is the nation of France.

I suppose I could go on; but, in short, I think that the dumping of France, because Finland cannot quantitatively, or qualitatively, be argued to be Germanic in the same manner as France is unproductive with respect to future aims; and not a little baffling. There is a geographical point (amongst others) at which 'Germanic' is a vaccuous term. It has not been adequately argued, or really even demonstrated, that that where you have drawn that line is in accord with the facts: historically, culturally, or spriritually.

If France is not "Germanic"--neither is Canada.

etc.

elrik
Sunday, June 4th, 2006, 01:46 AM
vahalla isn't a celtic creation.

Weg
Sunday, June 4th, 2006, 02:43 AM
France is much more Celtic than Germanic, anyway. I'm quite fed up with Frenchmen who think they are nothing but Germanic and phantasm on the Nordic race all the time... I pitty them, they're so boring. Those are not different from any rootless whiggers.

Most of the time, I think we French are apart; we're neither completely Romance, nor completely Celtic, so let alone completely Germanic. It's not that easy. What's sure, it's that we are different from others and it's good like that. I enjoy my difference, that's the best way I've to piss off the System. :thumbup

SuuT
Sunday, June 4th, 2006, 02:44 AM
The modern Frenchmen are not a Germanic nation to the same degree as, let's say, the Germans, the English, the Icelanders. Nearly all Frenchmen would not consider themselves Germanics.

Very true. My argument is not of issues pertaining to modernity (the antogonistic relationship between modern France and modern Germany is a relatively recent dynamic of shared angst: e.g. neither wishes to acknowledge common surname roots (e.g. "Mosier") out of the abjectly puerile denial of a shared ancestry; with brobdingnagian disparity between respective modern cultures.

"Canada" is listed under "Germanic Settlements." All it needs to qualify for this is that there is a (not rather marginal) bunch of Germanics that settled there. This holds true for Canada.

So then I guess the question would be whether or not France has been dumped all together; or is now relegated to "Germanic Settlements"--which would be an historical misnomer.

Incidentally, I've been to Scotland 11 times; and never once, in any discussion on the matter (and I always instigate them!) have I heard a single scot identify themselves as Germanic either.

At any rate, its clear that this is not open for discussion as the salient points of my post have been past over.

Cordially,
SUUT

Zagas
Sunday, June 4th, 2006, 03:57 AM
Well, if those French, Finnish and Irish really want so much a forum for them, I think if you ever create them so the best solution would be to make a forum called somewhat like "Countries with a lot of Germanic Influence". My english is not very good, but that's the idea, I bet you can find a better phrase for that like maybe "Germanic Influenced Countries" I don't know..
We already have Germanic "Germanic Settlements" so we could have "Countries with a lot of Germanic Influence"

Lissu
Sunday, June 4th, 2006, 07:37 PM
So and Germany isn't one of the most purest too? :s
Sweden and Norway have a lot of Sami mix specially in the North of those countries while Germany has much less sami mix.It really depends on what things are considered as Germanic Ideal... And I suppose there is many answers for that, and none of them is the wrong one.

Racially Sweden is often referred as purest Nordid, even though many Swedes seem to be Baltid influenced (somewhat softer features, which is attractive in my eyes). Germany of course has a lot of Nordids also, but my impression of Germany is Alpinid. Ok, enough for racial issues...

As for Sweden and Nordic countries in general, well, their wellfare is highly respected, also in Germany, even though unfortunately multiculturalism seems to be dragging especially Sweden down. This is something which makes me sad, because Sweden is supposed to be one of the wealthiest countries in the world like it was after WW2.

So, it really depends on how one defines Germanic. And IMO, there are many definitions.

Leofric
Sunday, June 4th, 2006, 07:42 PM
So, it really depends on how one defines Germanic. And IMO, there are many definitions.
Can you offer three?

And no fair splitting up a single definition, like saying "1) racially Germanic; 2) culturally Germanic; 3) religiously Germanic." All of those could be basically be counted as one definition — they're all choosing one aspect of Germanicity and making it a single criterion. Each is the single-criterion definition. If you want, you can use the single-criterion definition as one of the three.

Alkman
Monday, June 5th, 2006, 02:19 AM
If hellenized,slavicized and latinized Thracians are today Greeks,Bulgarians and Romanians just as germanicized Slavs are considered Germanics or slavicized Germans as Slavs, i really don't see how Irish,Scots or welsh are "Celts".

Celts are an extincted (meaning assimilated) linguistic group so the answer to the original questions is that Ireland should be considered germanicized, thus Germanic.

Huzar
Thursday, June 8th, 2006, 03:58 PM
What defines germanicity

1.Culture - well,all know what is germanic culture.;)

2.Race - nordid,dalo-falid

3.Language - germanic language(german,swedish,holland...etc)

4.Religion - Asatru




Than, nations like France and Ireland surely aren't Germanic. And perhaps Finland neither.

Thruthheim
Thursday, June 8th, 2006, 04:10 PM
Than, nations like France and Ireland surely aren't Germanic. And perhaps Finland neither.

Yes, None of them are.

Fionn
Sunday, June 11th, 2006, 07:37 PM
Irish in general, and according to the Y Chromosome, to whom are more genetically close is to the Basques.

I don't believe that theory. Sounds like a pretty half-assed theory to me. Even if you have genetic evidence, what does that prove? You know what it proves to me? It proves that the Celts of the British Isles just happen to carry more of the genes that Basques have than other Europeans. Because, aren't all European related somehow or another? Sounds like a theory designed to make the Iberians feel like they're Nordic or related to Nordics.

I have to wonder if the people that make this claim have ever seen Irish people. I have never seen an Irish perosn who looks like a Basque.

Basques:

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h317/Adalwulf/BASQUE.jpg

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h317/Adalwulf/basque1.jpg

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h317/Adalwulf/basque2.jpg

Irish:


http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h317/Adalwulf/wolfetones.jpg

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h317/Adalwulf/jim-mccann-live-lg.gif

According to McCulloch, Ireland is 100% Nordish and Spain and Portugal are only 1% Nordish. http://www.racialcompact.com/nordishrace.html So, how is it that Irish are Basques?

Galaico
Sunday, June 11th, 2006, 08:09 PM
I don't believe that theory. Sounds like a pretty half-assed theory to me. Even if you have genetic evidence, what does that prove? You know what it proves to me? It proves that the Celts of the British Isles just happen to carry more of the genes that Basques have than other Europeans.
It is not a theory, it is genetic evidence, Irishmen the same as Basques share at a level of +90% the Y Chromosome sub-haplogroup R1b "Atlantic Modal Type", what means that their paternal linage is the SAME!


Sounds like a theory designed to make the Iberians feel like they're Nordic or related to Nordics.
Who says that? that's the most absurd thing I ever heard, we Iberians, are the most Mediterranid country in the world and I'm very proud of that. And what's more, who says Irish are predominantly Nordid? IMO they are mostly (North-)Atlantid and Brünn.


Basques:

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h317/Adalwulf/BASQUE.jpg

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h317/Adalwulf/basque1.jpg

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h317/Adalwulf/basque2.jpg
Only the first one is Basque. Wearing white clothes and a red shawl for San Fermines doesn't make you Basque.



According to McCulloch, Ireland is 100% Nordish and Spain and Portugal are only 1% Nordish. http://www.racialcompact.com/nordishrace.html So, how is it that Irish are Basques?
If McCulloch says so, then it must be true lol. And Nordish is a very broad term which includes unrelated sub-types.

You want to see true Basques? take a look at some of the Basque members of the Spanish Parliament:
http://www.congreso.es/diputados/fotos/281_8.jpghttp://www.congreso.es/diputados/fotos/324_8.jpghttp://www.congreso.es/diputados/fotos/268_8.jpg
http://www.congreso.es/diputados/fotos/283_8.jpghttp://www.congreso.es/diputados/fotos/107_8.jpghttp://www.congreso.es/diputados/fotos/279_8.jpg
http://www.congreso.es/diputados/fotos/143_8.jpghttp://www.congreso.es/diputados/fotos/98_8.jpghttp://www.congreso.es/diputados/fotos/282_8.jpg

Some of them are from PNV (Basque Nationalist right), others from Eusko Alkartasuna (Basque Nationalist Social-Democrat), others from PP (Spanish right) and others from PSOE (Spanish left), all of them have Basque surnames, and IMO they are quite different to your Mexican-Basques.

Mannerheim
Sunday, June 11th, 2006, 08:20 PM
According to McCulloch, Ireland is 100% Nordish and Spain and Portugal are only 1% Nordish. http://www.racialcompact.com/nordishrace.html So, how is it that Irish are Basques?

This sites information is first of all obsolete,inaccurate and trash.These numbers only points direction somewhere and thats why info is very inaccurate.

This McCulloch Einstein example have bundled Finland and the Baltic States to same package what is very incredible.So these 4 nations are exactly same racially...Bulls"""" say me.These nations does not share even border and theres a sea between these countries and still same racial composition...Incredible.

I wonder why some people still believes over 100 year old crap.


Couple of questions.


Example : If man who is over 2 meter tall,have golden blond hair and blue eyes is ladogan from his race...Is he considered nordish ?

Luxembourg = 80% Alpine....Bullsh"""

Finland and the Baltic States = 50% East Baltic..Bu"""hit.I am 100% sure that Finland is definetely not 50% east-baltic.Definetely not.

30% Neo-Danubian ? Wtf is neo-danubian ?




It is clear that this guy make up these numbers advantageous to his favourite countries.And when nordic race is considered generally to be superior race,he selected biggest amount of this type to his fav countries.

How should he have knew exact numbers of each countrys racial composition ?Finland was considered to be 100% mongol hundred years ago and next it is not but it is 50% east-baltic..What a trash.


I am angry cause these numbers are very false and some people may not like east-baltics that much(like me).

Over 50% Finlands population is nordic.Pure nordic or mixed to some extent to baltic but in this 50% the "nordicness" is ruling type.

Where do i know this some may wonder.Well,first of all,i live in Finland and second of all i have travelled very much Finland,all the way up the whole country and these people who think that example Lappland is sami and mongoloid mix lives their very own world.

I visited lappland some time ago and i saw tens and tens from little amount people what i saw,tall ,blond haired and pure halstatt individuals.

There would be wondering to this einstein McCulloch how can there be so many halstatts or even be halstatts in finnish Lappland.

Im so fu""""" pissed of these kind of stupid pseudo analysis.

I second myself : These studies are trash.Finland is one of the most nordic countires in the world and thats a fact.

Thruthheim
Sunday, June 11th, 2006, 09:04 PM
This sites information is first of all obsolete,inaccurate and trash.These numbers only points direction somewhere and thats why info is very inaccurate.

This McCulloch Einstein example have bundled Finland and the Baltic States to same package what is very incredible.So these 4 nations are exactly same racially...Bulls"""" say me.These nations does not share even border and theres a sea between these countries and still same racial composition...Incredible.

I wonder why some people still believes over 100 year old crap.


Couple of questions.


Example : If man who is over 2 meter tall,have golden blond hair and blue eyes is ladogan from his race...Is he considered nordish ?

Luxembourg = 80% Alpine....Bullsh"""

Finland and the Baltic States = 50% East Baltic..Bu"""hit.I am 100% sure that Finland is definetely not 50% east-baltic.Definetely not.

30% Neo-Danubian ? Wtf is neo-danubian ?




It is clear that this guy make up these numbers advantageous to his favourite countries.And when nordic race is considered generally to be superior race,he selected biggest amount of this type to his fav countries.

How should he have knew exact numbers of each countrys racial composition ?Finland was considered to be 100% mongol hundred years ago and next it is not but it is 50% east-baltic..What a trash.


I am angry cause these numbers are very false and some people may not like east-baltics that much(like me).

Over 50% Finlands population is nordic.Pure nordic or mixed to some extent to baltic but in this 50% the "nordicness" is ruling type.

Where do i know this some may wonder.Well,first of all,i live in Finland and second of all i have travelled very much Finland,all the way up the whole country and these people who think that example Lappland is sami and mongoloid mix lives their very own world.

I visited lappland some time ago and i saw tens and tens from little amount people what i saw,tall ,blond haired and pure halstatt individuals.

There would be wondering to this einstein McCulloch how can there be so many halstatts or even be halstatts in finnish Lappland.

Im so fu""""" pissed of these kind of stupid pseudo analysis.

I second myself : These studies are trash.Finland is one of the most nordic countires in the world and thats a fact.

If you were more objective in your arguments then they would be more credible, but you are quite reactionary and won't accept debate or opinion if it differs from your own idea of things. McCulloch is indeed no expert i agree, but even if the likes of Lundman and Coon said so, I imagine you'd still argue against it, simply because you don't like the idea of the "East Baltid".

You must be rational about these scientific racial arguments, and bias must be kept to a minimum. Otherwise discussion degenerates into Childs talk. :)

Mannerheim
Sunday, June 11th, 2006, 10:18 PM
If you were more objective in your arguments then they would be more credible, but you are quite reactionary and won't accept debate or opinion if it differs from your own idea of things. McCulloch is indeed no expert i agree, but even if the likes of Lundman and Coon said so, I imagine you'd still argue against it, simply because you don't like the idea of the "East Baltid".

You must be rational about these scientific racial arguments, and bias must be kept to a minimum. Otherwise discussion degenerates into Childs talk. :)

I can honestly ascertain that i know Finlands racial composition MUCH better than trio Coon,McCulloch or Lundman who havent ever even been in Finland,have not studied anything concerning Finland or arent interested in Finland.I thenagain know all these cause im finnish and i have travelled much trough Finland.And for example the story that karelians would be darker and would be more like their own sub-type(what i have noticed here) is imho very very false.I have seen many karelian families who are pure halstatts.

How can some foreigners know better Finlands racial composition than finnish(example me).

I have also seen in Lappland so many halstatts that this pseudo-trio would be amazed.And all these lapplands halstatts cant be from south.

I wouldnt dare to even guess any other countrys racial composition if i wouldnt be 150% sure about it cause it may hurt some feelings.

This Luxembourgs assumed 80% alpinid composition is so absurd that it cant be real in any way.Like i said,im not going to start giving guessing this small countrys racial composition but even fool can understand that this is false.


I admit that im so called reactionary at least when it comes to Finlands racial composition and i sure get angry when some foreigners(McCulloch,Coon) start giving the so called real results.McCulloch and Coon,these real finns.


Of course there is east-baltids in Finland but i strongly believe that it is highly and i mean f"""""ing highly overrated.Too highly.

And there is also big difference between east-baltid/baltid/west-baltid.

I think baltids and west-baltids are the real beautiful baltids but this east-baltid is lappoid mix what looks like chinese.

I have no idea where have this scientist trio got this number that 50% east-baltids.


Though there may have been also big misunderstanding and this trio may have mingled baltids(west-baltids) to east-baltids cause example here,the east-baltic looks normal imho,no lappoid mix.


http://earlson.skadi.net/race/rassen.htm



I dont know how could i concretely prove this to you that Finland is mostly nordic.

School pictures was quite good thing.

I dont want to start any childish fights but converse constructively.


Some people tend to classify certain nations or groups of people to some not so great racial type that they themselves would feel certain superiority.This is historical fact and this have been used against Finland justifying this countrys occupation.It was politics back then.

What i mean is that much of these infos are obsolete that i wonder why people still trust so blindly to them even in 21th century.

Lissu
Monday, June 12th, 2006, 07:02 AM
Back on topic, why Ireland should be considered as Germanic? Of course defining who is what is a slippery slope, Linguistically they are Germanic because today Ireland's original language is almost extinct and by language they are Germanic. But nevertheless the Irish are Celtic, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with being Celtic, on the contrary.

I can't consider even so called "Finlandswedes" as Germanic because majority of them are merely descendants of Finns who changed their language from Finnish to Swedish during 18th century when there were an active attempt to kill Finnish language (the end of the era of Swedish empire stopped this process, and good so!), and only less than 20% of Swedish speakers in Finland have some actual Swedish roots.

Thruthheim
Monday, June 12th, 2006, 10:50 AM
Back on topic, why Ireland should be considered as Germanic? Of course defining who is what is a slippery slope, Linguistically they are Germanic because today Ireland's original language is almost extinct and by language they are Germanic. But nevertheless the Irish are Celtic, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with being Celtic, on the contrary.

I can't consider even so called "Finlandswedes" as Germanic because majority of them are merely descendants of Finns who changed their language from Finnish to Swedish during 18th century when there were an active attempt to kill Finnish language (the end of the era of Swedish empire stopped this process, and good so!), and only less than 20% of Swedish speakers in Finland have some actual Swedish roots.

But if our idea of what Germanic is, is based on only what language we speak, I don't think its much of a unifying source.
I think to be Germanic you certainly need to speak a Germanic language as your first language, but it doesn't end there, i think whats also relevant is ancestry, heritage and race. All of these intertwine and meet at some point, but defining it and all coming to an aggreement is the hardest step.

Lissu
Monday, June 12th, 2006, 05:19 PM
But if our idea of what Germanic is, is based on only what language we speak, I don't think its much of a unifying source.
I think to be Germanic you certainly need to speak a Germanic language as your first language, but it doesn't end there, i think whats also relevant is ancestry, heritage and race. All of these intertwine and meet at some point, but defining it and all coming to an aggreement is the hardest step.Ancestry, heritage and race? How about culture?

I totally agree that defining Germanic (as an example) is extremely difficult, if not impossible. There are almost 200 million Germanic language speakers in Europe alone. But then, one inherites his/her genes only from biological parents, but language can be learned from someone else also. Also culture can be adapted from someone else. Phenotype is inherited from parents only, and because the group of Germanic language speakers is so terribly large, also phenotypes vary greatly among speakers. In the case of Germanics, perhaps it's better to say that Germanics are Europids because phenotype can be anything from UP and Alpinid to Nordid and Med.

And culture? It also varies between different Germanic nations... Which one should be the default culture?

Theudiskaz
Monday, June 12th, 2006, 05:40 PM
Ancestry, heritage and race? How about culture?Absolutely. Culture is of the greatest importance in determining whether a country is Germanic. There is no one modern country that should be chosen as the supreme example of a Germanic culture. Instead we should look at how much the country in question, as a whole, approximates the ancient Teutons in language, culture, and race. I think this is objective enough. Most Irishmen speak English, but are most of them racially and culturally Germanic?...No. It is even more difficult to determine whether one country is more Germanic than another (and probably not such a good idea).

Huzar
Monday, June 12th, 2006, 05:46 PM
But if our idea of what Germanic is, is based on only what language we speak, I don't think its much of a unifying source.
I think to be Germanic you certainly need to speak a Germanic language as your first language, but it doesn't end there, i think whats also relevant is ancestry, heritage and race. All of these intertwine and meet at some point, but defining it and all coming to an aggreement is the hardest step.


Indeed. "Germanic" is a combination of several determinant factors. A factor alone, without the others, doesn't mean anything. The race too, considered the most important factor by most, isn't relevant, without the others..................example : here in northern Italy there are many cromagnid, Atlantid and Nordid people, but this doesn't mean italy being Germanic (germanic influenced, probable, but for sure not Germanic properly). To be nordic doesn't mean to be Germanic.

Mannerheim
Monday, June 12th, 2006, 05:51 PM
Indeed. "Germanic" is a combination of several determinant factors. A factor alone, without the others, doesn't mean anything. The race too, considered the most important factor by most, isn't relevant, without the others..................example : here in northern Italy there are many cromagnid, Atlantid and Nordid people, but this doesn't mean italy being Germanic (germanic influenced, probable, but for sure not Germanic properly).

I think northern Italy should isolate or make its own country cause it is so different racially than souther Italy. ;)

In the south ,italians look almost like arabs and northern africans but in north they could finely pass for scandinavians.

Huzar : Do you have exact number of northern Italys population ?

Cheers

Huzar
Monday, June 12th, 2006, 07:38 PM
I think northern Italy should isolate or make its own country cause it is so different racially than souther Italy. ;)


Well, to be sincere, many yers ago, a political party named "LEGA NORD", asked the secession of northern part of the country.............



In the south ,italians look almost like arabs and northern africans but in north they could finely pass for scandinavians.


Don't exaggerate ;). Obviously it isn't so. Simply, native northern italians, on average look a bit like central europeans, while southern italians look like standard mediterraneans (greeks, Spaniards, etc.)



Huzar : Do you have exact number of northern Italys population ?

Cheers

Native northern italians are about 20 millions (less or more).

Alkman
Monday, June 12th, 2006, 11:07 PM
In the south ,italians look almost like arabs and northern africans but in north they could finely pass for scandinavians.
There's a noticable subracial diversion between northern and southern Italians but let's not get carried away.

dazed&confused
Wednesday, June 14th, 2006, 06:59 PM
Basques:

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h317/Adalwulf/BASQUE.jpg

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h317/Adalwulf/basque1.jpg

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h317/Adalwulf/basque2.jpg


c'mon dude, those aren't real Basques. I guess the pics are from Racial Reality, which isn't always a reliable source of informations.
I bet RR didn't even bother to make sure where are the subjects portrayed really from.

Galaico
Wednesday, June 14th, 2006, 07:41 PM
c'mon dude, those aren't real Basques. I guess the pics are from Racial Reality, which isn't always a reliable source of informations.
I bet RR didn't even bother to make sure where are the subjects portrayed really from.
I think Adalwulf knows very well those aren't real Basques, it was all a failed attempt of manipulation, or wasn't it Adalwulf?

Mannerheim
Thursday, June 15th, 2006, 03:00 PM
Well, to be sincere, many yers ago, a political party named "LEGA NORD", asked the secession of northern part of the country.............


Lol :D I meant it like half joke but if this Lega Nord is serious then good for them.


Don't exaggerate ;). Obviously it isn't so. Simply, native northern italians, on average look a bit like central europeans, while southern italians look like standard mediterraneans (greeks, Spaniards, etc.)

Yes of course.I exaggerated it a lot but when i visited in Italy couple of years ago the difference was imo quite big between northern and southern Italy.

Ive also seen northern italians(i think they were northern italians) in Finland who had blond hair and blue eyes.


Native northern italians are about 20 millions (less or more

Quite interesting.

Well italians are generally very stylish and beautiful people whether they are meds or nordid + med mixes.


There's a noticable subracial diversion between northern and southern Italians but let's not get carried away.

Yes, i exaggerated it a bit.

Fionn
Thursday, June 15th, 2006, 05:43 PM
I think Adalwulf knows very well those aren't real Basques, it was all a failed attempt of manipulation, or wasn't it Adalwulf?

Manipulation, hardly. Simply trying to prove to you how different the Basques and Irish are. It takes common sense to realize that they are not the same people. Maybe some Irish are related to them distantly, but it doesn't seem very logical to me that the first group of Europeans would have taken boats up to the British Isles from Iberia...

Galaico
Thursday, June 15th, 2006, 06:41 PM
Manipulation, hardly. Simply trying to prove to you how different the Basques and Irish are.
With fake pics? Sorry, but that sounds to manipulation.

It takes common sense to realize that they are not the same people.
Never said they were the same people, Basques are Basques and Irish are Irish, that's clear. At least we agree in something.

Maybe some Irish are related to them distantly, but it doesn't seem very logical to me that the first group of Europeans would have taken boats up to the British Isles from Iberia...
You show very little knowledge of Ireland. The first inhabitants of Ireland, that first arrived there 12,000 years ago after the Glacier ice retreated, were proto-Iberians that came from the Glacier Iberian refuge in Northern Spain. They didn't need any ships or boats, as the British Isles were still connected to the continent due to the low sea level.

There's even more, according to the Irish and Galician (Spanish) mythology, the Milesians, or Goidelic Celts invaded Ireland in the 1st or 2nd century B.C., and they came from Galicia (Spain). They descended from the Galician warlord Breogán, founder of the Celtic nation.
All this is only mythology, but the truth is that Celts and their descendants have lived in Galicia for centuries. The Galician Celtic tribe was called Callaic or Gallaec similar to the Irish Gaelic. The tower from where the legend says that Galamh's uncle (Galahm was the king of the Milesians), Ith, first saw Hibernia still exists (Heracle's Tower), in the city that was allegedly founded by the Milesians, Brigantia (after a Celtic Godess), later Brigantium and actually La Coruña.

Fionn
Thursday, June 15th, 2006, 08:12 PM
With fake pics? Sorry, but that sounds to manipulation.

Never said they were the same people, Basques are Basques and Irish are Irish, that's clear. At least we agree in something.

You show very little knowledge of Ireland. The first inhabitants of Ireland, that first arrived there 12,000 years ago after the Glacier ice retreated, were proto-Iberians that came from the Glacier Iberian refuge in Northern Spain. They didn't need any ships or boats, as the British Isles were still connected to the continent due to the low sea level.

There's even more, according to the Irish and Galician (Spanish) mythology, the Milesians, or Goidelic Celts invaded Ireland in the 1st or 2nd century B.C., and they came from Galicia (Spain). They descended from the Galician warlord Breogán, founder of the Celtic nation.
All this is only mythology, but the truth is that Celts and their descendants have lived in Galicia for centuries. The Galician Celtic tribe was called Callaic or Gallaec similar to the Irish Gaelic. The tower from where the legend says that Galamh's uncle (Galahm was the king of the Milesians), Ith, first saw Hibernia still exists (Heracle's Tower), in the city that was allegedly founded by the Milesians, Brigantia (after a Celtic Godess), later Brigantium and actually La Coruña.

First of all if those pics are fake then contact the people who made this site and complain to them: http://racialreality.shorturl.com/

Is there any archaelogical evidence of Iberians in Ireland or the British Isles? And you're going by mythology to prove your point?

Jäger
Thursday, June 15th, 2006, 08:12 PM
He is Basque
http://irreel.org/curriculum/photo-daniel-grande.jpg

So are these guys
http://velonews.com/galleries/contest21a/Basque%20Fans%20TdF-%20by%20Jerry%20Kelly.jpg

Fionn
Thursday, June 15th, 2006, 08:15 PM
So are these guys
http://velonews.com/galleries/contest21a/Basque%20Fans%20TdF-%20by%20Jerry%20Kelly.jpg

Basque fruits, eh? Not a pleasant pic...

Galaico
Thursday, June 15th, 2006, 10:52 PM
Is there any archaelogical evidence of Iberians in Ireland or the British Isles?
First of all, they were not Iberians but proto-Iberians, and no I don't have any archeological evidence, but I have racial and genetic evidence.
The haplogroup R1b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M343) developed in Iberia around 35,000 years ago, according to most genetists, and what is sure is that at least the sub-haplogroup "R1b AMT" developed in Iberia. According to Cavalli-Sforza +90% of Irishmen share the haplogroup R1b, and the immense majority of those, share the sub-haplogroup R1b "AMT".

