PDA

View Full Version : How Germanic is France?



Rodskarl Dubhgall
Thursday, September 9th, 2004, 05:22 AM
Did France surrender it's Germanicism with the rise of Napoleon or was it the defeat of the Vichy government? You'll probably say during Mediaeval times, so let's here it...

Grimm
Saturday, September 13th, 2008, 08:55 PM
I would like someone to explain to me just how Germanic or un-Germanic France is.

Psychonaut
Saturday, September 13th, 2008, 10:30 PM
I would like someone to explain to me just how Germanic or un-Germanic France is.

Here's my opinion, based on my family's history. I am Acadian, which means I'm a descendant of the French settlers that settled in the Canadian province of Acadia in the 16th century. Pretty much all of my ancestors since the colonization were French. My family has always been very interested in genealogy, so I had a lot of material to start with when I began doing serious investigations. Most Acadian ancestry stems from Normandie or Alsace-Lorraine. Quite a few of my Norman lines go back far enough for me to see the transition from French names back to Germanic names. The same is true for the Frankish ancestors in Alsace. Outside of these two areas, there is (in my experience) quite a bit of Germanic ancestry in the French Alps. My fathers family comes from the Alps and traces directly back to the Burgundian nobles that preceded the Hundred Years War. Outside of these three areas, however, I don't have any personal genealogical knowledge. I would imagine that Southern France, particularly Aquitaine, has more Roman influence, as would the provinces in the Pyrenees. Central France, eapecially Paris, is probably a cross section of all of these. Sorry for the rambling, but I just wanted to make clear that these are my personal observations from my own genealogy, not stuff I pulled out of a hat. ;)

Grimm
Saturday, September 13th, 2008, 10:59 PM
Thanks for the info. Sometimes personal genealogy can explain things better than longwinded texts. I appreciate it.

GroeneWolf
Sunday, September 14th, 2008, 03:22 PM
You got a Flemisch part in Northern France, Frans Vlaanderen. However my knowledge of the history of that region is very minimal.

https://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=112737&stc=1&d=1480495641

Jäger
Sunday, September 14th, 2008, 04:49 PM
Did France surrender it's Germanicism with the rise of Napoleon or was it the defeat of the Vichy government?
With the French revolution. Which eventually replaced Germanic-Nordic aristocracy with Romanic-Alpinid plebeian rule.

Aptrgangr
Sunday, September 14th, 2008, 05:27 PM
Did France surrender it's Germanicism with the rise of Napoleon or was it the defeat of the Vichy government? You'll probably say during Mediaeval times, so let's here it...

There never was a French Germanicism - there was a Frankish aristocracy rulng for a while, and some Germanic settlements, but France overall is what it has been - a Gallo-Romanic nation.

Loyalist
Sunday, September 14th, 2008, 05:36 PM
There never was a French Germanicism - there was a Frankish aristocracy rulng for a while, and some Germanic settlements, but France overall is what it has been - a Gallo-Romanic nation.

You're underestimating the presence of Germanic genes amongst the French. The main progenitors of the ethnic group today are the Franks and Gauls, Germanics and Celts respectively. One must then factor in Norse influence from inter-marriage in Normandy and the surrounding area, German input from Alsace-Lorraine, and Brythonic presence in Brittany. Of course it is true that Romance blood is present in French, but it is mostly isolated in the south of the nation. Even in this case, a good portion of that likely stems from Spanish and Italian migration long after the other aforementioned peoples came together to form what, today, is recognized as the French ethnicity. The fact that Latin culture prevailed in the nation over its Germanic and Celtic rivals tends to corrupt opinion of the country on an ethnic level. The French are thus, in my opinion, a Celtogermanic people, admittedly with various levels of Romance influence, the latter depending largely on region.

Aptrgangr
Sunday, September 14th, 2008, 05:49 PM
You're underestimating the presence of Germanic genes amongst the French. The main progenitors of the ethnic group today are the Franks and Gauls, Germanics and Celts respectively. One must then factor in Norse influence from inter-marriage in Normandy and the surrounding area, German input from Alsace-Lorraine, and Brythonic presence in Brittany. Of course it is true that Romance blood is present in French, but it is mostly isolated in the south of the nation. Even in this case, a good portion of that likely stems from Spanish and Italian migration long after the other aforementioned peoples came together to form what, today, is recognized as the French ethnicity. The fact that Latin culture prevailed in the nation over its Germanic and Celtic rivals tends to corrupt opinion of the country on an ethnic level. The French are thus, in my opinion, a Celtogermanic people, admittedly with various levels of Romance influence, the latter depending largely on region.


No, France is a Gallo-Romanic nation. The conquest of Germanic Alsace and Moselle-Lorraine happened to a late date, so they can't be counted as native French like the people of core-France, Germanics like the Normans and Franks were Romanized long ago.
France has her name from the Frankish empire, that's why many think it was once a Germanic empire.
I am a link to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oaths_of_Strasbourg)

Loyalist
Sunday, September 14th, 2008, 06:01 PM
No, France is a Gallo-Romanic nation.

According to you, wheras I make no concrete (and in your case, false) assertions that my opinion is entirely correct and without error.