Racially, well, have you ever visited Ireland? Atlantid/Atlantomediterranid types are very common, also known as Silurian type. These types are also widely found in parts of Britain.


And you're going by mythology to prove your point?
Mythology is mythology, nothing more nothing less, I think I left that very clear in my previous post, but usually all mythology and legend has a historical basis, and I find it quite strange that Irish have Galician warlords in their mythology, and talk about Galician cities and towers (that truely exist), if they are not connected in any way.

BTW, you are the only "Irish" I know who denies all the evidence.

http://www.dnaheritage.com/masterclass2.asp
http://home.comcast.net/~libpjr1/haplogroupI.htm

Fionn
Friday, June 16th, 2006, 12:09 AM
I do not deny the genetic evidence and that the groups are related, because obviously all Europeans are related. I simply question the theory of how the Iberians arrived in the British Isles and that the people of the British Isles are unaltered Iberians. It is obvious that Britons and Irish have much Nordic blood, unlike this site likes to portray under the "Britons" section http://racialreality.shorturl.com/. If I'm not mistaken this theory is relatively new because I had never heard of it until a few months ago. Now, everyone seems to buy into it.

It seemed to me that what you were trying to say before was that the groups were one in the same, as the makers of this mod for Rome: Total War seem to think: (note the Gaelic Units in the Iberian army unit list) http://www.europabarbarorum.com/factions_iberia_units.html

My apologies, my friend. No offence intended.

Oswiu
Friday, June 16th, 2006, 04:02 AM
The tower from where the legend says that Galamh's uncle (Galahm was the king of the Milesians), Ith, first saw Hibernia still exists (Heracle's Tower), in the city that was allegedly founded by the Milesians, Brigantia (after a Celtic Godess), later Brigantium and actually La Coruña.

Bloody Hell! Can you show us a photo?

Galaico
Friday, June 16th, 2006, 07:09 PM
My apologies, my friend. No offence intended.
It's okay, no problem. :thumbup


Bloody Hell! Can you show us a photo?
http://www.aytolacoruna.es/archivoimagenes?parametros=cnV0YT0yMDAyL zgvMjcmaW1hZ2U9MTAzMDQzMDQ5OTU2Ni04MzAmZ m9ybWF0bz1qcGVnJnJlc2l6ZT00MDB4MzAw
http://www.udc.es/dep/com/graficos/hercules/hercu005.gif
http://www.geocities.com/detapeo/torre3grande.jpg
http://www.jgreen.de/pictures/2005/January/coruna-pics/DSCN0773.jpg

The original tower was reconstructed by the Romans in the II century (if we beleive the legend, if not, it was constructed by the Romans) and used as a light house, later it was reformed (recovered), in the XVIII century.

http://www.udc.es/dep/com/graficos/hercules/hercu2a.jpg

Here you can have a view from Heracle's tower:
http://www.lavozdegalicia.es/galicia360/pelicula.jsp?foto=3

XgustaX
Wednesday, June 28th, 2006, 06:38 AM
dude language has almost nothing to do with whether you are Germanic or not many Germanics ditched there old languages and took upon new ones.

Angelcynn Beorn
Friday, July 7th, 2006, 03:24 AM
Racially, well, have you ever visited Ireland? Atlantid/Atlantomediterranid types are very common, also known as Silurian type. These types are also widely found in parts of Britain.

I've been to both Ireland and Spain, and racially they are very, very different.

In terms of their racial connection to the Basques, refuting racial myths does a good job of exposing that theory.


The lists below show genetic distances between the Irish and the Basque and selected poulations based on Cavalli-Sforza's analysis of data on 'classical' markers (from HGHG, Table 5.5.1.)

Distance from Irish

Irish 0
Scottish 29
English 30
Danish 68
Belgian 75
Dutch 76
Norwegian 79
Spanish 113
Basque 145

Distance from Basque

Basque 0
French 93
Spanish 104
Belgian 107
Dutch 118
English 119
Russian 140
Italian 141
Irish 145


The Irish are more closely related to all north-west and north-central Europeans than they are to the Basque. Basques are more closely related the English, the Dutch, and even Russians than they are to the Irish, according to autosomal data.

http://www.white-history.com/refuting_rm/racial_reality.html

Valdi
Friday, July 7th, 2006, 04:43 PM
Not only the Germanic people are Blonde or have blue eyes.

As for Ireland, from what ive seen they are manly celtic in apperance.

I dont know why you want to be called Germanic so much, you have a great history and unique

Oswiu
Friday, July 7th, 2006, 08:54 PM
On behalf of my Irish forebears, I thank you for your spelling mistake;

As for Ireland, from what ive seen they are manly celtic in apperance.
;) :thumbup

Rhydderch
Saturday, July 8th, 2006, 02:55 AM
Manipulation, hardly. Simply trying to prove to you how different the Basques and Irish are. It takes common sense to realize that they are not the same people. Maybe some Irish are related to them distantly, but it doesn't seem very logical to me that the first group of Europeans would have taken boats up to the British Isles from Iberia...It's more logical when one considers that ocean currents and prevailing winds come up from the south-west into the British Isles; however, the Palaeolithic people probably came from France, and the same with some of the Mesolithic (others at this time probably came from Denmark); the earliest Neolithic people also came from France, but subsequently seafarers came directly from the Mediterranean, including the Megalithic people (Atlanto-mediterraneans).

I don't know whether we can strictly call them Iberians considering they may not have been in Spain for long before setting off. It's more a case of them coming from the Eastern Mediterranean and spreading into a number of lands including both Spain and the British Isles.

The Bronze Age arrived in Ireland with the "Food Vessel" people from (judging by archaeological evidence) Northern Spain, whose skulls were of Dinaric type, and in my opinion they were the Celts.

There are definitely many Irish and Spaniards (particularly in the North) who resemble each other, but I think this is partly to do with the presence of a Brunn type in the latter country. So again it's really just a matter of frequency; the types are largely the same in both countries, but the lighter types are much commoner in Ireland, and also the short Mediterraneans are much commoner in most of Spain than the tall ones, but it seems to be the other way round in Ireland.

And finally, there is the very dark stocky type (probably Berid) common in Spain which, if it exists at all in Ireland, is rare.

Oswiu
Saturday, July 8th, 2006, 03:03 AM
I don't know whether we can strictly call them Iberians considering they may not have been in Spain for long before setting off. It's more a case of them coming from the Eastern Mediterranean and spreading into a number of lands including both Spain and the British Isles.

How do you figure that? Eastern Mediterranean?

Rhydderch
Saturday, July 8th, 2006, 03:25 AM
How do you figure that? Eastern Mediterranean?Well, they were Neolithic sea-faring people who appear abruptly on the scene in the Western Mediterranean, so one would assume they originally came from further east, like the other Neolithic Mediterraneans. But my basic point is that they didn't originate in Spain, but came from elsewhere and entered the Iberian peninsula and the British Isles.

Zagas
Saturday, July 8th, 2006, 04:18 AM
Many people are saying that Irish came from Spain but by what I read and heard that's wrong. They just came from the northwest of Iberia, just northwest (not all Spain). They are different people, they are the Gallaecs.

http://www.jotapeges.com/out.php/i27966_hggff.jpg

That northwest place is not called Spain but Gallaecia. That was the name of that celtic country that now is divided and occupied by Portugal and Spain and is trying to get independance (as all celtic countries but Ireland)

You also can read this genetic study

"We are not Celts at all but Galicians

CELTIC nations such as Scotland and Ireland have more in common with the Portuguese and Spanish than with the Celts of central Europe, according to a new academic report.
Historians have long believed that the British Isles were swamped by a massive invasion of Iron Age Celts from central Europe around 500BC.
However, geneticists at Trinity College in Dublin now claim that the Scots and Irish have more in common with the people of north-western Spain.
Dr Daniel Bradley, genetics lecturer at Trinity College, said a new study into Celtic origins revealed close affinities with the people of Galicia.
He said: "It's well-known that there are cultural relations between the areas but now this shows there is much more. We think the links are much older than that of the Iron Age because it also shows affinities with the Basque region, which isn't a Celtic region."
He added: "The links point towards other Celtic nations, in particular Scotland, but they also point to Spain."
Historians believed the Celts, originally Indo-European, invaded the Atlantic islands in a massive migration 2500 years ago.
But using DNA samples from people living in Celtic nations and other parts of Europe, geneticists at the university have drawn new parallels.
Dr Bradley said it was possible migrants moved from the Iberian peninsula to Ireland as far back as 6000 years ago up until 3000 years ago.
"I don't agree with the idea of a massive Iron Age invasion that took over the Atlantic islands. You can regard the ocean, rather than a barrier, as a communication route," Dr Bradley said.
Archaeologists have also been questioning the links between the Celts of eastern France and southern Germany and the people of the British Isles and the new research appears to prove their theories.
The Dublin study found that people in areas traditionally known as Celtic, such as Ireland, Wales, Scotland, Brittany and Cornwall, had strong links with each other and had more in common with people from the Iberian peninsula.
It also found people in Ireland have more in common with Scots than any other nation.
"What we would propose is that this commonality among the Atlantic facade is much older, 6000 years ago or earlier," Dr Bradley added.
There are also close links between Scotland and Ireland dating back much further than the plantations of the 1600s when many Scots moved to Northern Ireland in search of fertile farming lands, the research showed.
However, the researchers could not determine whether fair skin, freckles, red hair and fiery tempers truly are Celtic traits.
Stephen Oppenheimer, professor of clinical socio-medical sciences at Oxford, said that the Celts of western Scotland, Wales, Ireland and Cornwall were descended from an ancient people living on the Atlantic coast when Britain was still attached to mainland Europe, while the English were more closely related to the Germanic peoples of the interior.
He said: "The English are the odd ones out because they are the ones more linked to continental Europe. The Scots, the Irish, the Welsh and the Cornish are all very similar in their genetic pattern to the Basque."


The study headed by Dr Bradley was published in the American Journal of Human Genetics."

Fionn
Saturday, July 8th, 2006, 11:58 PM
Not only the Germanic people are Blonde or have blue eyes.

As for Ireland, from what ive seen they are manly celtic in apperance.

I dont know why you want to be called Germanic so much, you have a great history and unique

I don't think you realize how blonde many Irish babies are. Not only do I see this in my family but in many others that I know. And blue eyes are not strictly limited to Germanics. Blue eyes occur just as frequently in Ireland as they do in Scandinavia... So you see blonde hair and blue eyes doesn't equal Germanic.

Galaico
Sunday, July 9th, 2006, 05:15 PM
Many people are saying that Irish came from Spain but by what I read and heard that's wrong. They just came from the northwest of Iberia, just northwest (not all Spain). They are different people, they are the Gallaecs.
That's what the legends say, and it might be kind of truth, as probably the Celtic culture arrived to Ireland from Galicia, but as I've already said the Irish population has changed very little since prehistoric times, and the first human settlers to colonise the British Isles came from the Iberian Glacier refuge, difficult to say from which part of Iberia, but according to prehistoric remains such as cave paintings, I would bet for the Cantabric mountains.


That northwest place is not called Spain but Gallaecia. That was the name of that celtic country that now is divided and occupied by Portugal and Spain and is trying to get independance (as all celtic countries but Ireland)
Really? That we Galicians recognise our common history and ties with North Portugal, doesn't mean we are aiming for independence. In the last regional elections the moderate autonomists received 19.6% of the votes and the radical separatists only 0.3%, and by the way, both of them are extremely marxist. Most Galicians are proud Spaniards.

Valdi
Monday, July 10th, 2006, 08:35 PM
I don't think you realize how blonde many Irish babies are. Not only do I see this in my family but in many others that I know. And blue eyes are not strictly limited to Germanics. Blue eyes occur just as frequently in Ireland as they do in Scandinavia... So you see blonde hair and blue eyes doesn't equal Germanic.

that is exactly what i ment...

Fionn
Sunday, July 30th, 2006, 02:01 AM
that is exactly what i ment...

Ah, wasn't quite sure what you were trying to say in that post.

Nixie
Thursday, August 10th, 2006, 04:45 AM
Christianism is definitely non-European in origin, but it is in adoption. It is part of Europe's culture, and helped to unify our continent.

Are you kidding? Christianity has been the single worst cause of wars and bloodshed throughout Europe in recorded history! It has caused almost endless dischord and an atrocious amount of Germanic-on-Germanic violence, never mind setting European culture back hundreds of years during the "Dark Ages". It astonishes me that anyone can say such a thing about this scourge on humanity.:-O

Nixie
Thursday, August 10th, 2006, 08:24 PM
So, does this mean someone of Irish, Scottish, Cornish and English ancestry is Gallaeco-Germanic rather than Kelto-Germanic? Or does the study mean not that Britons are only Gallaecian but a mixture of Gallaecian and Keltic?
Boy, this could get VERY confusing!!! Really, who's going to stop calling those cultures Keltic? Like trying to turn the Titanic! :D

ETA - Also, if the Scottish and Irish are not Keltic, then what exactly is Keltic??? I mean, to most people, the definition of Keltic is "Irish and Scottish". So what does that leave us with??
Even the article itself has difficulties - it continues to call them "Celtic countries" throughout the article, lol.


Many people are saying that Irish came from Spain but by what I read and heard that's wrong. They just came from the northwest of Iberia, just northwest (not all Spain). They are different people, they are the Gallaecs.

That northwest place is not called Spain but Gallaecia. That was the name of that celtic country that now is divided and occupied by Portugal and Spain and is trying to get independance (as all celtic countries but Ireland)

You also can read this genetic study

"We are not Celts at all but Galicians

CELTIC nations such as Scotland and Ireland have more in common with the Portuguese and Spanish than with the Celts of central Europe, according to a new academic report.
Historians have long believed that the British Isles were swamped by a massive invasion of Iron Age Celts from central Europe around 500BC.
However, geneticists at Trinity College in Dublin now claim that the Scots and Irish have more in common with the people of north-western Spain.
Dr Daniel Bradley, genetics lecturer at Trinity College, said a new study into Celtic origins revealed close affinities with the people of Galicia.
He said: "It's well-known that there are cultural relations between the areas but now this shows there is much more. We think the links are much older than that of the Iron Age because it also shows affinities with the Basque region, which isn't a Celtic region."
He added: "The links point towards other Celtic nations, in particular Scotland, but they also point to Spain."
Historians believed the Celts, originally Indo-European, invaded the Atlantic islands in a massive migration 2500 years ago.
But using DNA samples from people living in Celtic nations and other parts of Europe, geneticists at the university have drawn new parallels.
Dr Bradley said it was possible migrants moved from the Iberian peninsula to Ireland as far back as 6000 years ago up until 3000 years ago.
"I don't agree with the idea of a massive Iron Age invasion that took over the Atlantic islands. You can regard the ocean, rather than a barrier, as a communication route," Dr Bradley said.
Archaeologists have also been questioning the links between the Celts of eastern France and southern Germany and the people of the British Isles and the new research appears to prove their theories.
The Dublin study found that people in areas traditionally known as Celtic, such as Ireland, Wales, Scotland, Brittany and Cornwall, had strong links with each other and had more in common with people from the Iberian peninsula.
It also found people in Ireland have more in common with Scots than any other nation.
"What we would propose is that this commonality among the Atlantic facade is much older, 6000 years ago or earlier," Dr Bradley added.
There are also close links between Scotland and Ireland dating back much further than the plantations of the 1600s when many Scots moved to Northern Ireland in search of fertile farming lands, the research showed.
However, the researchers could not determine whether fair skin, freckles, red hair and fiery tempers truly are Celtic traits.
Stephen Oppenheimer, professor of clinical socio-medical sciences at Oxford, said that the Celts of western Scotland, Wales, Ireland and Cornwall were descended from an ancient people living on the Atlantic coast when Britain was still attached to mainland Europe, while the English were more closely related to the Germanic peoples of the interior.
He said: "The English are the odd ones out because they are the ones more linked to continental Europe. The Scots, the Irish, the Welsh and the Cornish are all very similar in their genetic pattern to the Basque."


The study headed by Dr Bradley was published in the American Journal of Human Genetics."

Eberhardt
Friday, August 11th, 2006, 05:18 PM
Here's an interesting change in the recent influx of constant "evidence" of "non-Celtic" Celts. And please, click on "RM" in blue underlined font to see where the "Racial Reality" site comes from.

http://www.white-history.com/refuting_rm/racial_reality.html

" In August of 2003, RM (http://www.white-history.com/refuting_rm/rm.html) renamed his site "Racial Reality", mainly in response to "Racial Myths" having been shown for the joke it is by this site. Besides changing the name, RM redesigned his site to try to make it appear more "objective" to unwary visitors (or, as RM himself recently put it, "Racial Reality" targets "uninformed web surfers"). However, most of the material used remains unchanged, and the refutations on this page still stand. Below, I respond to what little new material RM has added.

Basques are the "purest" Europeans?


RM claims Basques are:
confirmed to be the oldest, most genetically pure of all European populations . . . lacking recent non-European admixtureRM cherry-picks a single study which found no "Neolithic" male lineages in a Basque sample, and goes on to conclude that "'mixed-looking' phenotypes . . . are entirely native to Europe". Actually, Basques "are little more of a Mesolithic relict than any other European population" (M. Richards, Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2003. 32:135–62). On the male side, Basques tend to be low in "<A href="http://www.white-history.com/refuting_rm/admixture.html#neolithic">Neolithic" ancestry compared to southern Europeans, but not especially low compared to northwestern Europeans.


Most Basques are of course not racially ambiguous in appearance, but as regards those who are it is incorrect to claim they are necessarily of "pure" European ancestry. Berber haplogroup E-M81 has been detected in at least two seperate samples of Spanish (but not French) Basques (Cruciani et al., Am J Hum Genet. 2004 May;74(5):1014-22; Semino et al., Am J Hum Genet. 2004 May;74(5):1023-34), and:
The relatively young TMRCA of 5.6 ky (95% CI 4.6–6.3 ky) that we estimated for haplogroup E-M81 and the lack of differentiation between European and African haplotypes in the network of E-M81 (fig. 2C) support the hypothesis of recent gene flow between northwestern Africa and Iberia. (Cruciani et al. 2004)Note that in Europe, E-M81 is found only in Iberia and Italy (i.e., Berber ancestry is detected in Portugal, Spain, and Italy, but not in Britain; Cruciani et al. (2004) did detect E-M81 in (non-Basque) France, but their sample consisted of blood donors, and I assume E-M81 in France is associated with recent North African and Portuguese immigrants). So the presence of E-M81 in Spanish Basques makes them quite a lot less "pure" than most other Europeans when it comes to Berber ancestry.
It is true that there have probably been both "light" and "dark" types in Europe since the Paleolithic, as I've pointed out before. It's also conceivable that one may occasionally come across a pondersome looking European who owes his phenotype to chance recombination of native European genes, rather than non-European ancestry. However, RM is wrong to claim Basques are "pure" and therefore "ambiguous" Basques necessarily reflect indigenous phenotypes. It's even more logically unsound to draw an analogy between Basques, who overwhelmingly carry Paleolithic European Y chromosomes and who only rarely look "ambiguous", and southern Italians, most of whom carry non-European Y chromosomes and many of whom show a non-European cast.

"Celts" are closely related to Basques?


Claims such as the following have appeared in the press over the past few years:
The Welsh and Irish Celts have been found to be the genetic blood-brothers of Basques, scientists have revealed. (<A href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1256894.stm">BBC News)The connection is this: Western British and Irish populations share with the Basque very high frequencies of R1b Y chromosomes. Below, I'll show that Basques and "Celts" are distinct in their frequencies of autosomal and mtDNA markers, but first some background on R1b.

Y haplogroup R1b


R1b is associated with some of the earliest inhabitants of Europe who have left male line descendants down to the present. The Y chromosomes ancestral to R1b probably entered Europe over 30,000 years ago, carried by "Cro-Magnons". During the Last Glacial Maximum, climate change forced Europeans into a handful of refugia in southern Europe (R1b is associated with a refuge in southwestern Europe; I with a refuge in central Europe or the Balkans; and R1a with a refuge in the Ukraine). It is of course incorrect to assume the ice age inhabitants of these refugia were related in appearance to modern southern Europeans. According to Stephen Oppenheimer:
The archaeology shows us how the south-western refuge of the Basque country drew cultures and presumably people down from north-west Europe during the lead up to the LGM. (Out of Eden, p. 251) Oppenheimer points out that both Y and mtDNA evidence support the view from archaeology. Following the LGM, the descendants of northern European hunters expanded back into northern Europe, leaving a strong imprint on the Basque male gene pool. Today, most of the inhabitants of northern Europe have a mix of Y chromosomes from the major refugia. But due to geographic isolation, the inhabitants of western Britain and Ireland have maintained very high levels of R1b. This makes them extremely distant cousins to the Basque, not "blood-brothers". We can also note that the Y chromosome pools of Basques and "Celts" are strongly differentiated in some ways. For example, as noted above (http://www.white-history.com/refuting_rm/racial_reality.html#basques), Spanish Basques have experienced gene flow from Berbers, while "Celts" have not. Moreover, mutations like R1b8, which mark more recent expansions from Iberia, are found in western Britain only sporadically and not at elevated frequencies compared to eastern Britain.

Autosomal markers The lists below show genetic distances between the Irish and the Basque and selected poulations based on Cavalli-Sforza's analysis of data on 'classical' markers (from HGHG, Table 5.5.1.)


Distance from Irish
Irish 0
Scottish 29
English 30
Danish 68
Belgian 75
Dutch 76
Norwegian 79
Spanish 113
Basque 145


Distance from Basque

Basque 0
French 93
Spanish 104
Belgian 107
Dutch 118
English 119
Russian 140
Italian 141
Irish 145


The Irish are more closely related to all north-west and north-central Europeans than they are to the Basque. Basques are more closely related the English, the Dutch, and even Russians than they are to the Irish, according to autosomal data. We can also note that in the fifth PC of classical variation in Europe -- which C-S claims "corresponds to the progressive retreat of the boundary of the Basque language" -- Ireland (along with Britain, Scandinavia, and a large swathe of central Europe) is at the opposite pole from Basque country. Iberia, France, Italy, even Russia and the Caucasus are closer to Basque country on this PC than Ireland is.

mtDNA The plot below shows that when considering mtDNA the Irish and Welsh are distinct from the Basque and these "Celts" cluster with other northern Europeans (Source: PNAS 98(9):5078-5083 (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/9/5078)).

http://www.white-history.com/refuting_rm/img/irishmtdna.gif


Seafaring Armenoids in Northern Europe?

Years after I originally took apart his ridiculous claims about "hamito-semitic" britons, RM continues to propagate misinformation on the subject. Despite RM's assertion that "I no longer maintain that there's a Hamito-Semitic influence in Britain", his "hamito-semitic britons" page remains online and he has actually added additional "evidence": an excerpt from a 1957 paper by Bertil Lundman on "The Problem of Ancient Oriental Shipping on the North Sea" (which, tellingly, RM has mis-labeled on his "References" page with the title of the "blog" entry by Dienekes which was RM's immediate source for this "evidence"). The facts on my page about <A href="http://www.white-history.com/refuting_rm/1.html">Britain stand, and no further comment should be necessary. But since Pontikos and RM insist on circulating excerpts from this odd Lundman paper, we might as well dispose of its claims (thanks to Karl Earlson for his comments and for providing the image used below).

Lundman tries to associate Deniker's litoral type with Armenoid invaders, but there's not much room for comparison: the Litoroid is tall, slender, long-headed, and small-nosed; the Armenoid is short, planoccipital, and large-nosed with a tendency to obesity.
The supposed descendants of Armenoids Lundman "discovered" in Scandinavia don't sound particularly Armenoid. They are described as "tall" and "slim", not short and fat. They are said to have "large, slightly and evenly curved but scarcely fleshy noses". Needless to say, many northern Europeans have convex noses and this has nothing to do with Armenoids. Likewise, some fraction of northern Europeans are dark and broadheaded; this is part of their natural variation, and one need not seek the origin of these traits among sea-borne Armenoids. The fact that Lundman identifies supposed Near Eastern types in Ireland completely discredits his theory: modern genetics shows Near Eastern Y chromosomes are practically absent from Ireland (and any stray "Neolithic" Y chromosomes which found their way to Ireland most likely diffused northwest across Europe via land over a period of thousands of years).
Lundman asks if certain "dark" navigators of English history "were the descendants of the ancient Tyrrhenian seafarers from Tyre?" More on these "dark" navigators below, but the fact that Lundman brings up the Phoenicians in the context of Britain is enough to discredit his theory. There is no archaeological evidence for Phoenicians ever having set foot in northern Europe. Furthermore, the exploitation of metal deposits in Britain began thousands of years before the Phoenicians existed, and where outside involvement in British mining is indicated the evidence points to west-central Europe, not the Near East.
Lundman admits that "most of England's great navigators were conspicuously blond", but he then attempts to single out three, Drake, Dampier, and Cook, who he believes were of his pseudo-Armenoid type. Of course, like members of all northern European populations, Englishmen vary in pigmentation; so it would be surprising if Lundman could name no examples of dark English historical figures. But it's interesting that at least one of Lundman's three daring navigators of supposed Near Eastern ancestry is not particularly dark. As shown in the portrait below, Drake is ruddy, grey-blue-eyed, and brown-haired with blond beard. "
http://www.white-history.com/refuting_rm/img/drake_small.jpg

Angelcynn Beorn
Friday, August 11th, 2006, 06:45 PM
never mind setting European culture back hundreds of years during the "Dark Ages".

Funny that the during the Renaissance, the greatest intellectual movement of all time, all of Europe was Christian. Whilst during the so called dark ages, most of Europe was being controlled by pagans. Funny how that fact seems to escape your notice isn't it.

:thumbdown

Nixie
Saturday, August 12th, 2006, 06:08 AM
Funny that the during the Renaissance, the greatest intellectual movement of all time, all of Europe was Christian. Whilst during the so called dark ages, most of Europe was being controlled by pagans. Funny how that fact seems to escape your notice isn't it.

:thumbdown

The Dark Ages were marked by the destruction of ancient pagan knowledge by the advancing and bloody tide of Christianity. Much was lost that we will never know.

The Renaissance was the blossoming of knowledge and culture anew in defiance of and despite the repression of intellectual freedom imposed by Christianity - as expressed in the name itself, meaning "Rebirth".

"Rebirth is used in two ways. First, it means rediscovery of ancient classical texts and learning and their applications in the arts and sciences. Second, it means that the results of these intellectual activities created a revitalization of European culture in general. Thus it is possible to speak of the Renaissance in two different but meaningful ways: A rebirth of classical learning and knowledge through the rediscovery of ancient texts, and therefore supposedly a rebirth of European culture in general." - from Wikipedia

The Renaissance was largely brought about by the rise of humanism after general disillusionment with Christianity due to the Black Death and its aftermath. In certain areas the Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation fueled each other, as people threw off the shackles of the Roman Catholic Church, although this was by no means a major influence.

Basically, for much of Europe (especially continental Europe), the Renaissance was the beginning of Christianity's long, slow death (which is still ongoing).

Flag-Soil
Sunday, August 20th, 2006, 12:57 PM
Dear Idun - I would be more than happy if i would see your definition from culture.

I dont mean different languages.

Sweden and Finland are almost as wealthy.

Both have welfare state

Both have same kind of politics and policies.

Both are in EU

Both are not in Nato what is very important if we look at this culturally.

In both countries there is relatively high suicide ratio cause of cold and dark climate.

Both share samekind of climate

Finnish and swedish army are practicly the same.

Our history is tided together.We were once the same nation.

And when i think fastly differences between finns and swedes.

Sauna is one of the biggest differences.

Finns also drink more though this have started to decrese.

Of course racial composition is different though many people tend to exaggerate the difference.



Of course,i would say that there is differnces.There is finnish nationalist in Finland who prefer only finnish language aka fennomans.

And in Sweden there is svekomans who prefer only things what is swedish.




I consider that we are at least very close to each other though maybe not 100%.I correct myself,70% :D





Germanics are superior to other imo.





Thanks for the info

This would be great subject to be its own thread.

Asatrians and christians could debate on this matter.

Unfortunately i have little to say on this matter cause im nothing.Im not asatrian,im not christian,im not atheist,im just ...well,i dont know yet :D

Social definitions don't mean anything and they are transitory. Europe is considered a Christian continent, Christianity being a Middle Eastern religion revolving around the worship of a Jew which spread across Europe after the Jews were kicked out of Israel 2,000 years ago. Now if it isn't vivid who's big idea Christianity was.

Galaico
Sunday, August 20th, 2006, 05:47 PM
Are you kidding? Christianity has been the single worst cause of wars and bloodshed throughout Europe in recorded history! It has caused almost endless dischord and an atrocious amount of Germanic-on-Germanic violence, never mind setting European culture back hundreds of years during the "Dark Ages". It astonishes me that anyone can say such a thing about this scourge on humanity.:-O
Do you really think Europe's History would've changed much if it had been pagan? I think you're a bit naive. The Dark Ages were not a consequence of the expansion of Christianism, but of the fall of the Roman Empire, and the fall of all its Economic structure. The centralised system of the Empire was replaced by Feudalism, and the Feudal economic structures were to small to back technological progress, or even to keep and maintain the advances achieved. BTW, the Roman Empire had been Christian for already ~200 years while some of the invaders who created the Feudal society were pagans such as the Saxons.
The "Religion Wars" in Europe had little of religious and much of politics. All over the XVI century the Catholic French fought the Catholic Spaniards and Austrians, and even signed an alliance with the Muslim Turks. The French only wished to stop the imperial advance of the Habsburgs, and little cared if they were Catholic, Muslim, Pagan or whatever. Louis XIV another Catholic French king supported the Protestant Dutchs against the Catholic Spanish opressors, because he didn't want those annoying neighbours in the North, not for religious reasons.
Do you also believe the Crusades were only a religious war? Come on.


So, does this mean someone of Irish, Scottish, Cornish and English ancestry is Gallaeco-Germanic rather than Kelto-Germanic? Or does the study mean not that Britons are only Gallaecian but a mixture of Gallaecian and Keltic?
Boy, this could get VERY confusing!!! Really, who's going to stop calling those cultures Keltic? Like trying to turn the Titanic! :D

ETA - Also, if the Scottish and Irish are not Keltic, then what exactly is Keltic??? I mean, to most people, the definition of Keltic is "Irish and Scottish". So what does that leave us with??
Even the article itself has difficulties - it continues to call them "Celtic countries" throughout the article, lol.
I'm sorry, but it seems to me you're mixing everything. The Gallaecs were indeed Celtic (or Keltic). Keltic/Gaulish were the names given by the Greeks and Romans to identify those tribes who called themselves Callech-Callaic-Gallaec. Did you ever hear about Caledonia (Scotland)?

Galaico
Sunday, August 20th, 2006, 06:52 PM
Here's an interesting change in the recent influx of constant "evidence" of "non-Celtic" Celts. And please, click on "RM" in blue underlined font to see where the "Racial Reality" site comes from.

http://www.white-history.com/refuting_rm/racial_reality.html

White History??? Great! this is gonna be easy and funny to refute.




Most Basques are of course not racially ambiguous in appearance, but as regards those who are it is incorrect to claim they are necessarily of "pure" European ancestry. Berber haplogroup E-M81 has been detected in at least two seperate samples of Spanish (but not French) Basques (Cruciani et al., Am J Hum Genet. 2004 May;74(5):1014-22; Semino et al., Am J Hum Genet. 2004 May;74(5):1023-34), and:
The relatively young TMRCA of 5.6 ky (95% CI 4.6–6.3 ky) that we estimated for haplogroup E-M81 and the lack of differentiation between European and African haplotypes in the network of E-M81 (fig. 2C) support the hypothesis of recent gene flow between northwestern Africa and Iberia. (Cruciani et al. 2004)
Okay now, you're saying Basques aren't as pure as NW Europeans because of TWO (!!!) samples found in its population???
You should check out this genetic study:
http://www.geocities.com/vetinarilord/ednap.pdf#search=%22galicia%20haplogroup s%20denmark%22

North African linage (E3b) was found at a rate of 7.4% in Belgium (four individuals), 1% in Denmark (one individual), 0% in Norway, 8% in Galicia-Spain (eight individuals), 13% in Innsbruck-Austria (17 individuals), and 9.5% in Münster-Germany (nine individuals). Sub-Saharan linages (A, B, C, D) were only found in Münster at a rate of 3.2%

According to this study http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/hape3b.pdf#search=%22haplogroup%20E%22
Basques have only 3.2% of E3b, much lower than most Europeans.



The Irish are more closely related to all north-west and north-central Europeans than they are to the Basque. Basques are more closely related the English, the Dutch, and even Russians than they are to the Irish, according to autosomal data. We can also note that in the fifth PC of classical variation in Europe -- which C-S claims "corresponds to the progressive retreat of the boundary of the Basque language" -- Ireland (along with Britain, Scandinavia, and a large swathe of central Europe) is at the opposite pole from Basque country. Iberia, France, Italy, even Russia and the Caucasus are closer to Basque country on this PC than Ireland is.

How is possible that a country that almost lacks R1b such as Russia, is closer to the Basque Country (almost pure in R1b) than Ireland (almost pure in R1b). It seems to be another of Mr. Kemp's fantasies or LIES.

The mtDNA is a total different thing as it's pretty much the same all over Europe changing fluently from North to South and from West to East, as women didn't take part in invasions, that's why Y-haplogroups don't show any correlation with mt-haplogroups except for perhaps R1b and H respectively.


Please don't take any offense Eberhardt, but next time you try to refute someone, you should do some more research, because just posting literally "White History" makes you look like a fool, at least you could post something more reliable or... less false.

FunnyBunny
Sunday, August 20th, 2006, 07:40 PM
Christianism is definitely non-European in origin, but it is in adoption. It is part of Europe's culture, and helped to unify our continent.

And how does it settle with the fact that the people of the bible were semites? Your God has chosen a filthy race all that time?
---
Aren't Irish and English people related?

Galaico
Sunday, August 20th, 2006, 08:18 PM
And how does it settle with the fact that the people of the bible were semites? Your God has chosen a filthy race all that time?
European Christianism, is based in the New Gospel, and at a lower extent in the Old one. Semite is not a race, but an ethnolinguistic group. But anyway, Europeans never had anything against Abraham or Mosses, or the other prophets that followed the Mosaic law, but against the Talmudic and fariseic Jews.

Aren't Irish and English people related?
Of course they are related, as all Western Europeans. Phenotypes and sub-races vary in Europe horizontaly from North to South (roughly Dalo-Nordid / Alpinid-Dinarid / Mediterranid) but genetic orign is vertical from West to East (roughly R1b / I / R1a).

FunnyBunny
Monday, August 21st, 2006, 07:44 AM
European Christianism, is based in the New Gospel, and at a lower extent in the Old one. Semite is not a race, but an ethnolinguistic group. But anyway, Europeans never had anything against Abraham or Mosses, or the other prophets that followed the Mosaic law, but against the Talmudic and fariseic Jews.


Where does it whritten? Fom what I know salevation is for all races...

Galaico
Monday, August 21st, 2006, 11:16 AM
Where does it whritten? Fom what I know salevation is for all races...
Once more, Christianism is not against any race, it is against Fariseism and Talmudism, as it sees in them the corruption of the Mosaic Law, as you can read in John 8:39-47, or Luke 11:37-54. Anyway this is not the correct thread to speak about this, if you're so interested you can open a new thread in the religion section.

FunnyBunny
Monday, August 21st, 2006, 01:41 PM
Once more, Christianism is not against any race, it is against Fariseism and Talmudism, as it sees in them the corruption of the Mosaic Law, as you can read in John 8:39-47, or Luke 11:37-54. Anyway this is not the correct thread to speak about this, if you're so interested you can open a new thread in the religion section.

So you admit race hatred and christianity doesn't det along together?
So why does stormfront and such have a TC sect?

Jäger
Monday, August 21st, 2006, 01:44 PM
So you admit race hatred and christianity doesn't det along together?
So why does stormfront and such have a TC sect?
Maybe because they don't hate other races?

FunnyBunny
Monday, August 21st, 2006, 01:48 PM
Maybe because they don't hate other races?


Religion: Racism

Galaico
Monday, August 21st, 2006, 02:15 PM
You can perfectly fight for the preservation of your own race without the need of hating other races.

Jäger
Monday, August 21st, 2006, 02:29 PM
Religion: Racism I am neither them nor christian :)

FunnyBunny
Monday, August 21st, 2006, 06:42 PM
You can perfectly fight for the preservation of your own race without the need of hating other races.

So explain how come I saw some nazis in stormfront?

Jäger
Monday, August 21st, 2006, 07:06 PM
So explain how come I saw some nazis in stormfront?
Are you playing dumb? You were talking about christianity and racism, then you said there are christian groups at stormfront, but of course there are other groups, and this has nothing to do with your first post regarding christianity and racism.
Most NS are not even christian and stormfront has a lot of different people, capish?

Nseag
Wednesday, August 30th, 2006, 08:40 PM
European Christianism, is based in the New Gospel, and at a lower extent in the Old one. Semite is not a race, but an ethnolinguistic group. But anyway, Europeans never had anything against Abraham or Mosses, or the other prophets that followed the Mosaic law, but against the Talmudic and fariseic Jews.

Of course they are related, as all Western Europeans. Phenotypes and sub-races vary in Europe horizontaly from North to South (roughly Dalo-Nordid / Alpinid-Dinarid / Mediterranid) but genetic orign is vertical from West to East (roughly R1b / I / R1a).

ethnolinguistic group: semite
racial group: Litorid

;) is =

Fionn
Friday, September 1st, 2006, 03:09 AM
Ok, well this thread is a bit off-topic. What do you say we get back to the point of it, eh?

óðinn
Wednesday, September 20th, 2006, 05:41 PM
After reading this discussion is hit me, one should not change a finn's image of himself/herself cause then it will end up in a great flame war.

So next time Irish Fairy don't mention finns when trying to exlpain or ask something cause eventually the discussion gets off-topic.:D

Finns are finns, Irish are irish. Germanics don't exist!

There is no GERMANIC race, Nordid perhaps but there is at least no Germanics! Germanic is merely a language group, the word germanic means the same as teutonic which comes from (thiuth/thjódh) and means people in old germanic languages in modern german it is DEUTSCH. So the german word for germans origanally meant "people":P , are all the others monkeys?:D

Teuton is sometimes used as a synonyme for German. While Teutonic is a synonyme for Germanic.

Nevertheless Germanic is the name of a language group.

ANCIENT HOMELAND

The people, whom originally spoke Proto-Germanic dwelled in Southern Sweden and Norway, Denmark and Northern Germany according to modern history in fact none knows since nobody who lived then is alived anymore.:D Anyways to believe that everybody in Northern Europe today are directly decended from the "Proto-Germanic People" is ridicolous. Hell I'd be suprised if the modern Danes and modern Northgermans are decended from the theoretical "Proto-Germanic people".

But we do know that a lot of tribes speaking similar languages lived in northern Germany and Southern Scandinavia during the days of the Roman Empire due to Roman historians. But it is ridicolous to believe that we whom have a germanic mothertongue are 100 % decended from these "germanic tribes" since we're blond and north-europeans. Maybe we have their blood in our veins but not 100 % not even a pure southern Swede can claim to be 100% decended from any ancient germanic tribe. And the celtic blood in western Europe should not be underestimated either.

We know that modern Swedes, Danes, Germans and Norwegians are releated with eachother more then with other peoples but they are neither pure nor "germanic". They're simply Norwegians, Germans and Swedes.

So for once and for all GERMANIC is not a race nor a people, it is a language family/group.

And Finns are Finns!

Not pure "munaissuomalaiset" though but mostly of finnic heritage.

Nebulus
Wednesday, April 15th, 2009, 08:05 AM
I thought the Irish has a Germanic influence as well. Their culture may not be but didn't the Nordics descend from the Brunn race? Also, you'd notice that there were reports of vikings landing on the Irish shorelines and spreading out from there. I also saw that the population of the Irish is 100% nordish. Is there a reason why Ireland is excluded from the Germanic messageboard?

Svartljos
Wednesday, April 15th, 2009, 08:41 AM
I guess it's because they probably identify themselves en masse as Celtic, and it seems to be a pretty popular thing there to learn Irish and associate with that culture in general. In Scotland however, I suppose the situation is similar but different, in a way. There is a lot more identification with Scots it seems. That said, maybe someone who runs the place can give a better answer.

Thusnelda
Wednesday, April 15th, 2009, 10:56 AM
Is there a reason why Ireland is excluded from the Germanic messageboard?
The Irish are not a typical part of our Germanic hemisphere. Most of them identify themselves with being Celtic. A deeper look in their history shows that there´s much reason for it. So that´s the reason why we don´t have an Irish section here at Skadi. It´s no sign of disrespect towards the Irish (in fact I like them a lot for their culture and unique pride/customs :) ) but just a necessary seperation.

Hauke Haien
Wednesday, April 15th, 2009, 11:42 AM
Ireland may be discussed from a Germanic perspective in the Germanic Influences (http://forums.skadi.net/forumdisplay.php?f=355) forum and only with a sufficient posting frequency, a separate forum would be contemplated.

In addition, having such a forum is known to be problematic, because people - erroneously - presume that being listed here represents a claim that the country has to be seen as entirely Germanic. In reality, the Germanic character of almost every single country has been contested in one way or the other, and this is of course permissible if done in an appropriate manner that complies with our forum rules.

On the other hand, our Sverige and Norge forums do no get dozens of posts about the Sami people. This differs significantly from the observations made when forums for Ireland, France and Finland existed, where discussion of Germanic issues played practically no role at all and their non-Germanic national identity was dominant. Even now, we have forums that regularly attract contributors who refuse to or do not bother to make the claim of being Germanic, preferring other labels instead.

Dagna
Wednesday, April 15th, 2009, 02:15 PM
The Irish are not Germanic. They are Germanicized. Scots is a Germanic language. Gaelic is not. I believe dedicating an entire chapter to the Irish would be a mistake. Not only are the Irish not Germanic and do not identify with Germanic culture, but they are also known to complain and victimize about persecution and resent Germanics, especially the English. Some of them strongly identify with Roman Catholicism and the IRA.

Rassenhygieniker
Thursday, April 16th, 2009, 04:51 AM
The Irish are not a typical part of our Germanic hemisphere. Most of them identify themselves with being Celtic. A deeper look in their history shows that there´s much reason for it. So that´s the reason why we don´t have an Irish section here at Skadi. It´s no sign of disrespect towards the Irish (in fact I like them a lot for their culture and unique pride/customs :) ) but just a necessary seperation.

There is a noticeable Germanic influence in Ireland, it is notably the case in the Southern province of Munster and in the Eastern province of Leinster.

Think of Ireland as a an ice-cream topped with 4 different flavors
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/9748/r91r91r.jpg

North Ireland - Province of Ulster - Celto-Nordids and Celtoids.

West Ireland - Province of Connacht - Atlanto-Mediterranids, Keltic iron age types and two special subtypes of Aran Islanders.

East Ireland - Province of Leinster - CM and reduced CM, Anglosaxon-Pan Nordids, and there is a small minority of a short and stocky subrace that I have not been able to identify properly. Perhaps they are issued from a strain of the non-Germanic Mediterraneans present in Wales.

South Ireland - Province of Munster - Keltic-Nordids and Nordids.


▪ Province of Ulster

Celtoid
http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/5503/r10r10.jpg

Celto-Nordid
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/1869/r20r20.jpg


▪ Province of Connacht

Atlanto-Mediterranid
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/7785/r40r40.jpg

Keltic iron age type (usually depicted as being the "classic" Irishman) http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/8872/r90r90.jpg

Aran islander type #1 (old Corded-looking type, strong bony relief, low auricular head, unsmooth hair texture)
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/7563/r80r80.jpg

Aran islander type #2 (rounder head, less prominant nose, flater scalp and some of them are lighter haired)
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/6736/r50r50.jpg


▪ Province of Leinster

CM and reduced CM
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/9233/r61r61v.jpg

Anglosaxon-Pan Nordids
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/4008/r71r71.jpg


▪ Province of Munster

Keltic-Nordid
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/772/r51r51.jpg

Nordid
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/92/r21r21.jpg


So you see, aside from the extreme racial case of Connacht, and in some extent Ulster, Ireland is a pretty Germanized country as you can see the signs of a Germanic influence racially and culturally.

Sigurd
Thursday, April 16th, 2009, 05:34 AM
On the Germanicness of Ireland, and which sub-forums may apply I will say no more, Valkyrie and Hauke Haien have already correctly pointed to all things relevant.

I will however discuss in some detail with members some of their claims.


Some of them strongly identify with Roman Catholicism and the IRA.

There is nothing un-Germanic with Roman Catholicism per se. Otherwise, you are labelling Austrians, Bavarians, Westphalians and Flemings as un-Germanic ... which all of us would gladly dispute. ;)

In the larger German-Dutch continuum this Catholic/Protestant divide would not be applicable, since it was a matter of cuius regio, eius religio (whose region, his religion), saying very little about the cultural character of any region, but more about the loyalties, religious or otherwise, of their rulers at the very time of the Augsburger Religionsfrieden, a settlement which finally did away for the most part with intra-German religious warring, which had carried on for substantial time.

Thus, whilst this Catholic/Protestant divide as a Celtic/Germanic divide is somewhat true for Ireland - the latter oft being late English-descended arrivals - you should not make the mistake of assuming that which is true for one country is automatically true for all.


There is a noticeable Germanic influence in Ireland [...] signs of a Germanic influence racially and culturally.

Such an elegant and well-constructed argument, just a shame that the two premises (Ireland is a Germanic country. Ireland has Nordish racial influence.) do not validly add up to the conclusion you derived (Ireland is a Germanic country.)

For this to be a fully logical argument you need a third premise. That premise would be "Nordish racial influence is Germanic". Such an argument can however be empirically refuted by counter-example without much need for formal logical derivation: The fact that there exists at least one Nordid which is not Germanic, disproves your assumption that this quantifies for ALL, rather than just for SOME.

If the quantifier of a logical equation is existential (SOME) rather than universal (OTHER) then transcribing this into propositional logic will never result in a biconditional argument (e.g. P ↔ Q). Therefore your claim is based on false logic. ;)

Dagna
Thursday, April 16th, 2009, 05:53 AM
There is nothing un-Germanic with Roman Catholicism per se. Otherwise, you are labelling Austrians, Bavarians, Westphalians and Flemings as un-Germanic ... which all of us would gladly dispute. ;)
Roman Catholicism per se, as any sect of Christianity is ungermanic. It is not indigenous to our Germanic ancestors. But that was not what I meant. The reason I singled out Roman Catholicism was that in the UK, religious divide corresponds with ethnic divide. In 99% of cases, if one is a Catholic, then one is Celtic. In the UK, Roman Catholicism is in opposition to all things Germanic. I believe it also explains why the Irish feel more akin to the Spanish than to the English.


In the larger German-Dutch continuum this Catholic/Protestant divide would not be applicable, since it was a matter of cuius regio, eius religio (whose region, his religion), saying very little about the cultural character of any region, but more about the loyalties, religious or otherwise, of their rulers at the very time of the Augsburger Religionsfrieden, a settlement which finally did away for the most part with intra-German religious warring, which had carried on for substantial time.

Thus, whilst this Catholic/Protestant divide as a Celtic/Germanic divide is somewhat true for Ireland - the latter oft being late English-descended arrivals - you should not make the mistake of assuming that which is true for one country is automatically true for all.
I don't believe I was referring to any religious divide in Germany and I did not say what is true for Ireland is true for any other countries. Although it can very well apply to the USA. Here, most who identify with Roman Catholicism are not Germanic. The context was more than obvious if you read the thread title, and I have explained it above, but I guess you just love to nitpick.

Sissi
Thursday, April 16th, 2009, 05:56 AM
Also, you'd notice that there were reports of vikings landing on the Irish shorelines and spreading out from there.
But the Vikings and other Germanic tribes were "wandering folk", so it's logical: they landed in many places. The Vandals as far as North Africa. But does that mean if a country had Viking or other Germanic presence in its past there it must be Germanic?


I also saw that the population of the Irish is 100% nordish.
I know it has been said before by many people, but I just have to say it again: Nordish and Germanic are not interchangeable terms. If a nation is Nordic, it doesn't always mean it's also Germanic. Where you are getting your percentages from, McCulloch? Well according to McCulloch, there are non-Germanic countries like Wales (Celtic) which are 100% Nordish, or Finland and the Baltic states which are 95% Nordish. Poland, a Slavic country is 70% Nordish, more Nordish that my country, Austria, which is Germanic and 55% Nordish, or than Luxembourg, another Germanic country, which is just 20% Nordish.


Is there a reason why Ireland is excluded from the Germanic messageboard?
Maybe because forums for countries are only for those countries which are Germanic and not Germanic influenced? I agree with you that Ireland is Germanic influenced. But, it's not Germanic. It's not the same thing. Besides, there aren't many threads about Ireland here, but it should have its own forum? I could see why the Viking forum was added on demand, because everyone talks about Vikings, but if no one talks about Ireland on a regular basis, what sense does it make?

Nebulus
Thursday, April 16th, 2009, 06:15 AM
It just seems weird to me that this country, which has the 2nd highest blond hair percentage in the world(next to Sweden), half protestant population, beer culture, can not be considered as Germanic.

Well, it's official to me. Ireland has the biggest "melting pot" in the world that probably no one has ever heard of. You have the Celtic race, Nordic race, and some of the natives over there that I really can't classify.

Rassenhygieniker
Thursday, April 16th, 2009, 06:15 AM
On the Germanicness of Ireland, and which sub-forums may apply I will say no more, Valkyrie and Hauke Haien have already correctly pointed to all things relevant.

Such an elegant and well-constructed argument, just a shame that the two premises (Ireland is a Germanic country. Ireland has Nordish racial influence.) do not validly add up to the conclusion you derived (Ireland is a Germanic country.)

For this to be a fully logical argument you need a third premise. That premise would be "Nordish racial influence is Germanic". Such an argument can however be empirically refuted by counter-example without much need for formal logical derivation: The fact that there exists at least one Nordid which is not Germanic, disproves your assumption that this quantifies for ALL, rather than just for SOME.

If the quantifier of a logical equation is existential (SOME) rather than universal (OTHER) then transcribing this into propositional logic will never result in a biconditional argument (e.g. P ↔ Q). Therefore your claim is based on false logic. ;)

I certainly made no claim on the subject of Ireland either being a Germanic country or not. But rather chose to state the facts, facts which revolves around the debate of wether Ireland might or might not be a Germanic country, which is quite different than actually making any bold proofless statement such as “Yes, Ireland is a Germanic country, through and through!”. Because as my prior post demonstrated, Ireland is very diverse racially and culturally which probably draws a line for many people who would consider this as being, too “un-Germanic”.

What I did instead was providing facts about the the germanization (or in this particular case, Nordisation) of Ireland (either major or minor is up for each individual to decide). Nordisation, which I (personally) consider as being categorically, a Germanic influence.

Now I am not arguing with anyone wether or not there should be an Irish subforum, as this is not something that concerns me, I however just wanted to make a point toward the negativity of downplaying the amount of Germanic influence in Ireland.

Sigurd
Thursday, April 16th, 2009, 06:32 AM
Nordisation, which I (personally) consider as being categorically, a Germanic influence.

Blondism - although not immediate nor exclusively related to Nordic race - in itself is no Germanic phenomenon, and in itself more common in non-Germanic populations. The lightest-pigmented populations are Estonia, Finland and Latvia, only in fourth place follows Sweden as a Germanic country. The other three only have Germanic influence, which could however never explain such a fundamental strain, especially as light pigment does not tend to be dominant.

Nordic race --- actually the term Hallstatt Nordid refers to metric measurements which were also found in the Celtic (!) population of Hallstatt, Austria and the time-period for the early Iron-Age which it lent its name to - Hallstatt being one of the most famous finds. Perhaps also the fact that 2/3 of strict Nordid types are named after Celts: Hallstatt-Nordid and Keltic-Nordid (*cough*) - might be of interest to show that, perhaps, this racial type is by far not exclusive to Germanics.

The problem with saying that Nordid = Germanic is not the question of whether there are other racial types amongst Germanics, or even whether these other racial types are more numerous. The problem with this equation is the question of whether these racial types are exclusive to Germanics, which they are not. Therefore, we cannot equate Nordic race with Germanics, even though we may have a higher occurence of these types than all meta-ethnicities but Fenno-Baltics.

Sissi
Thursday, April 16th, 2009, 06:43 AM
It just seems weird to me that this country, which has the 2nd highest blond hair percentage in the world(next to Sweden), half protestant population, beer culture, can not be considered as Germanic.

Well, it's official to me. Ireland has the biggest "melting pot" in the world that probably no one has ever heard of. You have the Celtic race, Nordic race, and some of the natives over there that I really can't classify.
I think the blondest countries are Finland and the Baltics.
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=36787
Beer culture exists in the Czech Republic too, Slovakia and other Slavic countries. That's because European culture as a whole has some common traits. But that doesn't mean Celtic and Germanic are the same thing. The Irish don't consider themselves Germanic anyway. They like celebrating their Celtic culture and learning Gaelic.

Nebulus
Thursday, April 16th, 2009, 08:06 AM
Didn't the Romans fight the Germanic tribes back in 180AD, and they were considered Celtic people? How can Ireland, Scots, and Welsh can not be considered Germanic if the tribes there were from the Germanic tribe of 180AD?

Sissi
Thursday, April 16th, 2009, 08:16 AM
No, the Germanic tribes were not considered Celtic, there was a difference between the two.

Irish history is associated with Celts more than with Germanics. From Wiki:


The first settlements in Ireland date from 8000 BC. By 200 BC Celtic migration and influence had come to dominate the island. Relatively small scale settlements of both the Vikings and Normans in the Middle Ages gave way to complete English domination by the 1600s.


The Iron Age in Ireland was supposedly associated with people known as Celts. They are traditionally thought to have colonised Ireland in a series of waves between the 8th and 1st centuries BC, with the Gaels, the last wave of Celts, conquering the island and dividing it into five or more kingdoms.

Bärin
Thursday, April 16th, 2009, 08:23 AM
The only thing an Irish messageboard will bring here is hostilities and hatred towards Germanics. All they do is bash the English and bitch and moan about being occupied. Do you want to see that sort of thing here? Not me I don't. I came here because I had enough of anti-Germanic garbage, be it from Celts, Slavs or Meds, and I'd like it to stay that way. ;)

Sigurd
Thursday, April 16th, 2009, 08:38 AM
Didn't the Romans fight the Germanic tribes back in 180AD, and they were considered Celtic people? How can Ireland, Scots, and Welsh can not be considered Germanic if the tribes there were from the Germanic tribe of 180AD?

Again, a gross misuse of the logical biconditional "if and only if". Even if we assumed that all Germanics were also Celts, then that would not mean that all Celts were also Germanic, so to speak.

On a more tangible and more realistic example which does not include theory: All Ethnic Swedes are Germanics, but does it mean that all Germanics must also be Swedes? No, it doesn't, by any stretch of imagination.

Therefore, if Germanics were considered Celts, then that - even if it were to be proven as ethnogenetically true - would not inherently mean that all Celts were also considered Germanics, quite to the contrary. Otherwise these terms would have been used interchangeably for "all Celts", which they were not.

beowulf wodenson
Thursday, April 16th, 2009, 10:51 PM
For my part a significant though decidedly smaller part of my ancestry is Gaelic (Catholic) Irish, but I see no reason in a cultural sense especially to include a sub-forum for a predominately "Celtic" Gaelic nation.

Rassenhygieniker
Friday, April 17th, 2009, 03:32 AM
Blondism - although not immediate nor exclusively related to Nordic race - in itself is no Germanic phenomenon «...» The problem with this equation is the question of whether these racial types are exclusive to Germanics, which they are not.

Correct, but I would say this non-exclusivity is to be blamed on racemixing which resulted in the loss of this exclusivity. This trait is now present and shared among other groups, as a result even non-caucasid (such as the mongoloids) can now display Blondism.

Now regarding Blondism in ireland, I was not basing myself upon the non-Germanic elements which might or might not have influenced the Blondism present in Ireland, but instead I was basing myself on the historically known Germanic influences of Ireland, which are:

▪ The establishement of the Viking enclaves such as Dublin.
▪ The annexation and germanization of Ireland by the Anglo Saxons.

Both of them being part of a Germanic group.

Now regarding the facts about whether there should or should not be an Irish subforum on Skadi, I am quite passive on the regards of that matter. But I would tend to agree that mostly out of the fact that the Irish in a majority do not identify themselves as being nor belonging to a Germanic group, that establishing an Irish subforum on Skadi could grow to become quite troubling in the long-run.

Still, for the Irish members who are requesting a subforum on Skadi. I do not see why http://irish-nationalism.net/forum/ could not act as a substitute.

Nebulus
Friday, April 17th, 2009, 07:49 AM
Thanks guys for all of your helps. It was just that I was confused about the similarity between the Celtic race and the Germanic race, although I feel they are so similar they should be considered as one race. I'd call the Germanic race a prototype of the Celtic race though...then the Aegerians stepped in.

Dagna
Monday, April 20th, 2009, 05:10 AM
How about contributing to some threads about the Germanic influence on the Irish instead on dwelling on a matter that the moderators have clarified already?
Irish and German: Linguistic Connections (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=96460&highlight=Irish)
Many Irish Names Not so Irish? (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=51553&highlight=Irish)
Irish words which have come from Old Norse (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=65692&highlight=Irish)
The Vikings in Ireland (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=76047&highlight=Ireland)

Ward
Monday, April 20th, 2009, 06:35 AM
How about contributing to some threads about the Germanic influence on the Irish instead on dwelling on a matter that the moderators have clarified already?
Irish and German: Linguistic Connections (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=96460&highlight=Irish)
Many Irish Names Not so Irish? (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=51553&highlight=Irish)
Irish words which have come from Old Norse (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=65692&highlight=Irish)
The Vikings in Ireland (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=76047&highlight=Ireland)


Good idea. :) I've also heard that the viking museum in Dublin is the largest of its kind outside of Scandinavia. http://www.dublinia.ie/index.htm

The Germanic influence in other peoples is certainly worthy of discussion. Various Germanic peoples have certainly left their mark on Ireland, but it's still predominately a Celtic nation; hence, dedicating a sub-forum to it on a site dedicated exclusively to Germanic preservation doesn't make much sense.

I believe www.nordfolk.net is a forum dedicated to the general preservation of northern European peoples, which naturally includes Celts. I think that's the kind of site the o.p. should look into.

Rassenhygieniker
Monday, April 20th, 2009, 07:26 AM
I believe www.nordfolk.net is a forum dedicated to the general preservation of northern European peoples, which naturally includes Celts. I think that's the kind of site the o.p. should look into.

I wanted to join there, but do they not only accept autochthonous Scandinavians?

The first rule on their site is, “if you are not Northern European you will be banned.”

Ward
Monday, April 20th, 2009, 07:40 AM
I wanted to join there, but do they not only accept autochthonous Scandinavians?

There first rule on their site is, “if you are not Northern European you will be banned.”

Maybe they've changed their orientation then? I know they used to accept all white peoples from northwest Europe, which of course includes the British.

RedJack
Monday, April 20th, 2009, 07:03 PM
▪ Province of Munster

Keltic-Nordid
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/772/r51r51.jpg





An excellent post, but I think you made a mistake in labelling this man as Keltic-Nordid. He looks textbook Brunn to me.

Nachtengel
Monday, April 20th, 2009, 07:19 PM
I wanted to join there, but do they not only accept autochthonous Scandinavians?

The first rule on their site is, “if you are not Northern European you will be banned.”
If you live in America you might not get accepted, they also want their members to reside in Northern Europe.

Sigurd
Tuesday, April 21st, 2009, 09:00 PM
I wanted to join there, but do they not only accept autochthonous Scandinavians?

The first rule on their site is, “if you are not Northern European you will be banned.”

Our concept of "Northern Europe" transcends Scandinavia. Usually it means those of Celtic, Germanic, Fennic or Baltic heritage. If it were for Scandinavians alone, I'd hardly be Staff there, now would I? I don't even have the token 1/512 Swede from the 30-year-war in me. ;)

Those resident outwith Europe we cannot currently accept for membership, as we had previously encountered several problems; exceptions are only made in extraordinary circumstances, but not as a general rule. Some old Americans may still be active there as their registration predated the "colonial ban", but no new Americans, Australians, Afrikaners are accepted, lest they reside in Northern Europe.

As an person of Germanic and Celtic heritage, you would usually qualify for membership though, especially if we don't have a case to hold against you from preknowledge. If you wish to discuss Celts and look for a board which includes them in their orientation, feel free to register, thus. :thumbup

Rassenhygieniker
Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009, 03:35 AM
Sigurd,

I attempted to send you a PM, but your storage box has exceeded it's quota. Could you make some space please?

Sigurd
Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009, 09:02 AM
Sigurd,

I attempted to send you a PM, but your storage box has exceeded it's quota. Could you make some space please?

Apologies, looks like someone beat you to it by mere hours. Since I have an extended quota, it's actually been the first time this happened. I've cleared some space now though, so please re-send. Sorry for the inconvenience. :)

TheGreatest
Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009, 03:28 PM
The problem I have with the Irish is that their Pan-Celticism is used to link the Irish with the Spaniards and French (Catholicism connection), when it's more probable that the Irish have significant English and Viking blood.

Eburos
Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009, 04:07 PM
The problem I have with the Irish is that their Pan-Celticism is used to link the Irish with the Spaniards and French (Catholicism connection), when it's more probable that the Irish have significant English and Viking blood.

Genetically the Irish and native Britons have more in common with the Basque peoples/ French and Spanish minorities than they do with the Anglo Saxon English.
Quote from Wikipedia:Genetically, in terms of Y-chromosomes and Mt-DNA, inhabitants of Britain and Ireland are closely related to the Basques,[14][15] reflecting their common origin in this refugial area. Northern Spaniards, specially Galicians, Asturians, Cantabrians and Basques, along with Irish, Welsh and Bretons show the highest frequency of the Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup R1b in Western Europe; some 90% to 95% of Basque males have this haplogroup. The rest is mainly I and a minimal presence of E3b.[14] The Y-chromosome and MtDNA relationship between Basques and people of Ireland and Wales is of equal ratios to neighbouring areas of Spain, where similar ethnically "Spanish" people now live in close proximity to the Basques, although this genetic relationship is also very strong among Basques and other Spaniards. As Stephen Oppenheimer has stated in The Origins of the British, although Basques have been more isolated than other Iberians, they are a population representative of south western Europe. As to the genetic relationship among Basques, Iberians and Britons, he also states:
By far the majority of male gene types in the British Isles derive from Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal), ranging from a low of 59% in Fakenham, Norfolk to highs of 96% in Llangefni, north Wales and 93% Castlerea, Ireland. On average only 30% of gene types in England derive from north-west Europe. Even without dating the earlier waves of north-west European immigration, this invalidates the Anglo-Saxon wipeout theory…

…75-95% of British and Irish (genetic) matches derive from Iberia...Ireland, coastal Wales, and central and west-coast Scotland are almost entirely made up from Iberian founders, while the rest of the non-English parts of the Britain and Ireland have similarly high rates. England has rather lower rates of Iberian types with marked heterogeneity, but no English sample has less than 58% of Iberian samples…[16]

Ward
Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009, 05:18 PM
Genetically the Irish and native Britons have more in common with the Basque peoples/ French and Spanish minorities than they do with the Anglo Saxon English.
Quote from Wikipedia:Genetically, in terms of Y-chromosomes and Mt-DNA, inhabitants of Britain and Ireland are closely related to the Basques,[14][15] reflecting their common origin in this refugial area. Northern Spaniards, specially Galicians, Asturians, Cantabrians and Basques, along with Irish, Welsh and Bretons show the highest frequency of the Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup R1b in Western Europe; some 90% to 95% of Basque males have this haplogroup. The rest is mainly I and a minimal presence of E3b.[14] The Y-chromosome and MtDNA relationship between Basques and people of Ireland and Wales is of equal ratios to neighbouring areas of Spain, where similar ethnically "Spanish" people now live in close proximity to the Basques, although this genetic relationship is also very strong among Basques and other Spaniards. As Stephen Oppenheimer has stated in The Origins of the British, although Basques have been more isolated than other Iberians, they are a population representative of south western Europe. As to the genetic relationship among Basques, Iberians and Britons, he also states:
By far the majority of male gene types in the British Isles derive from Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal), ranging from a low of 59% in Fakenham, Norfolk to highs of 96% in Llangefni, north Wales and 93% Castlerea, Ireland. On average only 30% of gene types in England derive from north-west Europe. Even without dating the earlier waves of north-west European immigration, this invalidates the Anglo-Saxon wipeout theory…

…75-95% of British and Irish (genetic) matches derive from Iberia...Ireland, coastal Wales, and central and west-coast Scotland are almost entirely made up from Iberian founders, while the rest of the non-English parts of the Britain and Ireland have similarly high rates. England has rather lower rates of Iberian types with marked heterogeneity, but no English sample has less than 58% of Iberian samples…[16]



What Oppenheimer does not point out, however, are some very important differences; viz., the extra-European input found in Spain and elsewhere in southern Europe.



...there is a consistent and reproducible distinction between “northern” and “southern” European population groups....


Overall, the analysis of sequence variation allowed the authors to distinguish individuals with northern European ancestry (Swedish, English, Irish, German, and Ukrainian) from individuals with southern European ancestry (Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Greek). Interestingly, Ashkenazi Jewish individuals tend to group together with individuals from southern European countries.

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0020143

Eburos
Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009, 07:26 PM
What Oppenheimer does not point out, however, are some very important differences; viz., the extra-European input found in Spain and elsewhere in southern Europe.

I agree with your post.
I understand that the Irish are not Andalusian or Sicilian for example.
I was just implying that the Irish do have close relatives within Spain and France. The Basque and Irish are different culturally but not so different ethnically.:P

Untersberger
Tuesday, January 5th, 2010, 11:08 PM
[Note: Discussion has been split from here (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=128586).]


I'm certain its far higher in Scotland. I don't think there was much Germanic influence on Irish DNA.

You have not understood what I have written if that is your response. It would appear you are overlooking the very large numbers of Vikings who settled in Ireland, the Normans of Ireland and the long wave of immigration spanning centuries of successive Anglo-Saxons and offspring of Anglo-Normans into Ireland via British colonial rule over the entire island. This has also continued to this day as some English families choose Ireland as their preferred safe area during this era of 'white flight' from now unsafe areas of England due to mass third world immigration.

Many Irish surnames today are a visual and spoken record of such Germanic assimilation over the centuries. Those that stand out especially are the 'Anglicized' Norman family names and these are names simply taken for granted nowadays as just Irish family surnames. My own surname is of direct Norman lineage and I have several friends of same background although for the most part they are probably not even aware of it.

Norman descended family names are common names in Ireland and therefore based on just the Normans alone thats quite significant proof of being descended from Germanic origins in quite large numbers of the current day population.

Interesting then if I ask what was the population of the low scots at the time Scotland and England started monitoring the first borders between the two countries?

Ward
Tuesday, January 5th, 2010, 11:32 PM
You have not understood what I have written if that is your response. It would appear you are overlooking the very large numbers of Vikings who settled in Ireland, the Normans of Ireland and the long wave of immigration spanning centuries of successive Anglo-Saxons and offspring of Anglo-Normans into Ireland via British colonial rule over the entire island. This has also continued to this day as some English families choose Ireland as their preferred safe area during this era of 'white flight' from now unsafe areas of England due to mass third world immigration.

I don't think anyone is going to deny that Ireland received a variety of different Germanic infusions, although I'm pretty sure they occurred on a lesser scale than in Scotland. Whatever the case, the effects of Germanic input in Ireland have been largely negated due to assimilation into the native Celtic culture.

The viking settlers eventually began to speak Gaelic and become Irish. The Norman invaders were actually famous for their enthusiastic assimilation into Irish society, as they were said to become "more Irish than the Irish themselves." And this trend continued with the English occupiers, so much so that the British ruling establishment had to enact measures in order to combat it.

But the bottom line is that scope of this board does not include Celtic culture, regardless of the ancestry of those who practice it.

Untersberger
Wednesday, January 6th, 2010, 12:53 AM
But the bottom line is that scope of this board does not include Celtic culture, regardless of the ancestry of those who practice it.

Is that perhaps implying that Germanic migrations of Germanic peoples are *not relevant* to this forum? My point is not supporting a sub section forum for practice of Celtic culture but for discussing Germanic *heritage via migration* to Scotland and Ireland. This applies directly to the saxon low scots of Britain as it does to the Vikings, Normans, Saxons of Ireland via heritage.

What then of Australia? Celts probably well outnumber Anglo-Saxons here considering the massive waves of migrants since 1788 both as convicts and more so as free settlers. Australia thus is at the moment an Anglo-Celtic nation yet is included here.

New Zealand has a very large Maori/Pacific Islander population and also a very large Celtic population of Europeans yet is also included here?

The USA, Canada also nations born of massive waves of Germanic and also massive waves of Celtic migrations etc etc..

How does for example if I may politely ask? Or what is the basis whereby lets say New Zealand is classified as Germanic enough but Ireland isn't?

Can you also define the practice of this Celtic culture in Ireland that makes Germanic blood of everyday Irish people redundant ?

Can you define the word assimilation in terms of for example the USA and Ireland or even Australia? How does Ireland differ?

I am curious as to what it is exactly that actually *Excludes* Ireland despite its long history of migrations of Germanic peoples from western Europe since the Vikings to the 'anglo white flighters' of today. :vikingship:

:valkyrie :viking :hillbilly

Blod og Jord
Wednesday, January 6th, 2010, 01:19 AM
Australia and New Zealand are sections on the forum because there is a large Germanic population there, descended primarily from the English, some Germans, etc. But Skadi isn't concerned with the Celtic or Maori heritage overthere.
South African blacks outnumber Afrikaners and Anglo-Africans (South Africans of English ancestry), but Skadi isn't concerned with them either.
Skadi is a forum about Germanic heritage.
The Irish question was discussed many times before and there won't be an Irish section, or Welsh, or for other Celtic lands here, but you can talk about the Germanic Palatines in Ireland or other Germanic settlers in the Germanic Enclaves & Influence section.

Ward
Wednesday, January 6th, 2010, 01:34 AM
Is that perhaps implying that Germanic migrations of Germanic peoples are *not relevant* to this forum? My point is not supporting a sub section forum for practice of Celtic culture but for discussing Germanic *heritage via migration* to Scotland and Ireland. This applies directly to the saxon low scots of Britain as it does to the Vikings, Normans, Saxons of Ireland via heritage....

I am curious as to what it is exactly that actually *Excludes* Ireland despite its long history of migrations of Germanic peoples from western Europe since the Vikings to the 'anglo white flighters' of today. :vikingship:

Hehe... I understand how it all might sound kind of contradictory and confusing on the surface, but it's really not. ;)

The main thing you need to realize is that, anthropologically speaking, there are no "Germanic" or "Celtic" races, even though only certain European sub-races are assimilable into their respective cultures. As it happens, traditional Germanic and Celtic tribes have many overlapping racial characteristics along with shared Indo-European linguistic and cultural origins. However, there are still enough of differences between them so that Celtic does not equal Germanic, and vice-versa.

Untersberger
Wednesday, January 6th, 2010, 01:55 AM
So that means in full effect of the Vikings and the Normans and the Anglo-Saxons and the Irish Palatinates whom are all Germanic peoples and all settlers to Ireland are to be completely ignored by Skadi as being non-Germanic because they have 'Assimilated'.

The questions I asked were not actually answered.

What is it that excludes this *particular* Germanic Heritage that IS part of Ireland?

Skadi are you suggesting has no interest in the Irish Vikings or Irish Normans because they are had become settled in Ireland? It would count though if these very same actual people settled in New Zealand despite the Maori's being there first as the earlier migrants.

Can you actually see why I fail to understand your logic of this exclusion of Germanic settlement in this particular country called Ireland?

Also why if I may also politely ask is Ireland *included* in this encyclopedia of Germanica (In German).

http://www.encyclopaedia-germanica.org/de/index.php/Hauptseite

I am of Germanic heritage and I speak Germanic English since early childhood in Ireland and yet I am considered non-Germanic by Skadi because I am actually from Ireland? If however I was born in New Zealand then I am considered Germanic by Skadi and worthy of a sub section? :confused

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to Exclude the Germanic people of Ireland on such a Germanic forum as Skadi. Especially when a country like New Zealand is actually included.

Its as a matter of fact extremely Unfair..

Thank You
:shrug

Untersberger
Wednesday, January 6th, 2010, 02:04 AM
However, there are still enough of differences between them so that Celtic does not equal Germanic, and vice-versa.

But I am not referring to the celts at all here. I am referring this to a sub section to discuss the Germanic peoples of Ireland. The Vikings are not celts nor were the Normans or Anglo-Saxons so lines are obviously crossed here as to what I am actually wanting to discuss.

Where is the harm in merely suggesting a little place to discuss Irish Vikings on Skadi!!


:fviking:

Einarr
Wednesday, January 6th, 2010, 02:06 AM
Hehe... I understand how it all might sound kind of contradictory and confusing on the surface, but it's really not. ;)

The main thing you need to realize is that, anthropologically speaking, there are no "Germanic" or "Celtic" races, even though only certain European sub-races are assimilable into their respective cultures. As it happens, traditional Germanic and Celtic tribes have many overlapping racial characteristics along with shared Indo-European linguistic and cultural origins. However, there are still enough of differences between them so that Celtic does not equal Germanic, and vice-versa.

I agree, on a cultural level, self-identification, as well as linguistics (traditionally, not anymore) we could say that Ireland and much/some of Scotland is "Celt." On a genetic level however, I do not agree that it's possible to easily separate *most* people of these two groups from "Germanic" groups. There is just too much overlapping.

I also really agree with what you said before torchbearer, that "Celt" is probably the most mis-used ethnic term of today. It also seems that many who may have anti-celt ambitions act as if Celts are a totally distinct and separate group from Germanics on a genetic basis. I would love for someone to explain how that is so, and I am not being sarcastic. I like to learn. From all of the evidence I have seen however, and using common sense, that proposed separation does not seem at all valid.

That all also depends on your definition of a Germanic person though. Some people, Matrix (user on this forum) for example believe that if you or if any of your relatively recent ancestors do/did not have blonde hair or blue eyes, then you are not Germanic. If that is the case, then there are a hell of a lot less Germanic people on this planet than I thought :-O.

By the way, whether there is a Scotland subforum or not really makes no difference to me, but it would be absurd to say that Scotland is heavily "Celt" (as a whole) when we look at Lower Scotland or places such as Shetland or the Orkneys in the North.

Untersberger
Wednesday, January 6th, 2010, 02:58 AM
Just some reflection here:
-----------------------------
Vikings of Ireland

For at least 1400 years, up to the ninth century, the civilization of Ireland remained uniformly Celtic. Then, in the year 795, came the first of the Viking attacks, on Lambay Island in Dublin Bay. This was the beginning of more than two centuries of attack and invasion which had a devastating effect on Ireland, and on the Irish monasteries in particular.

"Viking" (from the Old Norse vikingr) means "sea-rover" or "pirate", and this is precisely what these people were. Ethnically, they were Teutons, Danish, Swedish and Norwegian farmers, fishermen and sea-merchants, who were forced onto the open sea in search of a livelihood by over-population and shortage of arable land. From the eighth century, their plundering raids terrorized much of the known world, reaching as far as America, North Africa, and Constantinople.

In Ireland, the annalists distinguished two groups among the raiding vikings, the Lochlainn, or Norwegians, and the Danair, or Danes, the Norwegians being described as fair, the Danish as dark. Initially, the Norwegians dominated, and their raids were sporadic and unsystematic. From about 830, however, a new phase of large-scale attacks, involving the use of fleets of long-ships, began, and the Vikings penetrated deep inland through the use of rivers and lakes. Attracted by the wealth of the monasteries and churches, they plundered them steadily. From this period date the first of the Vikings' fortified settlements. In 852, the Danes wrested control of one of these settlements, the military and trading post of Dublin, from the Norwegians, under their king Olaf (in Irish Amlaoimh), and founded the Danish kingdom of Dublin which was to last three hundred years, until the coming of the Anglo-Normans.

For the next 100 years, up to the middle of the tenth century, the Vikings consolidated and extended their power through unremitting aggression. From about 950 on, however, the east Clare Gaelic sept of the Dal Cais began its rise to power, capturing first the Kingship of Munster from the Eoganachta and then, with Brian Boru, taking the high-kingship of Ireland from the Ui Neill in 1002. Brian fused the disparate Gaelic forces into a single confederate army, and defeated the combined might of the Norwegian and Danish forces in the battle of Clontarf on April 23 1014, breaking the power of the Vikings permanently.

Although their political power declined rapidly after this, as a people the Vikings were soon thoroughly absorbed into the religious and political life of the country, adopting the Irish language and Irish customs, intermarrying and intermingling. Many modern Irish surnames reflect this, with McLoughlin (Mac Lochlainn) and McIvor (Mac Iomhair), for instance, deriving from a combination of the Gaelic patronymic with a Norse personal name. To them also we owe all of the earliest towns in the country: Dublin, Wexford, Waterford, Cork and Limerick all began as Viking settlements, and, even after their absorption into the Gaelic culture, the commercial interests of the newcomers kept them centred in these areas.

The Anglo-Irish

Along with the more readily identifiable immigrant groups, the eighteenth century also saw the rise of a much more powerful, though less well defined race, the Anglo-Irish. These were a social elite, dominating politics, the law, land, and the professions, who were descended from Normans and Saxon English. Rather than a common ethnic origin, what defined these people was their sense of belonging, derived from a confused colonial nationalism. This is reflected in their use of the word "Irish". Those who, in 1690, were "the Protestants of Ireland" or "the English of this Kingdom", by the 1720s could call themselves, simply, "Irish gentlemen". Where previously "Irish" had meant "native Irish", it was now extended to cover those who had been outsiders.

There remained, however, a fatal ambiguity in its use. The continuing threat posed to the position of the Anglo-Irish by the majority of the population - Gaelic, Catholic, and living in a degree of poverty that astounded foreign observers - meant that they simply could not afford to identify too closely with the country as a whole. As a result, in the writings of the time, "the Irish", or even "the Irish race" most often refers specifically to the people we now call Anglo-Irish.

The best-known representative of the Anglo-Irish was Dr. Jonathan Swift, poet, satirist, and Dean of St. Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin, and the dilemma of his race is illustrated vividly in his work. Fighting bitterly against the poverty and injustice which he saw inflicted on Ireland by the self-interest of the English government, his struggle was nonetheless largely on behalf of his fellow Irish Protestants. He was aware that "government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery" could apply just as well to the relationship between Anglo-Irish and Gaelic Irish, as it could to the relationship between the English government and the Anglo-Irish. In attacking injustice done to his own race, he was in the peculiar and uncomfortable position of implicitly attacking injustice done by them. In Swift's case at least, common humanity could outweigh partisan considerations, and some of his most famous work is universal in its implications. "A Modest Proposal", for instance, in response to mass starvation among the most destitute Irish, satirically suggests selling their young children as food for gentlemen, even offering some helpful recipes.

Although real power emanated from London, within Ireland the Anglo-Irish were dominant for over two centuries, and much of the character of the country today derives from their influence. They were responsible for the great neo-classical houses of the gentry, the Georgian buildings and thoroughfares of Dublin, and the literary tradition which lay behind the great revival of writing in Ireland in the early twentieth century.

Untersberger
Wednesday, January 6th, 2010, 03:21 AM
Some of the Germanic Norman Family Surnames of Ireland.

SURNAME - COUNTY- EARLY ORIGIN -

Archbold - Wicklow - Anglo-Norman
Archdeacon - Kilkenny - Norman, le Ercedekne
Archer - Dublin, Kilkenny - Norman, le Archer
Athy - Kildare, Galway - Norman (Cambro, Anglo?)
Ayl(e)ward - Waterford, Kilkenny - Anglo-Norman
Babe - Louth - Anglo-Norman, le Babbe
Baldwin - Waterford - German-Flemish, Baldwyn
Balf(f)e - Meath - Anglo-Norman, balbh
Barbour - Dublin, Cork - Norman-French, barbier
Barnewall - Dublin, Meath - Norman, de Barneville
Barrett - Cork, Mayo - Cambro-Norman, Baroid or Bairéad
Barron - Waterford - Cambro-Norman, Fitzgerald derivative
Barry - Cork - Norman, de Barri
Beamish - Cork, Kerry - Norman-French, place-name Beaumais
Begg(s) - Antrim - Anglo-Norman (also a Scottish name)
Bellew - Louth, Meath - Norman, de Bel Eau (Beleawe)
Belton - Dublin - Anglo-Norman, de Welton
Bermingham - Offaly, Galway - Norman, de Bermingham
Berrill - Louth
Blake - Galway - Welsh - Caddell; one of 'Tribes of Galway'
Blanchfield - Kilkenny - Norman-French, de Blancheville
Bluett - Cork, Limerick
Bodkin - Galway - Anglo-Norman, Geraldine derivation (baudekin)
Bonfield - Clare, Limerick - Anglo-Norman, de Bonneville
Brannagh - Kilkenny, Wexford, Waterford - Welsh, Breathnach
Brett - Dublin - Anglo-Norman, possibly le Bret (e.g. Milo le Bret)
Broe - Leinster - Norman, de Berewa and de Bruth
Broy - Kilkenny - Norman, de Broy
Browne - Galway - Norman, le Brun (Brunach)
Bryan - Klikenny, Wexford - Anglo-Norman, personal name Brian
Burke - Galway, Mayo - Norman, de Burgo
Burnell - Dublin, Meath - Anglo-Norman, le Brun
Bury - Wicklow - Norman, de Bury
Busher - Waterford, Wexford - Norman-Flemish, Bouchier
Butler - Kilkenny, Tipperary - Norman, Fitzwalter (de Botiller)
Cadogan - Cork - Cambro, a Welsh forename (Cadwgan)
Campion - Kilkenny, Laois - Norman, de Champagnes (Champaynes)
Cantillon - Kerry - Norman, de Cauntelo
Cantwell - Kilkenny - Anglo-Norman, de Kentenall or de Kentwell
Carbery - Kildare - Norman (not the early lords of Carbury)
Carew - Cork, Tipperary - Cambro-Norman, de Carron or de Curio
Cashell - Louth - Anglo-Nomran, de Cashel
Chambers - Mayo - Anglo-Norman, de la Chambre
Clare, Clear - Kilkenny, Wexford - Norman, de Clare
Cody - Kilkenny, Wexford - Norman, Mac Ó Oda (see Archdeacon)
Cogan - Cork - Morman, de Cogan
Collier - Dublin, 14th century - Anglo-Norman, le Collier
Comyn - Dublin, Clare - Anglo-Norman, de Comines (also Scottish)
Comerford - Kilkenny, Waterford - Anglo, village in Staffordshire
Condon - Cork - Anglo-Norman, Caunteton
(Mac)Costello(e) Mayo - Norman, Mac Oisdealbh (son of Gilebrt de Nangle)
Courcy - Cork - Anglo-Norman, de Courcy
Croker - Kilkenny - Anglo-Norman, le Crocker
Cruise - Dublin, Meath - Anglo-Norman, de Cruys
Cullen - Wexford - Norman-Flemish
Cusack - Clare - Norman-Flemish, de Cussac
Cussen - Cork, Tipperary - Norman
Dalton - Clare, Meath - Anglo-Norman, D'Alton
Darcy - Meath - Anglo-Norman, D'Arcy
Dardis - Meath, Westmeath - Norman, D'Ardis
Daton - Kilkenny - Anglo-Norman, D'Auton
Day - Wexford - Anglo-Norman, de Haye
Deane - Dublin, Kilkenny - Anglo-Norman, de Denne
Delamer - Dublin - Anglo-Norman, de la Mare
Denvir - Down Anglo-Norman, - D'Anver of Norfolk
Devereux - Wexford - Norman, d'Evreux
Dillon - Westmeath - Anglo-Norman, Viscounts de Lion of Brittany
Dondon - Limerick Anglo-Norman, - de Auno
Dowdall - Dublin - Anglo-Norman, Dovedale
Elvery - Kilkenny, Carlow Anglo-Norman, - Anglo
Erley - Kilkenny, Tipperary Anglo-Norman, - d'Erley
Esmonde - Wexford Anglo-Norman,
Eustace - Kildare - Anglo-Norman
Everard - Meath, Tipperary - Anglo-Norman
Fagan - Dublin, Meath - Norman
Fallas - Fermanagh - Norman, de Falaise, town in Normandy
Fannin(g) - Limerick, Tipperary - Norman, personal name Panin
Fitzelle - Kerry - Norman
Fitzgerald - Cork, Kildare - Cambro-Norman, Gerald of Windsor
Fitzgibbon - Mayo - Norman, MacGibbon Burke
Fitzgibbon - Limerick - Cambro-Norman, The White Knight (FitzGerald)
Fitzhenry - Wexford Anglo-Norman,
Fitzmaurice - Kerry - Cambro-Norman, Morrisey (FitzGerald)
Fitzmaurice - Mayo - Cambro-Norman, branch of Prendergast
Fitzsimmons - Cavan, Down, Mayo - Norman, Fitzsimon
Fitzstephens - Cork - Cambro-Norman, Robert FitzStephen
Flavelle - Armagh ANorman,
Fleming - Meath - Flemish, Lord Slane
Forrestal - Kilkenny, Wexford - Anglo-Norman, le Forstal
Francis - Galway
Frizell - Cork, Limerick - Norman, le Frisel (of Friesland)
French - Wexford, Galway - Norman, de French
Freyne - Kilkenny - Norman, de la Freigne
Furlong - Wexford - Anglo, meaning a field or stadium
Ganter - Dublin Anglo-Norman,
Garland, Gernon - Louth, Meath - Anglo-Norman, Roger de Gernon
Goold - Dublin, Cork
Gorham - Kerry
Goulding - Dublin, Cork - e.g. Nicholas Goldinges (1314)
Grace - Kilkenny - Cambro-Norman, Raymond le Gros
Granville - Kerry
Grennon - Meath - Norman, Robert de Grenan
Griffin - Kilkenny - (also an Gaelic-Irish surname)
Griffith - Kilkenny -
Hackett - Carlow, Kildare, Kilkenny - Norman, personal name
Hayden or Headon - Dublin, Wexford - Norman, de Heddon
Hayes or Hay - Wexford - Norman, de la Haye
Herbert - Kerry Anglo-Norman,
Hollywood - Dublin
Hore - Wexford - Anglo-Norman, le Hore
Howlin, Holden - Kilkenny - Welsh, Huolyn
Hussey - Meath, Kerry - Norman, de Hose and de Hosey
Jordan - Mayo, Clare - Norman, Jordan d'Exeter
Joyce - Galway, Mayo - Welsh, de Jorse
Keating - Wexford, Kilkenny, Waterford - Cambro-Norman, Cethyn
Kennefick - Dublin, Louth, Kilkenny, Cork - Welsh place name
Kiersey - Waterford
Lacy - Meath, Limerick - Anglo-Norman, de Lacy
Laffan - Wexford, Tipperary - Anglo-Norman, La Font or La Fin
Lambert - Wexford, Galway - Norman
Landy - Kilkenny, Tipperary - Norman, de la Launde
Lawless - Dublin, Galway - Anglo-Norman, Old English word laghles
Liston - Limerick - de Lexinton
Logan - Ulster - Norman, de Logan
Lucey - Cork - Norman, de Lucy
Lynch - Galway - de Lench
Lyons - Meath - Norman, de Leon or de Lyons
MacAndrew - Mayo - Norman, branch of the Barretts
MacCabe - Co Cavan - Scottish gallowglasses, 14th century
MacElligot - Kerry - Cambro-Norman, FitzElias (also Gaelic?)
MacHale - Mayo - Welsh, personal name Howell (also a Gaelic name)
MacQuillan - Antrim - Norman-Welsh, Lords of the Route, Hugelin
Mandeville - Tipperary - Norman, de Magna Villa
Mansfield - Waterford - de Mandeville
Marmion or Merriman - Dublin - Norman, Marmyoun
Marshall - Wexford - Mareschal
Maunsell - Tipperary, Limerick - Anglo-Norman, le mansel
Meere - Meath - Norman?,
Merrick - Connacht - Welsh, Mac Mibhric (also an English name)
Meyler - Wexford - Cambro-Norman, Meyer
Mockler - Tipperary - Norman,
Molyneux - Kerry, Ulster
Montagne - Armagh, Tyrone - de Montaigne
Morris - Galway - Norman, de Marries (de Marisco)
Morrissey - Waterford, Limerick, Cork - Norman, de Marisco
Mortimer - Meath - Norman
Montmorency - - de Monte Marisco (see Morris)
Mountain - Waterford - de la Montagne
Nangle or Nagle - Meath, Cork - d'Angulos (see Costelloe)
Neville - Wexford, Kilkenny - Norman, de Neville
Noble - Fermanagh - le Noble
Nugent - Cork, Westmeath - de Nogent
Oliver - Louth
Palmer - Kerry, Meath - Norman, old-French le paumer
Pender - see Prendergast
Pentony - Meath, Louth, Dublin
Peppard - Louth - Norman, de Pipard
Plunkett - Louth, Meath - Anglo-Norman, corruption of blanchet
Power - Waterford - Anglo-Norman, le Poer
Prendergast - Waterford, Mayo - Anglo-Norman, village in Pembrokeshire
Prior - Dublin, Limerick - Norman
Proud - Ormond
Punch - Kildare, Dublin - Norman, forename Poncius (Ponce)
Purcell - Tipperary, Kilkenny - Norman-French word porcel
Quilter - Kerry - le Cuilter
Redmond - Wexford - Norman, Alexander Raymond
Rice - Limerick, Kerry - Welsh, Rhys (also a Irish-Gaelic name)
Roberts or Rochford - Cork... - de Ridelsford
Roche - Wexford, Cork - Norman-Flemish, de la Roche (fitzGodebert)
Rochfort - Westmeath - Norman, de Rupefort
Rossiter - Wexford - Anglo-Norman
Russell - Down - Anglo-Norman (also an English name)
Sarsfield - Cork - Norman, de Sharisfeld
Scriven - Dublin, Cork
Shortall - Kilkenny
Sinnott - Wexford, Kildare - Norman-Flemish
St Leger - Waterford, Cork
Savage - Down, Kilkenny
Scales - Limerick, Clare - Anglo-Norman
Scurlock - Wexford
Shinnors - Tipperary, Limerick - Anglo-Norman
Stackpoole - Clare, Dublin
Stapleton - Kilkenny, Tipperary
Staunton - Mayo - Anglo-Norman - Mac an Bhileadha (MacEvilly)
Taaffe - Louth, Sligo - Welsh, personal name David
Talbot - Dublin
Teeling - Meath
Tobin - Tipperary, Kilkenny - French-Norman, de St. Aubyn
Tuite - Meath, Westmeath - French-Norman, de Tiúit
Tyrrell - Westmeath
Ussher - Dublin - Norman, Nevill family
Veale - Waterford
Viniter - Munster - le Vineter
Wade - Waterford
Wall - Limerick, Waterford - Norman, du Val or de Wale or de Valle
Warren - Dublin - Anglo-Norman, de la Varenne or de Warenne
Waring - Meath, Kilkenny, Down - Guarin
White - Limerick - le Blund
Woulfe - Kildare, Limerick, - Norman, le Woulf
Wyse - Waterford - Anglo-Norman.
:fhdclap:

Sigurd
Wednesday, January 6th, 2010, 10:12 AM
The Vikings are not celts nor were the Normans or Anglo-Saxons so lines are obviously crossed here as to what I am actually wanting to discuss.

That's why we have a nice little category entitled Germanic Enclaves & Influences (http://forums.skadi.net/forumdisplay.php?f=836), which is where such threads should go. This is a section for countries which are either predominantly not Germanic but have visible Germanic influences, or indeed self-contained Germanic enclaves. :)

It is undeniable that several Germanic groups had a profound influence upon the Hibernian island. It may even well be that there is one or the other isolated village which descends directly from Germanic settlers, and of course it would be a folly if the descendants those settlers called themselves anything but Germanic.

However since it is by and at large not a Germanic country, we cannot make a dedicated section. This doesn't mean that we wouldn't welcome topics about Germanic heritage (or whatever is left) in Ireland. Quite to the contrary, we quite encourage it. But that should go into abovementioned section.

As you will have noticed, we don't have a dedicated section for Normandy, even though we consider it largely Germanic. Any topics of pertinence to Normans should go into "Germanic Enclaves & Influences" likewise. And that's with Normandy arguably having a greater claim upon being an "exclusively" Germanic region than Ireland.

And so on and so forth. If we made a sub-section for each enclave or influenced region, then the index would about three miles long, with about a handful of threads in each. That's why it is collectivised at current, the index is already large enough I should think. ;)

Untersberger
Wednesday, January 6th, 2010, 01:23 PM
Thank you for your words of wisdom. I do feel personally that Ireland should be put together *with Scotland* as one subsection so that it doesn't take up further space down the list. Easily done with the flags of Scotland and Ireland flashing in sequence as same on sub section Die Deutschen Länder. When compared to New Zealand the island of Ireland more than qualifies and I had not even mentioned the Ulster plantations which adds extra weight to its Germanic status and further justification. The flag of Northern Ireland is mostly Germanic in symbology.

I do of course understand everyones point of view whom has contributed and will accept of course recommendations made and I thank the moderators also for your input even if I feel it is unfair.

I just can't get around the justification given to New Zealand's status as Germanic. I think your experts may need to take another look at this as this country certainly is not a Germanic nation and I am interested to know what percentage of the country is actually of English descent. The Maori/Islanders, Celt's, Others, etc etc NZ population far outnumbers them but hey!!! I stand to be corrected if you feel I have gotten that wrong. Please do enlighten !!!..

But for me the case for Germanic Ireland to share sub section Scotland is now closed!

:fgdnight:

Nachtengel
Wednesday, January 6th, 2010, 04:09 PM
I just can't get around the justification given to New Zealand's status as Germanic. I think your experts may need to take another look at this as this country certainly is not a Germanic nation and I am interested to know what percentage of the country is actually of English descent. The Maori/Islanders, Celt's, Others, etc etc NZ population far outnumbers them but hey!!! I stand to be corrected if you feel I have gotten that wrong. Please do enlighten !!!..


New Zealand has a population of about 4.3 million, of which approximately 78% identify with European ethnic groups. Most European New Zealanders are of British and Irish ancestry, although there has been significant Dutch, Dalmatian, Italian, and German immigration together with indirect European immigration through Australia, North America, South America and South Africa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand#Demography

Frau Holle
Wednesday, January 6th, 2010, 04:29 PM
Percentage of Irish speakers by county of the Republic; the six counties of Northern Ireland are not portrayed distinctly here.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/Cainteoir%C3%AD_Gaeilge_-_Irish_Speakers.svg/468px-Cainteoir%C3%AD_Gaeilge_-_Irish_Speakers.svg.png

The Horned God
Wednesday, January 6th, 2010, 08:43 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/Cainteoir%C3%AD_Gaeilge_-_Irish_Speakers.svg/468px-Cainteoir%C3%AD_Gaeilge_-_Irish_Speakers.svg.png

I'm afraid this chart is ridiculously optimistic. 99% of all the so called "Irish speakers" in Ireland only have what is referred to as "a cupla focail" (a couple of words) of Irish. The vast majority can speak Irish about as well as the average Englishman a few years out of school can speak French or German. It is a bit of a disgrace to say that 93 years after independence most of us can't speak our own language, but that is the current situation.

Rhydderch
Thursday, January 7th, 2010, 04:07 AM
So that means in full effect of the Vikings and the Normans and the Anglo-Saxons and the Irish Palatinates whom are all Germanic peoples and all settlers to Ireland are to be completely ignored by Skadi as being non-Germanic because they have 'Assimilated'.The difference here though is that a significant proportion of Australians and New Zealanders are descended exclusively from ethnic groups considered by Skadi to be Germanic, and so they are seen as ethnically germanic. In the case of Ireland, there is no longer an "Irish Viking" group ethnically distinct from the rest of the country; the Irish are basically an ethnic group of their own (and not a truly Germanic one in my view), even though they are composed of what were once a number of separate groups. It's extremely unlikely that any born and bred Irishman would be say, more than 50% Viking in ancestry.

But for example Afrikaners are ethnically/culturally distinct from the native South Africans, even though the latter vastly outnumber them. However, if the Afrikaners and natives had merged to become one people the story would be different, even though the resulting ethnic group would be partially Germanic.

In this case South Africa would (presumably) not have a Germanic section of its own.

The Horned God
Thursday, January 7th, 2010, 09:27 AM
There are some Irish names believed to be of Viking origin;


Viking surnames:

* Doyle, MacDougall, McDowell (Dubh Gall)
* Harald (Haraldsson)
* Higgins (h-Uiginn, i.e., a Viking)
* MacAuliffe/Auley/Cauley (Olsson)
* MacCottor (Ottarsson)
* MacKitterick (Strigsson)
* MacManus (Magnusson)
* Wood (Wode, meaning mad; described Beserkers)
Source. (http://irishname.eu/#809189D2-7517-4af1-BAF0-1A36C3BB8640&numResults=0&command=%20m_objCurrentDocument.getEleme ntById(%27veohrecs_fr%27).style.height%2 0%3D%20%27107px%27%3B%20m_objCurrentDocu ment.getElementById(%27Veoh_SpaceDiv%27) .style.height%20%3D%20%2712px%27%3B%20m_ objCurrentDocument.getElementById(%27Veo hCompass.LoadingDiv%27).style.height%20% 3D%20%270px%27%3B%20m_objCurrentDocument .getElementById(%27VeohCompass.LoadingDi v%27).style.display%20%3D%20%27none%27%3 B)


Of these, Doyle is the most common and the 12th most common surname in Ireland with about 19,000 households and around 50,000 people or about 1% of the population of the Island.

http://www.doyle.com.au/today.htm

Bärin
Thursday, January 7th, 2010, 12:03 PM
How does having a Viking surname prove predominant Germanic ancestry? There are surnames of Germanic origin in Spain too, but Spain isn't Germanic either.

The Horned God
Thursday, January 7th, 2010, 07:11 PM
How does having a Viking surname prove predominant Germanic ancestry?

I'm not suggesting that Ireland is "predominantly Germanic". However if a significant percentage of a countries population bare names of a given ethnic origin whether it is Viking, Huguenot, Germanic or whatever else, then clearly it indicates that there is also a percentage of genetic heritage in the country originating from that source.

There are about 50,000 Doyles in Ireland and there are a number of other surnames believed to be Viking as well.

The number of names of Viking origin in Ireland though, is completely dwarfed by the number of Norman names. In certain places on the east coast there would be nearly as many people with a Norman name as with a Gaelic one.However as the Normans in Ireland didn't actually come direct from Normandy but through Britain, just how "Germanic-Norman" they were by the time they got here, is debatable.

Cuchullain
Sunday, June 13th, 2010, 12:37 AM
As an Irishman I feel I should give my opinion. I have direct German and Norwegian ancestry as well as Irish and Welsh. I claim to be of Celtic Germanic decent.

I do not think that Ireland needs a forum of it's own. It is not necessary to have your own section to enjoy the benefits and knowledge contained within this forum. I do not see anywhere that Celts are banned from this forum so it shouldn't matter if there is an Irish section or not.

On the matter of whether or not the Irish can claim to have a Germanic strain in their ancestry I believe that they can. Many Scottish, English, Danish and Norwegians settled here over the years as did other races.

Many of out towns built on rivers have the suffix Ford which comes from the word Fjord. The town I live in is Waterford or Vadre Fjorde by it's Viking name.

Sorry for not having a better source to hand than Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Place_names_in_Ireland

http://www.fortunecity.com/bally/sligo/93/past/history/10141250.html

Sigurd
Sunday, June 13th, 2010, 01:22 AM
How does having a Viking surname prove predominant Germanic ancestry? There are surnames of Germanic origin in Spain too, but Spain isn't Germanic either.

That is because their rulers were Germanic for a fair while. If your king is called Roderic you might just as well name your child Roderic. If his son is then Emeric, he might well be Emeric, Roderic's son (specified in whatever manner). At some point, when it becomes a surname, we end up at Rodriguez.

The Germanics in Spain left numerous evidence, though not so much genetic. It has, for example been theorised that the fricative character that /d/, /z/, /c/ have in contemporary Castilian is to be traced back to Germanic influence. After all, phonetic/phonological change is more bound to quickly occur when this "difference of speech" is performed by the influential rather than the farmer in a hinterland (though it needs the farmer in the hinterland for it to surpass the threshold of when it becomes accepted norm!)

Of course this will be the same for other countries with Germanic genetic input, such as Russia or Ireland, without a doubt. Usually the input will have been the royalty, which doesn't however mean that forenames are not adopted. Jaroslav/Yaroslav is still a common forename in many Slavic countries, and it has been suggested that this name come from Norse Jarisleif, who was a ruler.

In those countries where patronymic tradition was carried on for a fair while and then exchanged for inherited surnames rather rapidly (such as in Spain) rather than adding a surname to it (such as in Russia, where you have names such as Evgeni Jarosavlovich Molotow BUT Alexej Fjodorovich Romanow) and mixing the system a little, these patronymics then become surnames in their own right.

This is how hinterland farmers in Spain probably ended up with surnames such as Rodriguez, Fernandez, etc.

In Ireland it is rather different, to do with clan-names rather than patronymic motivation beyond a clan-name being of patronymic derivation, which is of course a fairly common phenomenon. The same would be easily suggested for Scotland, though the difference here being that we have well-documented Anglo-Norman immigration into particularly the Lowlands. ;)

Irby
Sunday, June 13th, 2010, 05:13 PM
What about an Eastern Ireland section? or Northern Ireland section?

Wexford, Waterford, Dublin all Viking towns. Not really Irish speaking regions, and the Ulster-Scots in the North, and English in the East.

Perhaps racially,and linguistically we need to think of Ireland as western and southern 'Celtic' over a Eastern and Northern Germanic region.

But naturally, the Irish themselves don't really identify as a Germanic nation, but then in England most people don't identify themselves as Germanic, and are horrified to realized that German and English are related language.

But Northern Ireland is as strong a Germanic region as Scotland,and Scots is still spoken by some in Ulster.

Méldmir
Sunday, June 13th, 2010, 05:36 PM
What about an Eastern Ireland section? or Northern Ireland section?

Wexford, Waterford, Dublin all Viking towns. Not really Irish speaking regions, and the Ulster-Scots in the North, and English in the East.


But weren't the Norse kicked out of these cities? I know that the Norse had to leave Dublin and instead founded Eastmantown (now Oxmantown of Dublin).

Irby
Sunday, June 13th, 2010, 06:00 PM
But weren't the Norse kicked out of these cities? I know that the Norse had to leave Dublin and instead founded Eastmantown (now Oxmantown of Dublin).

They were, that is why North West England is Viking, ( Norse-Gaels) But the Germanic element of Eastern Ireland has always seemed stronger. Most people in the east don't speak Irish, people from the East 'look' more Germanic or Nordic, there are lot more tall and blond, than say Kerry or Mayo. I know tall and blond does not make you Germanic, but we can all try!

Ok, may be the argument for eastern Ireland as Germanic is not that strong, (although it has been heavily influence by Germanic communities since the vikings, then the Normans and the English) But Ulster is certainly a Germanic region, with a Germanic speaking population, English or Scots, that do not have any other identity other than Germanic.

I feel that qualifies as a Germanic region. Go tell members of the UVF UDA or the red hand commando that they are Irish, and see if you keep your knee caps!!!!

Méldmir
Sunday, June 13th, 2010, 06:27 PM
I feel that qualifies as a Germanic region. Go tell members of the UVF UDA or the red hand commando that they are Irish, and see if you keep your knee caps!!!!

I presume this is because they want to distance themselves from the Irish Republic and the Irish unionists in N. Ireland, so it's more political than cultural. I mean their own identification would be Ulstermen or British, am I right? Ulster is still a part of the island of Ireland and thus Irish, whether they like that word or not. British is a bit broad. What I'm trying to say is that being against Irish doesn't mean they are pro-Germanic or something.

Irby
Sunday, June 13th, 2010, 06:43 PM
I presume this is because they want to distance themselves from the Irish Republic and the Irish unionists in N. Ireland, so it's more political than cultural. I mean their own identification would be Ulstermen or British, am I right? Ulster is still a part of the island of Ireland and thus Irish, whether they like that word or not. British is a bit broad. What I'm trying to say is that being against Irish doesn't mean they are pro-Germanic or something.

True, being against the Irish does not make you pro-Germanic, but it depends on what the definition is for Germanic.

Most English people, culturally and linguistically don't recognize (or even know that England is a Germanic) so in Ulster the fact that people may not openly recognize their Germanic background, does not make them less Germanic. Most English would be insulted to be called 'Germanic' but it does not alter the fact that English, is a Germanic language and region.

Furthermore, Germanic is in the blood and not ties to the physical land, just because Ulster is in Ireland, does not make them Irish, no more than being Dutch in Africa, make you less Germanic, or a German on the Volga makes you less German or a Swede in Finland, are they Finnish because they live in Finland? Are the Welsh, English, as their country is connected to England. Are the Vlaams French as they are attached to Wallonia. Are the Fries, Dutch, because Friesland is in the United provinces of the Netherlands.

What point is it to say that the Ulster-Scots in Ireland are Irish, because they are on the island of Eire?

Méldmir
Sunday, June 13th, 2010, 06:49 PM
What point is it to say that the Ulster-Scots in Ireland are Irish, because they are on the island of Eire?

So all Ulstermen have English heritage?

Untersberger
Sunday, June 13th, 2010, 07:04 PM
As mentioned before I am 100% directly descended from the Normans that settled in the Limerick City part of western Ireland. King Johns castle on the banks of the river shannon remains a bastion and a shrine and permanent reminder to the Norman settlement in that specific part of western Ireland.

Many moons before the Normans rocked up the Vikings under Thor also claimed the exact same region and made it a permanent Viking grand village settlement whom traded with the Celts and of course in time became integrated. All those moons later the Normans turned up and made the same area a fortress under the flag of Normanic rule and conquest.

As has been correctly pointed out the history of Ireland afterwards became a war of independence fought over centuries of conflict with Britain and even the Germanic Irish identified with their Celtic side in order to identify with Irish Nationalism.

A whole third of the Irish population I would speculate is of direct Germanic bloodline as I am although 99% of us are also of course also Celtic in bloodline in this the modern day. ( Germanen-Kelt ) ; )

It is because of the struggle for independence with Britain that the Irish as a whole identified by choice their Celtic heritage rather than Germanic which was seen as Protestant leanings via religion and also Unionist and thus Pro-British Politically. The whole history is complex as one of struggle against foreign rule and ironically it was Anglo-Irish protestants based mostly in Dublin whom were involved in some of the rebellions to expel British rule from Ireland.

Ireland in my point of view deserves its own sub section as is given to Scotland due to the low Scots even though Scotland internationally is seen to identify also more with its Celtic heritage rather than Germanic.

I have been told quite strongly Ireland will Not be given its own section of Skadi and that is for the Moderators to uphold as they so choose which I still consider unfair but I of course also accept their decision as they of course do the hard yards for Skadi.

In this instance though I do try to understand why *Maori* culturally dominated New Zealand is considered more Germanic than Ireland considering the historical obvious.. None of the New Zealanders whom I know consider New Zealand to be Germanic.. In fact they burst out laughing when I said those very words . All of them..

But thats another issue - of course..

Cheers :viking_ship:

Méldmir
Sunday, June 13th, 2010, 07:08 PM
Out of curiosity, what was the ancestry of the Normans of the Middle Ages? I know they were part Norse, but the rest? Frankish?

Untersberger
Sunday, June 13th, 2010, 07:16 PM
Norsk... But they of course would have intermingled with the natives of their land of conquest 'Normandy'..

So whom were the original natives of Normandy before the Norsemen rocked up ??

Good Question.

Méldmir
Sunday, June 13th, 2010, 07:18 PM
Norsk... But they of course would have intermingled with the natives of their land of conquest 'Normandy'..

So whom were the original natives of Normandy before the Norsemen rocked up ??

Good Question.

By the 1200s, the Normans were probably mostly native Norman, since there had been no new Norse settling Normandy since the 900s.

Untersberger
Sunday, June 13th, 2010, 07:27 PM
Around this same time they were then conquerers of both Angle-Saxon Land and strategic parts of coastal Hibernia .. Im sure the Norsemen whom had become Normans had contact and travel with the olde country.. Surely.. They were sailors as well as warriors.. Trade would have been essential to any development..

Curious
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 03:42 PM
How comes? Do you see the Irish as being inferior to other white races? And another question. questions not related with tread-title removed No emotionally charged answers please i'm just curious that's all. By the way my ancestry that I know of is 3/4 Irish, 1/4 English with a little Italian (very small amount).

Hamar Fox
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 04:24 PM
Probably because the Irish aren't Germanic or Nordic.

I'm assuming you mean culturally Nordic. Some Irish are Nordid (usually Keltic Nordid), and most are Nordish, racially speaking.

I can't speak for anyone else, but, no, I don't consider the Irish inferior. I love all Celts, Germanics, and Celto-Germanics.

þeudiskaz
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 04:24 PM
How comes? Do you see the Irish as being inferior to other white races? And another question. questions not related with tread-title removed No emotionally charged answers please i'm just curious that's all. By the way my ancestry that I know of is 3/4 Irish, 1/4 English with a little Italian (very small amount).

As far as I'm aware, Skadi makes the distinction because the Irish/Celts may well not be Germanic. I think it's probable that they are very close, but Gaelic is a different language tree from Germanic languages, and linguistics is the defining trait of the Germanic ethnic grouping.

As for Irish being inferior to other whites, I only personally care about Germanic prosperity, none of that "white pride" for me. In which case, Irish people aren't less than equal, I simply don't care about them, just like I don't care about the Italians, the Spanish, the Slavs. I care about Germanics, so it's not about inequality.

Thats just my two cents, not everyone here agrees with me, and thats cool. Cultural preservation is more important than agreeing about everything.

Caledonian
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 04:26 PM
A perplexing question that I'm sure will bring alot of controversy and debate.

In Ireland we have a country that was occupied by Germanic vikings from 795 - 902 AD where the very city Dublin [Dubhlinn] was founded by them.

[In 917 AD the vikings raided Ireland again where many settled in vast droves on the isle permanently where Ireland for a while in history was ruled by viking Kings.]

For me that obviously left a Germanic mark on Ireland historically.

Then we have Ireland being dominated by British invasions which also left a very Germanic mark on it as well.

It's true that Ireland is very Celtic in that it has a Celt past but so did Scotland and England at one point in history.

If we look at the dominant Germanic mark on Ireland we see that alot of Irish speak English over their native Gaelic too.

[ A majority speak English.]

[What that shows is only the extent that the Irish have become Anglo - Saxonized.]

As for me I like the Irish considering my adoptive father is Irish.

I grew amongst the Irish of the United States and I have nothing but great things to say about them.

Curious
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 04:32 PM
A perplexing question that I'm sure will bring alot of controversy and debate.

In Ireland we have a country that was occupied by Germanic Vikings from 795 - 902 AD where the very city Dublin [Dubhlinn] was founded by them.

For me that obviously left a Germanic mark on Ireland historically.

Then we have Ireland being dominated by British invasions which also left a very Germanic mark on it as well.

It's true that Ireland is very Celtic in that it has a Celt past but so did Scotland and England at one point in history.

If we look at the dominant Germanic mark on Ireland we see that alot of Irish speak English over their native gaelic too.

Hmm, to be honest when looking at the facial features of the average irishman I don't see much difference between him and an Englishman apart from the fairer skin tone. Also the location of Ireland, right next to England, why are Scots considered Germanic then :S

Caledonian
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 04:41 PM
Hmm, to be honest when looking at the facial features of the average irishman I don't see much difference between him and an Englishman apart from the fairer skin tone. Also the location of Ireland, right next to England, why are Scots considered Germanic then :S

Well the obvious Anglo Saxonization of Scots is obvious historically which is why they are considered Germanic.


Hmm, to be honest when looking at the facial features of the average irishman I don't see much difference between him and an Englishman apart from the fairer skin tone.

Agreed.

Elessar
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 04:42 PM
The Irish are the last vestiges of the ancient Celtic tribes.
They speak Celtic, their art is Celtic, their music is Celtic, their history is Celtic, their mythology is Celtic, overall their culture is, you guessed it, Celtic.
Regardless of Norse invasion or English dominion, the Irish have remained resilient in holding on to their precious identity. I am a major supporter of the Irish and the remaining Celtic lands (Wales, Scotland, Brittany, Cornwall, and the Isle of Man. Hell even the continental ancient Celtic lands like Bohemia, Gaul, Galatia, Galicia, etc.).

Just because they had their run ins with Germanic people does not make them Germanic. It's not just some club you can join (as some people like to think).

Plus, why would you even want the Irish to be Germanic? Is their own identity not enough?
People complain over cultural Marxism, yet want to consider other lands Germanic which never were (speaking generally).

Unregistered
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 04:50 PM
The Irish are the last vestiges of the ancient Celtic tribes.
They speak Celtic, their art is Celtic, their music is Celtic, their history is Celtic, their mythology is Celtic, overall their culture is, you guessed it, Celtic.
Regardless of Norse invasion or English dominion, the Irish have remained resilient in holding on to their precious identity. I am a major supporter of the Irish and the remaining Celtic lands (Wales, Scotland, Brittany, Cornwall, and the Isle of Man. Hell even the continental ancient Celtic lands like Bohemia, Gaul, Galatia, Galicia, etc.).

Just because they had their run ins with Germanic people does not make them Germanic. It's not just some club you can join (as some people like to think).

Plus, why would you even want the Irish to be Germanic? Is their own identity not enough?
People complain over cultural Marxism, yet want to consider other lands Germanic which never were (speaking generally).

So it's a cultural issue and not a racial issue?

Caledonian
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 04:51 PM
The Irish are the last vestiges of the ancient Celtic tribes.
They speak Celtic, their art is Celtic, their music is Celtic, their history is Celtic, their mythology is Celtic, overall their culture is, you guessed it, Celtic.
Regardless of Norse invasion or English dominion, the Irish have remained resilient in holding on to their precious identity. I am a major supporter of the Irish and the remaining Celtic lands (Wales, Scotland, Brittany, Cornwall, and the Isle of Man. Hell even the continental ancient Celtic lands like Bohemia, Gaul, Galatia, Galicia, etc.).

Just because they had their run ins with Germanic people does not make them Germanic. It's not just some club you can join (as some people like to think).

Plus, why would you even want the Irish to be Germanic? Is their own identity not enough?
People complain over cultural Marxism, yet want to consider other lands Germanic which never were (speaking generally).

A majority of them speak English which is not a Celtic language whatsoever.


They speak Celtic, their art is Celtic, their music is Celtic, their history is Celtic, their mythology is Celtic, overall their culture is, you guessed it, Celtic.

Their overall culture and history is not Celtic in that like England or Scotland it is fragmented between a Celtic one with a large Germanic influenced part as well.


their art is Celtic,
Not entirely....


their music is Celtic

Also not entirely...


their mythology is Celtic
Parts of Britain and Scotland have retained their Celtic mythology.

So?

Let's not forget the descendants of vikings that exist in Ireland because of their ancestors that permanently settled there.

Elessar
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 04:53 PM
A majority of them speak English which is not a Celtic language whatsoever.

This is true. If you take a population of Americans, regardless of ancestry or ethnicity and have them speak English, this makes them Germanic?
Hardly so.

Keep in mind they do have their own language


So it's a cultural issue and not a racial issue?
Essentialy, yes. The Irish are of the same racial makeup as the rest of the British, respectively. With other admixtures from Scandinavia and Iberia.

Unregistered
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 04:58 PM
This is true. If you take a population of Americans, regardless of ancestry or ethnicity and have them speak English, this makes them Germanic?
Hardly so.

Keep in mind they do have their own language


Essentialy, yes. The Irish are of the same racial makeup as the rest of the British, respectively. With other admixtures from Scandinavia and Iberia.

But seeing as the vast majority of the Irish live outside of Ireland, why can't they then adopt this Germanic culture?

Sissi
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 04:59 PM
It has nothing to do with considering them inferior, racially or otherwise. :)

The Irish are simply not Germanic, but heavily Celtic, even if they had a Germanic element in their history.

Here is a rough definition of the Germanic people:


The Germanic peoples (also called Teutonic in older literature) are a historical ethno-linguistic group, originating in Northern Europe and identified by their use of the Indo-European Germanic languages, which diversified out of Common Germanic in the course of the Pre-Roman Iron Age. The descendants of these peoples became, and in many areas contributed to, ethnic groups in North Western Europe: Scandinavians (Danes, Finland-Swedes, Norwegians, Swedes and Icelanders, but not Finns and Sami), Germans (including Austrians, German-speaking Swiss, and ethnic Germans), Dutch, and English, among others.

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

Caledonian
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 05:01 PM
This is true. If you take a population of Americans, regardless of ancestry or ethnicity and have them speak English, this makes them Germanic?
Hardly so.

Keep in mind they do have their own language


Essentialy, yes. The Irish are of the same racial makeup as the rest of the British, respectively. With other admixtures from Scandinavia and Iberia.

Well that sounds like picking and choosing to me because a great deal of Irish history resembles very closely to Scotland or Britain.

They do have their own native language much like Scotland has it's own brand of Gaelic but what makes Scotland and Ireland very similar is how 95% of their inhabitants speak English instead of Gaelic at all.

þeudiskaz
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 05:02 PM
Plus, why would you even want the Irish to be Germanic? Is their own identity not enough?

Who we are should be enough for us. The Irish should be proud of who they are, and where they came from, so should the Japanese, and everyone else.

I am very proud of where I come from, of who I am. It's not something I can just "blend in" with, it's the very fabric of the culture of my father's father's fathers. My culture, my origins, my people are enough for me, and for each person, they should be enough for them as well.

Caledonian
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 05:05 PM
It has nothing to do with considering them inferior, racially or otherwise. :)

The Irish are simply not Germanic, but heavily Celtic, even if they had a Germanic element in their history.

Here is a rough definition of the Germanic people:



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

A. Many vikings permanently settled in Ireland which includes Norwegians, Swedes, and Danes.

B. With the British invasions many Brits settled in Ireland via Belfast,

[The English Brits being Anglo Saxon.]

C. The Irish dominantly speak English which is a Anglo Saxon language.


The situation of Ireland is not that all much different from Scotland or England.

Northern Paladin
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 05:07 PM
um.. because they are Celtic, duh!

There are Germanics, Celts, Slavs, Latins, Balts, Basques, Finns, Hungarians, Greeks, Estonians, and Albanians in Europe, all distinct cultural-linguistic groups. There is, however, oftentimes overlap between them in terms of race. Germanics, Celts, Slavs, Balts, and northern Latins could all have Nordic individuals among them.

Elessar
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 05:08 PM
Well that sounds like picking and choosing to me because a great deal of Irish history resembles very closely to Scotland or Britain.

They do have their own native language much like Scotland has it's own brand of Gaelic but what makes Scotland and Ireland very similar is how 95% of their inhabitants speak English instead of Gaelic at all.

Indeed the relation to Scotland and Ireland is close, seeing as the Irish populated it with "Scotti", or Gael, raiders.
The entire of Ireland & Scotland's history with England and Germanics in general is a hostile one. A sort of "You're going to be Germanic and like it!" relationship.
Yet miraculously they've held on to their Celtic roots.



But seeing as the vast majority of the Irish live outside of Ireland, why can't they then adopt this Germanic culture?

They can, technically, but this is where the line gets muddled.

Caledonian
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 05:10 PM
I don't know where people are getting the point of view that the Irish are dominantly Celtic because they are not.

Like the Scots,Welsh, and English the Irish share a Celtic past but at the same token they also to a large extent have a Anglo Saxon one as well which has kept with them.

[With some Scandinavian elements too.]

Elessar
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 05:19 PM
I don't know where people are getting the point of view that the Irish are dominantly Celtic because they are not.

Like the Scots,Welsh, and English the Irish share a Celtic past but at the same token they also to a large extent have a Anglo Saxon one as well which has kept with them.

It's a question of cultural dominance. Nobody wants to be dominated by another culture.
Just as if a Turk would come into Germany and because many of his kin there speak Turkish, you can't call it a Turkish country. I don't consider language the end-all-be-all of culture. Just because they've spoken English for the better part of modern history, doesn't make them Germanic. You wouldn't call African-Americans Germanic because they've been speaking English and had Anglo-Saxon overlords for 300 years.

Yes, the Irish have had various racial and cultural admixtures, but so has Germany, provincial differences notwithstanding. You wouldn't call Germany slavic because it once held parts of Poland or Czechoslokakia, or French because it held Allcaise-Lorraine. Both of which are now fully ingrained in their respective countries (and once were Celtic lands, might I add)

I have never considered Ireland, Scotland, or Wales Germanic.
Cultural Marxism at it's finest.

Caledonian
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 05:28 PM
It's a question of cultural dominance. Nobody wants to be dominated by another culture.
Just as if a Turk would come into Germany and because many of his kin there speak Turkish, you can't call it a Turkish country. I don't consider language the end-all-be-all of culture. Just because they've spoken English for the better part of modern history, doesn't make them Germanic. You wouldn't call African-Americans Germanic because they've been speaking English and had Anglo-Saxon overlords for 300 years.

Yes, the Irish have had various racial and cultural admixtures, but so has Germany, provincial differences notwithstanding. You wouldn't call Germany slavic because it once held parts of Poland or Czechoslokakia, or French because it held Allcaise-Lorraine. Both of which are now fully ingrained in their respective countries (and once were Celtic lands, might I add)

I have never considered Ireland, Scotland, or Wales Germanic.
Cultural Marxism at it's finest.


It's a question of cultural dominance. Nobody wants to be dominated by another culture.

Yes I understand this. This is why Ireland has it's own distinct nationalism.

However that still doesn't change the fact of Ireland having a dominant Anglo Saxon or Scandinavian history either.


I don't consider language the end-all-be-all of culture.

The influences of Anglo Saxon or Scandinavian culture within Ireland go way beyond language. It's not restricted to language.


You wouldn't call African-Americans Germanic because they've been speaking English and had Anglo-Saxon overlords for 300 years.
That's a irrelevant analogy within this current discussion.


Just as if a Turk would come into Germany and because many of his kin there speak Turkish, you can't call it a Turkish country.
Also a irrelevant analogy to the current discussion.


Yes, the Irish have had various racial and cultural admixtures, but so has Germany, provincial differences notwithstanding. You wouldn't call Germany slavic because it once held parts of Poland or Czechoslokakia, or French because it held Allcaise-Lorraine. Both of which are now fully ingrained in their respective countries (and once were Celtic lands, might I add)

If the large majority of a country was Anglo Saxon or Scandinavian how would we define it as?

Now ask yourself how Ireland is any different.


Yes, the Irish have had various racial and cultural admixtures, but so has Germany, provincial differences notwithstanding. You wouldn't call Germany slavic because it once held parts of Poland or Czechoslokakia, or French because it held Allcaise-Lorraine. Both of which are now fully ingrained in their respective countries (and once were Celtic lands, might I add)
Those analogies can't compare with the history of Ireland.

It doesn't even come close. Keep in mind Ireland is a small island which means it's more susceptible to major shifts and changes.


I have never considered Ireland, Scotland, or Wales Germanic.
Cultural Marxism at it's finest.

This discussion is not about cultural Marxism and why you would bring it up is beyond me. For you to bring somthing like that up is merely a distraction and a obnoxious intellectually bankrupted one at that.

This discussion is about a shared history and identity.

[All of which the northern isles of Europe have.]

Curious
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 05:31 PM
It's a question of cultural dominance. Nobody wants to be dominated by another culture.
Just as if a Turk would come into Germany and because many of his kin there speak Turkish, you can't call it a Turkish country. I don't consider language the end-all-be-all of culture. Just because they've spoken English for the better part of modern history, doesn't make them Germanic. You wouldn't call African-Americans Germanic because they've been speaking English and had Anglo-Saxon overlords for 300 years.

Yes, the Irish have had various racial and cultural admixtures, but so has Germany, provincial differences notwithstanding. You wouldn't call Germany slavic because it once held parts of Poland or Czechoslokakia, or French because it held Allcaise-Lorraine. Both of which are now fully ingrained in their respective countries (and once were Celtic lands, might I add)

I have never considered Ireland, Scotland, or Wales Germanic.
Cultural Marxism at it's finest.

But we can racially classify turks and Africans from Germanics/Nordics/Whites. You've admitted that the difference between the Irish and Germanics is cultural. Unless it is racial you should use another example. Let's say a Dane or dutchman by genetics grew up in Hungrary for around thirty years of his life. Would you accept him as Germanic then?

Elessar
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 05:36 PM
I see the Irish and Celts as this: ""Only he is lost who gives himself up for lost" - Hans-Ulrich Rudel

The Germanic influence in Ireland is undeniable, the fact they still consider themselves a Celtic nation is also paramount.
The notion of Pan-Germanicism wasn't acknowledged until relatively recently.
Their fight was with the English, not Germanics. The English themselves distancing themselves with the Germans, even as recently as WWI & II whom they considered "Huns".
I would find it hard to believe that when an Irishman were to be asked if he were Germanic, he would say yes

I commend the Irish for trying to remain their own, though others would have it otherwise.

Caledonian
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 05:39 PM
I see the Irish and Celts as this: ""Only he is lost who gives himself up for lost" - Hans-Ulrich Rudel

The Germanic influence in Ireland is undeniable, the fact they still consider themselves a Celtic nation is also paramount.
The notion of Pan-Germanicism wasn't acknowledged until relatively recently.
Their fight was with the English, not Germanics. The English themselves distancing themselves with the Germans, even as recently as WWI & II whom they considered "Huns".
I would find it hard to believe that when an Irishman were to be asked if he were Germanic, he would say yes

I commend the Irish for trying to remain their own, though others would have it otherwise.

Where is it that the Irish see themselves predominantly as Celts?


I would find it hard to believe that when an Irishman were to be asked if he were Germanic, he would say yes

Actually alot of Irish families acknowledge the Scandinavian and Anglo Saxon portions of the lineages in their families.

It does not make sense to me how people classify the Irish and Ireland here.


the fact they still consider themselves a Celtic nation is also paramount.
In what way do they see themselves as a entirely Celtic nation?

Elessar
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 05:50 PM
Where is it that the Irish see themselves predominantly as Celts?

Actually alot of Irish families acknowledge the Scandinavian and Anglo Saxon portions of the lineages in their families.

It does not make sense to me how people classify the Irish and Ireland here.


I would imagine the most autonomous Celts would be the fringe areas. (as with any Celtic nation, being pushed to the fringes of Europe)
http://www.planetware.com/i/map/IRL/irish-language-areas-in-ireland-map.jpg

I do not support the erasing of culture for ones own, nor do I want Ireland to be Germanic.

As with being German. You're only German if you say you are and others recognize it, regardless of where you live. Culture and race are two things, though inexorably linked. So to say "It does not make sense to me how people classify the Irish and Ireland here." it's a matter of self-identification, as with any culture. I can't prove to you how many of the Irish do, I don't know them all. It's a general consensus among historians and linguists that Ireland has been a Celtic nation, regardless of exotic influence.

Caledonian
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 05:55 PM
I would imagine the most autonomous Celts would be the fringe areas. (as with any Celtic nation, being pushed to the fringes of Europe)
http://www.planetware.com/i/map/IRL/irish-language-areas-in-ireland-map.jpg

I do not support the erasing of culture for ones own, nor do I want Ireland to be Germanic.

As with being German. You're only German if you say you are and others recognize it, regardless of where you live. Culture and race are two things, though inexorably linked. So to say "It does not make sense to me how people classify the Irish and Ireland here." it's a matter of self-identification, as with any culture. I can't prove to you how many of the Irish do, I don't know them all. It's a general consensus among historians and linguists that Ireland has been a Celtic nation, regardless of exotic influence.

A list of old age viking settlements that have survived in modern Ireland:

Modern Dublin- It used to be known as Dubhlinn.

Modern Waterford - It used to be known as Vadrefjord.

Modern Wexford - It used to be known as Weisfjord

Limerick was also a viking aged settlement that has survived into modern Ireland.

The name Ireland itself comes from vikings from the old Norse term of Iraland.

What more do you want Elessar?

Elessar
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 06:03 PM
A list of old age viking settlements that have survived in modern Ireland:

Modern Dublin- It used to be known as Dubhlinn.

Modern Waterford - It used to be known as Vadrefjord.

Modern Wexford - It used to be known as Weisfjord

List of Roman Settlements in Germany
Trier
Neuss
Ladenburg
Cologne
Augsburg
Regenburg

just to name a few.
The name Germany itself a Roman name.

I don't see your point?

Caledonian
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 06:04 PM
List of Roman Settlements in Germany
Trier
Neuss
Ladenburg
Cologne
Augsburg
Regenburg

just to name a few.

I don't see your point?

Well if one wanted to get technical we could say that Germany does have many Roman Latin influences more specifically that of Southern Germany.

My point is that alot of Scandinavians and Anglo Saxons settled in Ireland where it is not entirely a Celtic nation as you say it is.

Elessar
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 06:06 PM
Well if one wanted to get technical we could say that Germany does have many Roman Latin influences more specifically that of Southern Germany.

My point is that alot of Scandinavians and Anglo Saxons settled in Ireland.

This is true, they're still Irish.
Race=/=Culture

Caledonian
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 06:08 PM
This is true, they're still Irish.
Race=/=Culture

You act as if no interbreeding or population replacement took place.

There's a great deal of survived Anglo Saxon and Scandinavian races along with surviving culture in Ireland.

[Have you seen some of the surviving family last names in Ireland that is of the typical Irish? Many are not Celtic.]

Herefugol
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 06:14 PM
How come the Scottish are considered any more Germanic than the Irish? (Scotland has a forum on here). They both have a strong Celtic culture with a minority of Gaelic speakers. If one argues that the Scottish have been "Germanicised", then this could be argued for the Irish too. Both countries have had strong Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian influences introduced and imposed on them.

Elessar
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 06:23 PM
This argument makes as much sense as calling Italy or Romania Germanic because the Lombards and Goths once held power.

Herefugol
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 06:25 PM
This argument makes as much sense as calling Italy or Romania Germanic because the Lombards and Goths once held power.

I'm not arguing one way or the other, I just think it's interesting that Scotland has a forum on here but Ireland doesn't. They are pretty much on equal ground, in my opinion.

Elessar
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 06:28 PM
I'm not arguing one way or the other, I just think it's interesting that Scotland has a forum on here but Ireland doesn't. They are pretty much on equal ground, in my opinion.

Because the consensus is that Ireland is Celtic, not Germanic.

Caledonian
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 06:28 PM
This argument makes as much sense as calling Italy or Romania Germanic because the Lombards and Goths once held power.

Tell me how Ireland differs from the history of race or culture in England and Scotland.

Also the extent of history with Ireland being Anglo Saxonized and Germanized is a long one which is consistent in comparison to the examples you have used to contrast it with.


Because the consensus is that Ireland is Celtic, not Germanic.

What consensus are you talking about?

Herefugol
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 06:30 PM
Because the consensus is that Ireland is Celtic, not Germanic.

Is Scotland Germanic?

Caledonian
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 06:31 PM
Is Scotland Germanic?

Yes it is much as Ireland is also Anglo Saxonized and Germanized.

Sigurd
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 06:50 PM
but Gaelic is a different language tree from Germanic languages,

I think the Welsh and Bretons, being of the Brythonic branch rather than the Goidelic branch, would not be particularly chuffed if you called their language "Gaelic". :P


If we look at the dominant Germanic mark on Ireland we see that alot of Irish speak English over their native Gaelic too.

This means nothing. Most Turks in Germany speak German over their native Turkish, too. Does it make them German, or Germanic? I shall hope not! ;)


But seeing as the vast majority of the Irish live outside of Ireland, why can't they then adopt this Germanic culture?

Culture between relatively similar populations can be changed, however this is a matter of centuries, not decades, and entails giving up one's own culture, and several generations. I would say if your oldest living relative has no living memory of the last Irishman, it would become irrelevant, as few would consider Wayne Rooney or Ronnie O'Sullivan as Irish.

The line becomes thin between what is assimilable, how much is assimilable, and how far the distance of the assimilable element is. If they keep identifying as Irish, though, then they keep being Irish, no matter how long they've lived in England.


Well if one wanted to get technical we could say that Germany does have many Roman Latin influences more specifically that of Southern Germany.

Judging by placenames, I suppose? Well, of course it's evident that the name of a village is going to retain the first name it was given --- why give it a new name? You arrive migrating into a country, see some houses and ask them what it's called. You note it down, might settle there as well, and all it does is undergo sound changes to fit your ear ---- it doesn't actually say anything about the population size of the previous population.

For sure, one tends to arrange themselves when moving into a new area and there is a mixture of all people; I would safely say that besides being culturally and linguistically Germanic for several hundred years, in many cases well over 1,000 years, in our area we can safely say that most people are also genetically Germanic.

However, the Romance influences are relatively few, at least in our area. The Romans barely settled here, if they did, they stayed mostly in the cities (colonialist Romans did not tend to be farmers) --- for the rest of the population, if anything you're probably talking about stuff like a pre-Roman, pre-Celtic substrate; a Slavic substrate in the East. Romans were just very adept at making folks they colonised adopt their language and sometimes lifestyle. By that means you'd even have to call England as "having Romanic influences", which is a little far-fetched.

However at the point they aren't even aware of this any longer, by virtue of this it'd be ridiculous to tell some man in a back valley to be a "Focunatic preservationist" instead.

Again, the line is thin. I can't tell you exactly when a Germanicised people becomes Germanic over a time. The diachronic perspective is difficult. I can however tell you from a synchronic perspective which ones I would currently call as Germanic, and which ones I wouldn't. For the Irish, this case is clear-cut and they are definitely still Celtic. :)

flâneur
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 06:59 PM
Do you see the Irish as being inferior to other white races?

They are inferior to the English and Germanics in general,they are inferior to Scandinavians,they are inferior to Italians,they are inferior to the French,so yes they are an inferior people compared to other white nations.
A few drunken novelists have popped up every now and then but apart from that nothing.

I put them on a par with russian/balkan/romanian/slav serfs....who also live in stone hovels with grass roofs and are prone to being drunk 24/7.

curious
Thursday, January 20th, 2011, 09:02 PM
They are inferior to the English and Germanics in general,they are inferior to Scandinavians,they are inferior to Italians,they are inferior to the French,so yes they are an inferior people compared to other white nations.
A few drunken novelists have popped up every now and then but apart from that nothing.

I put them on a par with russian/balkan/romanian/slav serfs....who also live in stone hovels with grass roofs and are prone to being drunk 24/7.

Interesting, do you think they have smaller crainial capacities then?

The Horned God
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 12:11 AM
They are inferior to the English and Germanics in general,they are inferior to Scandinavians,they are inferior to Italians,they are inferior to the French,so yes they are an inferior people compared to other white nations.

Inferior to the French!? :-O We must be a sorry lot so! ;)


A few drunken novelists have popped up every now and then but apart from that nothing.

So you don't think that going through life never less than half plastered can be considered an heroic act all by itself then? ;)

Even if none of them ever put down so much as a single line of worthwhile prose at the very least they always made sure they were well entertained. Life being what it is that's a remarkable achievement. ;)


I put them on a par with russian/balkan/romanian/slav serfs....who also live in stone hovels with grass roofs and are prone to being drunk 24/7.

Dear oh dear, we're down with the untermensch now.. well, given that we're lower than the French I suppose it was only to be expected. :P
As for "stone hovels with grass roofs", well that is one way to characterise a thatched cottage (http://www.google.ie/images?hl=en&q=Irish%20thatched%20cottage&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1024&bih=653). Imo if a cottage by the water was a good enough dwelling for Yeats to dream of in "The Lake Isle of Innisfree (http://www.yeats-sligo.com/html/tour/innisfree.html)" it'd be be good enough for me as well.

Hamar Fox
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 01:05 AM
No population of the British Isles can insult another without insulting itself. The racial/genetic differences are minimal and our tribal histories are deeply intertwined. The English have stronger genetic ties to the continent, true, but the difference between Irish and English is only half that between Irish and Germans. The English have a lot of indigenous British ancestry, and a lot of continental ancestry too. To discount one in favour of the other is a slight against your own forebears, IMO.

The Aesthete
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 02:16 AM
The Vikings set up housekeeping in eastern Ireland; there was a Viking settlement in Dublin
Also the Danes invaded Ireland in AD 853 and were followed by Danish settlers who gradually assimilated with the local population and adopted Christianity.
Not to mention there were many plantations of English in Ireland as well
The Irish are Germanic racially and culturally, but there is also a Celtic influence
It’s impossible me to tell the difference between a man with Irish parents born in Australia and that having English just by looking at them.

Heinrich Harrer
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 02:50 AM
[B][U]
The name Germany itself a Roman name.

I don't see your point?

Isn't it more important how the actual inhabitants of a country use to call it in their own language? And we don't use the name 'Germany' for our country.

Caledonian
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 07:39 AM
I think the Welsh and Bretons, being of the Brythonic branch rather than the Goidelic branch, would not be particularly chuffed if you called their language "Gaelic". :P



This means nothing. Most Turks in Germany speak German over their native Turkish, too. Does it make them German, or Germanic? I shall hope not! ;)



Culture between relatively similar populations can be changed, however this is a matter of centuries, not decades, and entails giving up one's own culture, and several generations. I would say if your oldest living relative has no living memory of the last Irishman, it would become irrelevant, as few would consider Wayne Rooney or Ronnie O'Sullivan as Irish.

The line becomes thin between what is assimilable, how much is assimilable, and how far the distance of the assimilable element is. If they keep identifying as Irish, though, then they keep being Irish, no matter how long they've lived in England.



Judging by placenames, I suppose? Well, of course it's evident that the name of a village is going to retain the first name it was given --- why give it a new name? You arrive migrating into a country, see some houses and ask them what it's called. You note it down, might settle there as well, and all it does is undergo sound changes to fit your ear ---- it doesn't actually say anything about the population size of the previous population.

For sure, one tends to arrange themselves when moving into a new area and there is a mixture of all people; I would safely say that besides being culturally and linguistically Germanic for several hundred years, in many cases well over 1,000 years, in our area we can safely say that most people are also genetically Germanic.

However, the Romance influences are relatively few, at least in our area. The Romans barely settled here, if they did, they stayed mostly in the cities (colonialist Romans did not tend to be farmers) --- for the rest of the population, if anything you're probably talking about stuff like a pre-Roman, pre-Celtic substrate; a Slavic substrate in the East. Romans were just very adept at making folks they colonised adopt their language and sometimes lifestyle. By that means you'd even have to call England as "having Romanic influences", which is a little far-fetched.

However at the point they aren't even aware of this any longer, by virtue of this it'd be ridiculous to tell some man in a back valley to be a "Focunatic preservationist" instead.

Again, the line is thin. I can't tell you exactly when a Germanicised people becomes Germanic over a time. The diachronic perspective is difficult. I can however tell you from a synchronic perspective which ones I would currently call as Germanic, and which ones I wouldn't. For the Irish, this case is clear-cut and they are definitely still Celtic. :)


This means nothing. Most Turks in Germany speak German over their native Turkish, too. Does it make them German, or Germanic? I shall hope not! ;)

Turks are of another race and not even caucasian therefore the analogy is nonsensical. [ They are not Germanic or Europid period.]

The Irish on the other hand have interbreeded or assimilated with a assortment of Scandinavians and Anglo Saxons over a long historical period rendering them very Germanic in my book where the English language that they use primarily is just a small illustration of their Germanization amongst many others.

Actor : Pierce Brosnan
http://topnews.in/light/files/Pierce-Brosnan365.jpg

http://www.poster.net/brosnan-pierce/brosnan-pierce-photo-pierce-brosnan-6228149.jpg

http://images.starpulse.com/Photos/pv/Pierce%20Brosnan-5.jpg


Show me the Celt in this man. If that man came up to you speaking English would you be able to tell the bloody damn difference?

[He's Irish.]



Culture between relatively similar populations can be changed, however this is a matter of centuries, not decades, and entails giving up one's own culture, and several generations. I would say if your oldest living relative has no living memory of the last Irishman, it would become irrelevant, as few would consider Wayne Rooney or Ronnie O'Sullivan as Irish.

With Ireland you have almost three centuries of viking rule and then you have constant incursions from England.

With Scotland and England you have just about three centuries of Anglo Saxon rule with about three centuries prior of Roman rule.

[Another three additional centuries of viking rule later on for both Scotland and England as well.]

[Noone here doubts the Germanic character of the English and Scots.]

Notice that Scotland and England like Ireland was entirely Celtic before the invasions of Germanic peoples.

[ Only Ireland is unique in this regard because their population was untouched by the Romans unlike Scotland and England.]


I tell you now that the differences you and others state here do not take into account history whatsoever.


The line becomes thin between what is assimilable, how much is assimilable, and how far the distance of the assimilable element is. If they keep identifying as Irish, though, then they keep being Irish, no matter how long they've lived in England.

Yes Ireland has different national interests in comparison to England and Scotland. So what?

So what that they want to keep their national independence?

Sweden wishes to keep it's independence seperately from that of Norway yet it in no way is any less Scandinavian in comparison culturally and racially.


If they keep identifying as Irish, though, then they keep being Irish, no matter how long they've lived in England.
It's the same for a Swede in Norway.

Yet the similarities between Swedes and Norwegians is astounding.


Judging by placenames, I suppose? Well, of course it's evident that the name of a village is going to retain the first name it was given --- why give it a new name? You arrive migrating into a country, see some houses and ask them what it's called. You note it down, might settle there as well, and all it does is undergo sound changes to fit your ear ---- it doesn't actually say anything about the population size of the previous population.

Assimilation of placenames and language is a symbol of interbreeding along with population assimilation.

Going back to the Roman influence of southern Germany we could say that the southern Germans interbreeded with the Romans to a large extent where even though they are nonetheless German they still carry with them racial and genetical structures of the Romans they absorbed from a very historical past.

Can you deny that?

It's the same with the Irish just as it is the same for the Scots and English.


For sure, one tends to arrange themselves when moving into a new area and there is a mixture of all people; I would safely say that besides being culturally and linguistically Germanic for several hundred years, in many cases well over 1,000 years, in our area we can safely say that most people are also genetically Germanic.

The Roman population absorbed will always have it's genetical impact carried in leftover despite endless time.

I've heard that the northern Germans differentiate themselves from their southern brethren culturally all these years. I wonder why.

[Some old tribalism at work I wonder.]

How's that Roman Latin written script working out for Germans these days in the form of writing?

Shall we go on, or shall we next discuss the history of the holy Roman empire and it's effects on Germany?

Perhaps we could discuss German Catholicism next.


However, the Romance influences are relatively few, at least in our area.

Few? I would hardly say that. Medieval German architecture as example.


By that means you'd even have to call England as "having Romanic influences", which is a little far-fetched.
Not really. The medieval period of England was a historical epoch where Saxon and Roman elements were fused together.

This probally explains why English in that period became fused between Latin and Saxon linguistics from which modern English derives.


Again, the line is thin. I can't tell you exactly when a Germanicised people becomes Germanic over a time. The diachronic perspective is difficult. I can however tell you from a synchronic perspective which ones I would currently call as Germanic, and which ones I wouldn't. For the Irish, this case is clear-cut and they are definitely still Celtic.

I don't think you have much of a distinction at all.

Infact I await your detailed response outlining the distinction and distinguishment in depth for all of us to hear.

I want a outline in how you view the Irish to be dominantly if not entirely Celtic.

I also want you to show how the historical situation of the Irish is different in comparison to that of the Scots and English.

I've already made a basic outline describing the side of my arguement yet I can't find none by the opposition here within this thread other than people who keep declaring the Irish to be dominantly Celtic without having anything to back it up with.....

Ward
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 08:58 AM
They are inferior to the English and Germanics in general,they are inferior to Scandinavians,they are inferior to Italians,they are inferior to the French,so yes they are an inferior people compared to other white nations.

Haha... what good are French and Italians? They've proved themselves to be utterly useless as allies. They couldn't fight their way out of wet paper sacks. As a British soldier, you should know that the Irish have historically been excellent fighters, both for the British Empire and against it.


I put them on a par with russian/balkan/romanian/slav serfs....who also live in stone hovels with grass roofs and are prone to being drunk 24/7.

Or English football fans/working class—although these days I think drunken riots are more common in England than Ireland. In any case, it seems you could use a good dose of the great Englishman Oswald Mosley. :thumbup


Actor : Pierce Brosnan

Show me the Celt in this man. If that man came up to you speaking English would you be able to tell the bloody damn difference?

Actually, I think he's a pretty good example of what the pre-Germanic inhabitants of the British Isles looked like.

Caledonian
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 09:19 AM
Haha... what good are French and Italians? They've proved themselves to be utterly useless as military allies. They couldn't fight their way out of wet paper sacks. As a British soldier, you should know that the Irish have historically been excellent fighters, both for the British Empire and against it.



Or English football fans/working class—although these days I think drunken riots are more common in England than Ireland. In any case, it seems you could use a good dose of the great Englishman Oswald Mosley. :thumbup



Actually, I think he's a pretty good example of what the pre-Germanic inhabitants of the British Isles looked like.


Actually, I think he's a pretty good example of what the pre-Germanic inhabitants of the British Isles looked like.

I don't see how.

We could always use other Irish examples...............


Brid Brennan

http://www.celebs101.com/gallery/Brid_Brennan/189850/BrennanBrid166050062.jpg

Sarah Bolger

http://scifimafia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/sarah-bolger.jpg

Jonathan Rhys Meyers

http://www.nndb.com/people/990/000101687/jonathan-rhys-meyers-1.jpeg

http://glitterati-gossip.com/.a/6a01156f5ae6a9970c0115715308af970b-800wi

Evanna Lynch

http://img.listal.com/image/1340258/600full-evanna-lynch.jpg


Everday Irish People

http://www.caledonian-comment.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/irish.jpg

http://www.designity.net/foto/irlanda/dublin-people.jpg

http://www.hiddendublinwalks.com/photos/gallery/Sunday-31-May-19th-C.-11am-9-people.jpg

http://kimbriggs.com/photos/ireland/people/ireland-people-005.jpg

flâneur
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 09:32 AM
Haha... what good are French and Italians? They've proved themselves to be utterly useless as allies. They couldn't fight their way out of wet paper sacks. As a British soldier, you should know that the Irish have historically been excellent fighters, both for the British Empire and against it.


I wasnt speaking about fighting prowess.I was speaking about French or Italian culture.
The Irish gain a few crumbs of credibility because they are close to England and have benefited from our ways....uproot the country and plonk it down next to Moldavia and you wouldnt be able to tell the difference between the Irish and Moldavians.
I suggest the Americans defending the Irish on this forum take a trip to Ireland and have a look around the place first instead of viewing them through rose tinted glasses.

They are nothing more than a bunch of rat faced greasy haired pikeys.



Or English football fans/working class—although these days I think drunken riots are more common in England than Ireland.


I have never seen a drunken riot in England.....ever.

When was the last time you visited Ireland....?


Interesting, do you think they have smaller crainial capacities then?

Crainial.:doh....need i say more.

The Aesthete
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 09:47 AM
Tommy I have been to Ireland many times and I think you are wrong

flâneur
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 09:55 AM
We could always use other Irish examples...............


Brid Brennan

http://www.celebs101.com/gallery/Brid_Brennan/189850/BrennanBrid166050062.jpg

Sarah Bolger

http://scifimafia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/sarah-bolger.jpg

Jonathan Rhys Meyers

http://www.nndb.com/people/990/000101687/jonathan-rhys-meyers-1.jpeg

http://glitterati-gossip.com/.a/6a01156f5ae6a9970c0115715308af970b-800wi

Evanna Lynch

http://img.listal.com/image/1340258/600full-evanna-lynch.jpg


Everday Irish People

http://www.caledonian-comment.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/irish.jpg

http://www.designity.net/foto/irlanda/dublin-people.jpg

http://www.hiddendublinwalks.com/photos/gallery/Sunday-31-May-19th-C.-11am-9-people.jpg

http://kimbriggs.com/photos/ireland/people/ireland-people-005.jpg

Why leave out that most Irish of all Irishmen...Shane Mcgowern....?

Witta
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 11:31 AM
There are a large amount of Germanics in Ireland through immigration. But the real Irish originated in Iberia, and are catholic, like their Spanish cousins.

Hamar Fox
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 12:03 PM
But the Irish don't look anything like the Spanish. There are mediterranid strains in the British Isles, but the Irish are predominantly nordish, as are the English, Scots, and, contrary to popular belief, the Welsh.

Schattenjäger
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 12:35 PM
Why? Becouse Irish are to Britain, what Polacks are to Germany: a pain in the $%@/ throughout all recorded history.

History of the anglo-saxons, is history of struggle against celtic element. Just like history of Germans is a struggle against western slavs. These are historical enemies of germanics, not part of our folk.

The celts are roughly western eqivalent of slavs: good looking but lazy simpletons who rarely see any benefit of studying and hard work. In Ireland goverment even pays irish for studying to motivate them, while in England students have to pay for studying (gives you impression how large the genetic difference is).

After Poland joined EU many of my colleagues and friends immigrated to Ireland in search of job. Their collective impressions: "This is same shithole as Poland, people are lazy, stupid and don't like learning. What a bunch of primitive morons! I feel like in Poland here etc."

In their mindless and fanatical catholicism irish are totally similar to polish society.

Every race has noble branches and vulgar branches. Yellow race has noble Han Chinese and primitive steppe mongoloids. White race has Germans who are its noblest branch, while celts and slavs are moronic mongrels. Simple as that.

This thread is idiotic. We can as well ask "Why Poles aren't considered germanic" becouse in middle ages Poland was half-colonised by german settlers who founded most of cities there (approximately 20% of polish population is of german origin today).

Germanic preservation means preservation of german DNA, also against less worthy DNA of slavs and celts, not only non-whites. If it means inviting those people to the club, it is not a preservation anymore.

coyle
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 01:20 PM
I have been under the impression that Ireland was populated by a race of UP Survivors that were part of a much earlier migration out of Africa.

Einarr
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 01:25 PM
Why? Becouse Irish are to Britain, what Polacks are to Germany: a pain in the $%@/ throughout all recorded history.

Also the celts are western eqivalent of slavs: good looking but lazy simpletons who rarely see any benefit of studying and hard work. In Ireland goverment even pays irish for studying to motivate them, while in England students have to pay for studying (gives you impression how large the genetic difference is).

After Poland joined EU many of my colleagues and friends immigrated to Ireland in search of job. Their collective impressions: "This is same shithole as Poland, people are lazy, stupid and don't like learning. What a bunch of primitive morons! I feel like in Poland here etc."

In their mindless and fanatical catholicism irish are totally similar to polish society.

Every race has noble branches and vulgar branches. Yellow race has noble Han Chinese and primitive steppe mongoloids. White race has Germans who are its noblest branch, while celts and slavs are moronic mongrels. Simple as that.

This thread is idiotic. We can as well ask "Why Poles aren't considered germanic" becouse in middle ages Poland was half-colonised by german settlers who founded most of cities there (approximately 20% of polish population is of german origin today).

Germanic preservation means preservation of german DNA, also against less worthy DNA of slavs and celts, not only non-whites. If it means inviting those people to the club, it is not a preservation anymore.

Not arguing that Ireland is Germanic, but I do find a lot of the comments in this thread quite humorous, including yours. I was curious as to why Ireland for example consistently ranks equal to or even higher than many Germanic countries as far as how GDP per capita is concerned (thus living standards and general productivity)? As well as the fact that Ireland is no where near Slavic countries, in regards to GDP.

I am also curious about your ancestry, where do you live? Are you in Poland? Is your entire family from Silesia? Are you certain that you do not have any Polish lineage? Just curious, of course.

Lastly, I find your comment about "genetic distance" interesting, a topic which I believe should be discussed further. If you have any genetic mapping that you would like to share, please do (and anyone else who may like to add something).

http://www.beerkens.info/blog/uploaded_images/geneseurope.jpg



There are a large amount of Germanics in Ireland through immigration. But the real Irish originated in Iberia, and are catholic, like their Spanish cousins.

I'm not quite sure what you mean, are you referring to neolithic migrations or something? Just as the rest of Europe received? Also, what exactly would religion have to do with any of this?

Hamar Fox
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 01:41 PM
Lastly, I find your comment about "genetic distance" interesting, a topic which I believe should be discussed further. If you have any genetic mapping that you would like to share, please do (and anyone else who may like to add something).


I have some hard figures taken from Cavalli-Sforza (Genetic differences are given in brackets):

The Irish are most related to the Scots (29) and then to the English (30). After that it goes Danes (68), Belgians (75), Dutch (76), Germans (84), Basques (145), Poles (150), Sardinians (393), Lapps (557).

Schattenjäger
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 01:43 PM
I don't think GDP is relevant for issues like alcoholism or generally poor academic performance of irish. I have never been to Ireland, and only basing on judgment of my friends who work there.

And I don't see reason for someone advocating irish ethnic interest to be on germanic forum actually.

Einarr
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 01:55 PM
I don't think GDP is relevant for issues like alcoholism or generally poor academic performance of irish. I never been to Ireland and only basing on judgment of my friends.

Oh, I see. You're one of those people. You also happen to be someone with a severe lack of respect. I honestly cannot imagine making the sort of baseless and inflammatory remarks which you have made in this thread, it is just sad.

I think that GDP is relevant anyway, being that I cannot see how a bunch of inferior "moronic mongrels" like you and atkins so describe would be capable of maintaining such an economy.


I don't see reason for someone advocating irish ethnic interest to be on germanic forum actually.

I don't believe I advocate for such myself, though I am an advocate of truth.

Fyrgenholt
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 02:06 PM
The Irish are not Germanic, they're Celtic and they're native Gaelic speakers, they do not speak English because of their shared Germanic heritage but because of the political influence of recent centuries. The Irish see themselves as Celtic and self-define accordingly.

Nordic incursions did indeed take place through out Ireland during the Viking age but that doesn't make the Irish Nordic either, just influenced to a degree.

This doesn't mean they deserve to be insulted, however.

Schattenjäger
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 02:21 PM
The Irish are not Germanic, they're Celtic and they're native Gaelic speakers, they do not speak English because of their shared Germanic heritage but because of the political influence of recent centuries. The Irish see themselves as Celtic and self-define accordingly.

Nordic incursions did indeed take place through out Ireland during the Viking age but that doesn't make the Irish Nordic either, just influenced to a degree.

This doesn't mean they deserve to be insulted, however.

As I said, I only base on opinions of others, maybe if I go to Ireland I'd have other opinion? But from what I heard, they aren't that distant from polish catholic devotion and alcoholism.

And besides this is germanic forum and we should have freedom to express opinions which aren't neccessary gallant to aliens.

Fyrgenholt
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 02:32 PM
As I said, I only base on opinions of others, maybe if I go to Ireland I'd have other opinion? But from what I heard, they aren't that distant from polish catholic devotion and alcoholism.

And besides this is germanic forum and we should have freedom to express opinions which aren't neccessary gallant to aliens.

Of course, you have the freedom to express whatever you wish to express. I simply do not believe that the Irish deserve to be insulted simply because they are not Germanic.

I know a few Irish folk and they're all decent hardworking people.

Schattenjäger
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 02:42 PM
OK maybe I am biased. I don't have anything personal against irish anyway :)

flâneur
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 04:07 PM
I think that GDP is relevant anyway, being that I cannot see how a bunch of inferior "moronic mongrels" like you and atkins so describe would be capable of maintaining such an economy.


They cant maintain their own economy,they went bust last year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/22/business/global/22debt.html

Einarr
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 04:14 PM
They cant maintain their own economy,they went bust last year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/22/business/global/22debt.html

And whose fault was that?

flâneur
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 04:33 PM
Somebody else's....probably the English.......just ask an Irishman.

Einarr
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 04:49 PM
Somebody else's....probably the English.......just ask an Irishman.

Yes I am sure that the thieving bankers, the EU, and the massive financial crisis that has plagued the entire world for the last few years, spearheaded by the US and the Dreidel Federation, had nothing to do with it. It was solely the fault of the inferior and primitive Irish people in all of their pathetic glory.

Hamar Fox
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 04:56 PM
I have never been to Ireland, and only basing on judgment of my friends who work there.


Well, since you said your friends moved there after the Polish accession to the EU, I'm guessing these friends are Poles. I have nothing but contempt for these Gypsy-Mongols with no respect for the infinitely superior and racially purer people (the Irish) whose land they're infesting. It's the same as in England. These uninvited vermin constantly slander their hosts. Pure trash with no manners.

Northern Paladin
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 05:09 PM
I don't understand why some of you are attacking the Irish, calling them a backward people. I love the Irish, especially the women with their stunning red hair and freckles.

Irish girls are HOT!!!

Herefugol
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 05:23 PM
They cant maintain their own economy,they went bust last year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/22/business/global/22debt.html

The Icelanders must be "a bunch of rat faced greasy haired pikeys" too, then. :blueroll: England's economy isn't looking great at the moment either. This recession is the result of rotten leeches and greedy scumbags, not Celts.

Caledonian
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 05:24 PM
Going over some Irish history I found some other articles worth mentioning on the subject of this thread.


On May 1, 1169, an expedition of Cambro-Norman knights with an army of about six hundred landed at Bannow Strand in present-day County Wexford. It was led by Richard de Clare, called Strongbow due to his prowess as an archer.[31] The invasion, which coincided with a period of renewed Norman expansion, was at the invitation of Dermot Mac Murrough, king of Leinster.

In 1166, Mac Morrough had fled to Anjou, France following a war involving Tighearnán Ua Ruairc, of Breifne, and sought the assistance of the Angevin king, Henry II, in recapturing his kingdom. In 1171, Henry arrived in Ireland in order to review the general progress of the expedition. He wanted to re-exert royal authority over the invasion which was expanding beyond his control. Henry successfully re-imposed his authority over Strongbow and the Cambro-Norman warlords and persuaded many of the Irish kings to accept him as their overlord, an arrangement confirmed in the 1175 Treaty of Windsor.

The invasion was legitimised by the provisions of the Papal Bull Laudabiliter, issued by Adrian IV in 1155. The bull encouraged Henry to take control in Ireland in order to oversee the financial and administrative reorganisation of the Irish Church and its integration into the Roman Church system. Some restructuring had already begun at the ecclesiastical level since the Synod of Kells in 1152. There has been some controversy over the bull, but its authenticity is now generally accepted.[32] It granted Henry dominion over Ireland in the name of the papacy.[33]

In 1172, the new pope, Alexander III, further encouraged Henry to advance the integration of the Irish Church with Rome. Henry was authorised to impose a tithe of one penny per hearth as an annual contribution. This church levy, called Peter's Pence, is still extant in Ireland as a voluntary donation. In turn, Henry accepted the title of Lord of Ireland which Henry conferred on his younger son, John Lackland, in 1185. This defined the Irish state as the Lordship of Ireland. When Henry's successor died unexpectedly in 1199, John inherited the crown of England and retained the Lordship of Ireland.


Irish soldiers, 1521 — by Albrecht Dürer.Over the century that followed, Norman feudal law gradually replaced the Gaelic Brehon Law so that by the late 13th century the Norman-Irish had established a feudal system throughout much of Ireland. Norman settlements were characterised by the establishment of baronies, manors, towns and the seeds of the modern county system. A version of the Magna Carta (the Great Charter of Ireland), substituting Dublin for London and Irish Church for Church of England, was published in 1216 and the Parliament of Ireland was founded in 1297.


A scene from The Image of Irelande (1581) showing a chieftain at a feast.However, from the mid-14th century, after the Black Death, Norman settlements in Ireland went into a period of decline. The Norman rulers and the Gaelic Irish elites intermarried and the areas under Norman rule became Gaelicised. In some parts, a hybrid Hiberno-Norman culture emerged. In response, the Irish parliament passed the Statutes of Kilkenny in 1367. These were a set of laws designed to prevent the assimilation of the Normans into Irish society by requiring English subjects in Ireland to speak English, follow English customs and abide by English law.[34] However, by the end of the 15th century central English authority in Ireland had all but disappeared and a renewed Irish culture and language, albeit with Norman influences, was dominant again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland#Norman_and_English_invasions

Even more found centuries of Scandinavians and Anglo Saxons in Ireland showing proof of even more Germanization.

It's no wonder why vast droves of Irish quit speaking Gaelic much like that of the Scots and English. ;)

So that leaves us with three centuries of viking rule in Ireland along with and another two centuries of Norman rule.

So far we have about five centuries of Germanic and Anglo Saxon influence in Ireland.

[And that's just going from the medieval ages up to the fourteenth century.]

[ I can't wait until I read the rest of their history later tonight in detail from the fourteenth century to our present because I'm pretty sure I'll find other examples.]

flâneur
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 05:27 PM
I don't understand why some of you are attacking the Irish, calling them a backward people.

Nobodys attacking the Irish,just pointing out facts.

You can walk around Dublin which will take you all of half an hour and not see anything that you wouldnt find in some small provincial centre.
There is no outstanding architecture,no artistic centre with great Irish art on display,no museums that stand out...nothing really except a few pubs that are noteworthy because Brendan Behan used to get drunk in them.
Drive for twenty minutes out of Dublin and you might as well be in the Ukraine.

The Irish are not Germanics and dont have our work ethic or our dicipline,or our inherent genius.
They are what they are...a bunch of rowdy drunken celts...no more no less.

Being Germanic isnt something like some association that you can be a part of if you pay your subs....you either are a Germanic people or you arent....the Irish arent.....no matter how much wishfull thinking from Skadi members who have infected Irish blood.

Caledonian
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 05:35 PM
Just found another example of what I was discussing here.

[This is now going from the fifteenth century of Ireland.]



The Tudor conquest of Ireland.



The Tudor conquest (or reconquest) of Ireland took place under the Tudor dynasty, which held the Kingdom of England during the 16th century. Following a failed rebellion against the crown by Silken Thomas in the 1530s, Henry VIII was declared King of Ireland by statute of the Irish parliament, with the aim of restoring such central authority as had been lost throughout the country during the previous two hundred years.

By conciliation and repression the conquest continued for sixty years, until 1603, when the entire country came under the nominal control of James I, exercised through his privy council at Dublin. This control was perfected upon the Flight of the Earls in 1607.

The conquest was complicated by the imposition of English law, language and culture, as well as by the extension of Anglicanism as an institutional religion. The Spanish Empire intervened several times at the height of the Anglo-Spanish War (1585-1604), and the Irish found themselves caught between their widespread acceptance of the Pope's authority and the requirements of allegiance demanded of them by the English monarchy.

Upon completion of the conquest, the polity of Gaelic Ireland had been largely destroyed and the Spanish were no longer willing to intervene directly. This left the way clear for extensive confiscation[citation needed] of land by English, Scots, and Welsh colonists, culminating in the Plantation of Ulster.

Ireland in 1500 was shaped by the unfinished Norman conquest, initiated by Anglo-Norman barons in the 12th century. Many of the native Gaelic Irish had been expelled from various parts of the country, (mainly the east and south-east) and replaced with English peasants and labourers. The area on the east coast, extending from the Wicklow Mountains in the south to Dundalk in the north (covering parts of modern counties Dublin, Louth, Meath, Westmeath, Kildare, Offaly and Laois), became known as the Pale. Protected by a ditch and rampart, the Pale was a defended area in which English language and culture predominated and where English law was enforced by a government in Dublin.

Beyond the Pale, the authority of the Dublin government was tenuous. The Hiberno-Norman barons had been able to carve out fiefdoms for themselves but not to settle them with English tenants. As a result, in the 14th and 15th centuries, in the wake of Irish rebellion, Scottish invasion, the Black Death and a lack of interest on the part of the London government, many of the outlying English territories returned to the control of Irish lords; in others, such as those controlled by the great dynasties of Butler, Fitzgerald and Burke, the rulers achieved effective independence, raising their own armed forces, enforcing their own law and adopting Gaelic-Irish language and culture.

Having been displaced in the early decades of the conquest, the native Irish enjoyed something of a renaissance in the 14th and 15th centuries. Considerable areas of land previously held by the English were either abandoned to or overrun by the Gaelic Irish, particularly in the north and midlands. In the myriad Irish dynasties, the most important included the O’Neills (Uí Néill) in central Ulster (Tir Eoghain) — flanked to their west by the O’Donnells — the O’Byrnes and O’Tooles in County Wicklow, the Kavanaghs in County Wexford, the MacCarthys and O’Sullivans in County Cork and County Kerry and the Ó Briain lordship of Thomond in County Clare.

The Gaelic-Irish were, for the most part, outside English jurisdiction, maintaining their own language, social system, customs and laws. The English referred to them as "His Majesty’s Irish enemies". In legal terms, they had never been admitted as subjects of the Crown. Ireland was not formally a realm, but rather a lordship, the title to which was assumed by the English monarch upon coronation. The rise of Gaelic influence resulted in the passing in 1366 of the Statutes of Kilkenny, which, outlawed many social practices that had been developing apace (e.g. intermarriage, use of the Irish language and of Irish dress). In the 15th century the Dublin government remained weak, owing principally to the Wars of the Roses.

[edit] Henry VIIIBy 1500, English monarchs had delegated government of Ireland to the most powerful of the Hiberno-Norman dynasties (the Fitzgeralds of Kildare) in order to keep the costs of running Ireland down and to protect the Pale. The King's Lord Deputy of Ireland was chief of the administration, based in Dublin Castle, but maintained no formal court and had a limited privy purse. In 1495 laws were passed during Poynings' parliament that imposed English statute law wholesale upon the lordship and compromised the independence of the Irish parliament.

The head of the Kildare Fitzgeralds held the position of lord deputy until 1534. The problem was that the House of Kildare had become unreliable for the English monarch, scheming with Yorkist pretenders to the English throne, signing private treaties with foreign powers, and finally rebelling after the head of its hereditary rivals, the Butlers of Ormonde, was awarded the position of Lord Deputy. Henry put down the rebellion by executing the leader ("Silken Thomas" Fitzgerald), along with several of his uncles, and imprisoned Gearoid Og, the head of the family. But now the king had to find a replacement for the Fitzgeralds to keep Ireland quiet. What was needed was a cost-effective new policy that protected the Pale and guaranteed the safety of England’s vulnerable west flank from foreign invasion.

With the assistance of Thomas Cromwell, the king implemented the policy of surrender and regrant. This extended Royal protection to all of Ireland’s elite without regard to ethnicity; in return the whole country was expected to obey the law of the central government; and all Irish lords were to officially surrender their lands to the Crown, and to receive them back in return by Royal Charter. The keystone to the reform was in a statute passed by the Irish parliament in 1541, whereby the lordship was converted to the Kingdom of Ireland. Overall, the intention was to assimilate the Gaelic and Gaelicised upper classes and develop a loyalty on their part to the new crown; to this end, they were granted English titles and for the first time admitted to the Irish parliament. One of the more important was the earldom of Tyrone that was created for the Ui Neill dynasty in 1542. In a felicitous phrase, the king summed up his efforts at reform as, "politic drifts and amiable persuasions".

In practice, lords around Ireland accepted their new privileges but carried on as they had before. For the Irish Lordships the English monarch was but another over lord similar to that found in the gaelic system. It was however the Tudors' increasing encroachment upon their local autonomy by the development of a centralised state that was to bring the English system into direct conflict with the Gaelic Irish one. Henry’s religious Reformation — although not as thorough as in England — caused disquiet; his Lord Deputy, Anthony St Leger was largely able to buy off opposition by granting lands confiscated from the monasteries to Irish nobles.

[edit] DifficultiesAfter the king's death, successive lord deputies of Ireland found that actually establishing the rule of the central government was far more difficult than merely securing the lords' pledges of allegiance. Successive rebellions broke out, the first in Leinster in the 1550s, when the O’Moore and O’Connor clans were displaced to make way for the Plantation of Queen's County and King's County (named for Mary I of England and Philip II of Spain; modern counties Laois and Offaly). In the 1560s, English attempts to interfere in a succession dispute within the O’Neill sept, or clan, sparked a long war between Lord Deputy Sussex, and Shane O'Neill. Irish lordships continued to fight private wars against each other, ignoring the government in Dublin and its laws. Two examples of this are the Battle of Affane in 1565, fought between the Ormonde and Desmond dynasties, and the Battle of Farsetmore in 1567, fought between the O'Donnells and O'Neills. Elsewhere, clans such as the O’Byrnes and O’Tooles, continued raiding the Pale as they had always done. The most serious violence of all occurred in Munster in the 1560s ‘70s and ‘80s, when the Fitzgeralds of Desmond launched the Desmond Rebellions to prevent direct English influence into their territory. After a particularly brutal campaign in which up to a third of the population of the province was reported to have died, the rebellion was finally ended when the Earl of Desmond was killed in 1583.

There were two main reasons for the chronic violence that dogged the central government in Ireland. The first was some of the aggressive acts of the English administrators and soldiers. In many instances, garrisons or "seneschals" disregarded the law and killed local chiefs and lords. In other cases, it was the seizure of native owned land that provoked rebellions.[citation needed]

The second cause of violence was the incompatibility of Gaelic Irish society with English law central government. In Irish custom, the chief of a "sept" or clan was elected from a small noble lineage group called a derbfine. This often caused violence between rival candidates. However, under Henry VIII's settlement, succession was, as was the English custom, by inheritance of the first born son, or primogeniture, which meant there would be fewer disputes. Imposing this law forced the English to take sides in violent disputes within Irish lordships. Finally, important sections of Irish society had a vested interest in opposing the English presence. These included the mercenary class or gallowglass and Irish poets or file - both of whom faced having their source of income and status abolished in an English-ruled Ireland.

[edit] Solutions
Multilingual phrase book compiled for Elizabeth I of England.Under Queens Mary I and Elizabeth, the English in Ireland tried a number of solutions to pacify the country. The first such initiative used martial government, whereby violent areas such as the Wicklow Mountains were garrisoned by small numbers of English troops under commanders called seneschals. The seneschal was given powers of martial law, which allowed execution without trial by jury. Every person within the seneschal's area of authority had to be vouched for by the local lord - "masterless men" were liable to be killed. In this way, it was hoped that the Irish lords would prevent raiding by their own followers. However, in practice, this simply antagonised the native chieftains.

The failure of this policy prompted the English to come up with more long term solutions to pacify and Anglicise Ireland. One was composition – where private armed forces were abolished, and provinces were occupied by English troops under the command of governors, titled Lords President. In return, the pre-eminent septs and lords were exempted from taxation and had their entitlements to rents from subordinate families and their tenants put on a statutory basis. The imposition of this settlement was marked by bitter violence, particularly in Connacht, where the MacWilliam Burkes fought a local war against the English Provincial President, Sir Richard Bingham, and his subordinate, Nicholas Malby. The interference of the Lord President of Munster was one of the major causes of the Desmond Rebellions. However, this method was successful in some areas, notably in Thomond, where it was supported by the ruling O'Brien dynasty. Composition merged into the policy of surrender and regrant.

The second long term solution was Plantations, in which areas of the country were to be settled with people from England, who would bring in English language and culture while remaining loyal to the crown. Plantation had been started in the 1550s in Laois and Offaly, the former being shired by Queen Mary as "Queen's County", and again in the 1570s in Antrim, both times with limited success. But in the wake of the Desmond Rebellions, large swathes of land in Munster were repopulated with the English in the Munster Plantation; the largest grant of lands was made to Sir Walter Raleigh, but he never really made a go of it and sold out to Sir Richard Boyle, who later became Earl of Cork and the wealthiest subject of the early Stuart monarchs.

After a neutral period in 1558-70, the Papacy declared Elizabeth to be a heretic in 1570 by the bull "Regnans in Excelsis". This complicated the conquest further, as her authority to rule was denied and her officials were considered by observant Roman Catholics to be acting unlawfully. Most Irish people of all ranks remained Catholic and the bull gave Protestant administrators a new reason to expedite the conquest. The Second Desmond Rebellion in 1579-83 was assisted by hundreds of Papal troops. Religion had become a new marker of loyalty to the administration.

Naturally, the prospect of land confiscation alienated the Irish further. But the alienation wasn't confined to the Gaelic Irish: those who claimed descent from the original conquerors under Henry II were increasingly referred to as the Old English, to distinguish them from the many administrators, captains and planters (the New English) who were arriving in Ireland. And it was mostly amongst this Old English community that fervent commitment to Catholicism was gaining ground.

[edit] Crisis
Hugh Ó Neill, 2nd Earl of TyroneThe crisis point of the Elizabethan conquest of Ireland came when the English authorities tried to extend their authority over Ulster and Hugh O'Neill, the most powerful Irish lord in Ireland. Initially it appeared that O'Neill supported a minor action against the Maguire clan that had ruled County Fermanagh. Then in 1595 O’Neill joined the rebel side in the Nine Years War, which was mainly conducted in Ulster; instead of seeking to bring English authority to terms he was hoping to end it altogether. In wider European terms, it was a part of the Anglo-Spanish war that ran from 1585 to 1604. O’Neill enlisted the help of a minority of lords throughout Ireland, and his most significant support came from the Spanish, whose king, Philip III of Spain, sent an invasion force, only to see it surrender after a winter siege at the Battle of Kinsale in 1601. Outside Kinsale, O'Neill's own army was defeated. In early 1603 the war ended, and thereafter crown authority was gradually established throughout Ireland. O’Neill and his allies were treated relatively generously, considering the cost of the rebellion, and were regranted their titles and most of their lands. Unable to live with more restrictive conditions, they left Ireland in 1607 in the Flight of the Earls, their lands in Ulster were confiscated, and thereafter great numbers from all over Britain were encouraged to move there in the Plantation of Ulster.

[edit] ResultsThe first and most important result of the conquest was the disarmament of the native Irish lordships and the establishment of central government control for the first time over the whole island; Irish culture, law and language were replaced; and many Irish lords lost their lands and hereditary authority. Thousands of English, Scottish and Welsh settlers were introduced into the country and the administration of justice was enforced according to English common law and statutes of the Irish parliament.

As the 16th century progressed, the religious question grew in significance. Rebels such as James Fitzmaurice Fitzgerald and Hugh O'Neill sought and received help from Catholic powers in Europe, justifying their actions on religious grounds. However, the Pale community and many Irish lords did not consider them to be genuinely religiously motivated. In the new century, the country would become polarised between Catholics and Protestants, especially after the planting of a large population of English into Ireland and Scots Presbyterians in Ulster (See Plantation of Ulster).

Under James I, Catholics were barred from all public office after the gunpowder plot was discovered in 1605; the Gaelic Irish and Old English increasingly defined themselves as Catholic in opposition to the Protestant New English. However the native Irish (both Gaelic and Old English) remained the majority landowners in the country until after the Irish Rebellion of 1641. By the end of the resulting Cromwellian conquest of Ireland in the 1650s, the "New English" Protestants dominated the country, and after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 their descendants went on to form the Protestant Ascendancy.

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


That leaves us with three centuries of viking rule, two centuries of Norman rule, and almost three centuries of English rule.

[Why that kinda sounds very similar to the history of England and Scotland.....]


So, does anybody want to talk about how thoroughly Celtic or Iberian the Irish are anymore after this?

I have to get going now being that I'm busy on the weekdays but I'll see if I can dig somthing up from the 17th century onwards.

At this point I'm sure I will........

flâneur
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 06:00 PM
That leaves us with three centuries of viking rule, two centuries of Norman rule, and almost three centuries of English rule.


The Normans ruled Sicily as well for a hundred or so years....does that make the Sicilians Germanic as well.....?

Einarr
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 06:01 PM
The Icelanders must be "a bunch of rat faced greasy haired pikeys" too, then. :blueroll: England's economy isn't looking great at the moment either. This recession is the result of rotten leeches and greedy scumbags, not Celts.

I know why that happened GermanischerAdler, it is because of the fact that Icelanders are Norwegian, Scottish, and Irish. Note that last one in particular, that is especially the reason why they had an economic crisis.



Nobodys attacking the Irish,just pointing out facts.

You can walk around Dublin which will take you all of half an hour and not see anything that you wouldnt find in some small provincial centre.
There is no outstanding architecture,no artistic centre with great Irish art on display,no museums that stand out...nothing really except a few pubs that are noteworthy because Brendan Behan used to get drunk in them.
Drive for twenty minutes out of Dublin and you might as well be in the Ukraine.

The Irish are not Germanics and dont have our work ethic or our dicipline,or our inherent genius.
They are what they are...a bunch of rowdy drunken celts...no more no less.

Being Germanic isnt something like some association that you can be a part of if you pay your subs....you either are a Germanic people or you arent....the Irish arent.....no matter how much wishfull thinking from Skadi members who have infected Irish blood.

Spoken like a true "I'm 100% Anglo-Saxon-and-nothing-else English nationalist who hates Ireland and will say anything that I can to distance myself from them as much as possible."

Now, I am not actually arguing that Ireland is Germanic, though with that "infected blood" remark, I believe you deserve to be stuck square on the forehead with a Pot-calling-the-kettle-black stamp.

Also my man, please, one space after each punctuation mark (or two after a period, if you want to be more archaic).

curious
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 06:04 PM
I don't think GDP is relevant for issues like alcoholism or generally poor academic performance of irish. I have never been to Ireland, and only basing on judgment of my friends who work there.

And I don't see reason for someone advocating irish ethnic interest to be on germanic forum actually.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_uni_top_500_percap-universities-top-500-per-capita

flâneur
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 06:08 PM
Spoken like a true "I'm 100% Anglo-Saxon-and-nothing-else English nationalist who hates Ireland and will say anything that I can to distance myself from them as much as possible."


The Irish arent worthy of my hate...i reserve that for more deserving people...the Irish in my eyes are just nobodys......and they are not Germanic so i dont know why people on a pro Germanic forum are getting all hot and flustered about a non Germanic people.

People who quite obviousley have never set foot in Ireland.

Unregistered
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 06:14 PM
Nobodys attacking the Irish,just pointing out facts.

You can walk around Dublin which will take you all of half an hour and not see anything that you wouldnt find in some small provincial centre.
There is no outstanding architecture,no artistic centre with great Irish art on display,no museums that stand out...nothing really except a few pubs that are noteworthy because Brendan Behan used to get drunk in them.
Drive for twenty minutes out of Dublin and you might as well be in the Ukraine.

The Irish are not Germanics and dont have our work ethic or our dicipline,or our inherent genius.
They are what they are...a bunch of rowdy drunken celts...no more no less.

Being Germanic isnt something like some association that you can be a part of if you pay your subs....you either are a Germanic people or you arent....the Irish arent.....no matter how much wishfull thinking from Skadi members who have infected Irish blood.

Ireland has a tiny population of around 5 million. Most of the Irish are not in Ireland, they're spread around the rest of the world (something like 80 million) I don't know how you're expecting a nation of roughly 5 million to compete in art and museums and architecture with a nation with a population of approximetley 60 million.

Einarr
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 06:17 PM
The Irish arent worthy of my hate...i reserve that for more deserving people...the Irish in my eyes are just nobodys......and they are not Germanic so i dont know why people on a pro Germanic forum are getting all hot and flustered about a non Germanic people.

People who quite obviousley have never set foot in Ireland.

You showcase your bias more and more with each post. Anyhow, as I said, I am not arguing that Ireland is Germanic, though I will argue against hypocrisy. I will also argue on the behalf of truth. You don't seem to be very truthful.

The Horned God
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 06:17 PM
There is no outstanding architecture,no artistic centre with great Irish art on display,no museums that stand out...nothing really except a few pubs that are noteworthy because Brendan Behan used to get drunk in them.
Drive for twenty minutes out of Dublin and you might as well be in the Ukraine.


I don't know what part of Dublin you were in, but the city center must have about a half dozen museums of one sort of another in it, covering areas of History, Natural History, Traditional and Modern Art. Added to that there are several heritage sites in and around the city with dozens more throughout the country.

Have a look at this (http://www.uni-due.de/DI/Architecture_Art.htm#prehistory) page for a very quick overview of some ancient Irish artifacts. I think you'll find they stand their ground against anything of a similar period elsewhere in Europe.

flâneur
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 06:33 PM
Have a look at this (http://www.uni-due.de/DI/Architecture_Art.htm#prehistory) page for a very quick overview of some ancient Irish artifacts.

Norman churches and viking wrist bands are Irish......mmmmm.:chinrub

Wulfram
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 06:34 PM
...the Irish in my eyes are just nobodys...

Anti-Irish propaganda written by the English goes back for centuries.
You are only repeating inherited sentiment.

Another possible reason as to why you speak this way is that while the English government were committing abuses in Ireland, English children were being taught how to revile and make fun of the "drunken" Irish, so that when many of them became adults they showed little sympathy for Irish suffering.


...and they are not Germanic so i dont know why people on a pro Germanic forum are getting all hot and flustered about a non Germanic people.


Some of us share Irish heritage, and since I have as much of a love for the Celts as I do Germanics I feel that I have no choice but to become hot and flustered in their/my defense.


People who quite obviousley have never set foot in Ireland.

I have been there, once. :P
How many times have you been?

Æmeric
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 06:38 PM
Ireland has a tiny population of around 5 million. Roughly the same as Scotland. Edinburgh is called the "Athens of the North". Though Scotland hasn't being doing so well as late with its Celtic Nationalism, which seems partly defined by an anti-Englishism.


Most of the Irish are not in Ireland, they're spread around the rest of the world (something like 80 million) That might be an overestimate, including people who are part Irish (Italian-Irish mixes are common in America) & persons who are of Protestant Irish (descendents of Scots & emglsih settlers), the latter being the majority of persons in the US claiming Irish ancestry.


I don't know how you're expecting a nation of roughly 5 million to compete in art and museums and architecture with a nation with a population of approximately 60 million. I've already given Scotland as an example, Denamrk would be another. Don't look at the totality of museums & art but it proportion to the actual population. Florence (population 1.5 million), capital of the region of Tuscany (population 3.7 million), is a famed cultural center, in spite of not being a national capital.

The Horned God
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 06:42 PM
Norman churches and viking wrist bands are Irish......mmmmm.:chinrub

The metalwork on that page is all Irish made.

Amazing work though, isn't it? ;)

As for the churches, the Normans probably hired Irish masons, there was certainly no shortage of talent among the Irish stone masons at that time.

flâneur
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 06:54 PM
Anti-Irish propaganda written by the English goes back for centuries.
You are only repeating inherited sentiment.

English children were being taught how to revile and make fun of the "drunken" Irish, so that when many of them became adults they showed little sympathy for Irish suffering.


Ah so if i have an opinion its because of inherited sentiment...not because i have my own opinions....thought process or experience to draw on.
You shouldnt judge people by your own low standards.

Show me proof that English children are taught to revile and make fun of the drunken Irish.I was never taught it and never saw it and spent years in the scholastic system in England.....how many years have you spent in England....?

(We dont need to be taught in schools about the drunken Irish/Scots,looking at any street corner in the centre of London is enough)



I have been there, once. :P
How many times have you been?

Two years.