The conquest of Germanic Alsace and Moselle-Lorraine happened to a late date, so they can't be counted as native French like the people of core-France,

On the same note, many Italians and Spaniards are not such, as they descend from Moors and Semitic converts. The Portuguese are not Portuguese, as, aside from Moorish influence, there was a large injection of Negro blood from inter-mixture with slaves. The English simply don't exist, since they're an amalgamation of at least half a dozen major ethnic groups who arrived on the island in the last two thousand years, and don't even get me started on those Hungarians, being the descendants of a people who migrated from the Asian Far East which, by your connection of chronology to ethnicity, occured in relatively contemporary times (a few centuries isn't equal to a millenia when it comes to ethnic matters, after all).

Of course, this is all based off of Aptrgangr's personal view on time and the effect it has on matters of blood, integration, etc.

What a joke.


Germanics like the Normans and Franks were Romanized long ago.

Romanized by culture? Yes. Romanized by blood? No. The latter is far more important in determining the identity of a people; a Negro could be Romanized in a cultural sense.


France has her name from the Frankish empire, that's why many think it was once a Germanic empire.
I am a link to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oaths_of_Strasbourg)

France at the time wasn't Germanic simply by name, and saying their effect on the genepool of the people was either miniscule or entirely non-existent is supremely ignorant.

Grimm
Sunday, September 14th, 2008, 06:12 PM
You're underestimating the presence of Germanic genes amongst the French. The main progenitors of the ethnic group today are the Franks and Gauls, Germanics and Celts respectively. One must then factor in Norse influence from inter-marriage in Normandy and the surrounding area, German input from Alsace-Lorraine, and Brythonic presence in Brittany. Of course it is true that Romance blood is present in French, but it is mostly isolated in the south of the nation. Even in this case, a good portion of that likely stems from Spanish and Italian migration long after the other aforementioned peoples came together to form what, today, is recognized as the French ethnicity. The fact that Latin culture prevailed in the nation over its Germanic and Celtic rivals tends to corrupt opinion of the country on an ethnic level. The French are thus, in my opinion, a Celtogermanic people, admittedly with various levels of Romance influence, the latter depending largely on region.


Thank you for the summation. Pieces of what I'd read about the subject seemed to be pointing me towards a Germanic rather than Romantic genealogy for the French. Thanks for spelling it out. As far as that Celts, I always have a little trouble putting my finger on just where, when, and how they left their influences. Thanks for making it clear regarding France.

Aptrgangr
Sunday, September 14th, 2008, 06:25 PM
According to you, wheras I make no concrete (and in your case, false) assertions that my opinion is entirely correct and without error.
The claim France was no Gallo-Romanic nation is erronous.


On the same note, many Italians and Spaniards are not such, as they descend from Moors and Semitic converts. The Portuguese are not Portuguese, as, aside from Moorish influence, there was a large injection of Negro blood from inter-mixture with slaves.
The foreign genetic influence there is about at 10%.


The English simply don't exist, since they're an amalgamation of at least half a dozen major ethnic groups who arrived on the island in the last two thousand years,
You seem to have no clue how ethnicity is defined. Of course do English exist, they are natives of England and can be of different native backgrounds.


and don't even get me started on those Hungarians, being the descendants of a people who migrated from the Asian Far East which, by your connection of chronology to ethnicity, occured in relatively contemporary times (a few centuries isn't equal to a millenia when it comes to ethnic matters, after all).
The Hungarians are predominantly of native european origin, they speak a non Indo-European language and adopted some Magyr customs though. There is no huge genetical influence of Mongols to be found there.


Of course, this is all based off of Aptrgangr's personal view on time and the effect it has on matters of blood, integration, etc.

What a joke.
How many times have you been in France? And, where have you been?
My maternal grandma was from Strasbourg, I can ensure you people from Reims or Bordeux or Paris look way different than Alsatians.



Romanized by culture? Yes. Romanized by blood? No. The latter is far more important in determining the identity of a people; a Negro could be Romanized in a cultural sense.
French overwhealmingly are of Gallo-Romanic origin (blood), with some Germanic influence.


France at the time wasn't Germanic simply by name, and saying their effect on the genepool of the people was either miniscule or entirely non-existent is supremely ignorant.
Supremely ignorant you are - so far I haven't read one reasonable post from you.
The Frankish aristocracy dominated a while, but most people of France never were Germanics but Gallo-Romanics. There are small areas where Germanic settlers once settled down.

BeornWulfWer
Sunday, September 14th, 2008, 06:58 PM
I would like someone to explain to me just how Germanic or un-Germanic France is.

I would have to agree with Aptrgangr here and say the French are of the same stock they were the day Julius Caesar clapped eyes on them.

Of course they would have had some influences from Germanics to Moors, but on the whole the whole 'core' of the French people is Gallo-Roman.

Loyalist
Sunday, September 14th, 2008, 10:35 PM
The claim France was no Gallo-Romanic nation is erronous.

Good thing I didn't make it.


The foreign genetic influence there is about at 10%.

Sources? Or is this more original Aptrgangr/Stirpes research? I've seen estimates of Negroid blood in the Portuguese as high as 30%, without taking into consideration input from Moors, Jewish Conversos, etc. It depends on where you're getting your information from, and whether or not the source is working under a hidden agenda.


You seem to have no clue how ethnicity is defined. Of course do English exist, they are natives of England and can be of different native backgrounds.

It seems it's actually you that doesn't. You explicitly stated French people of wholly or predominantly Norse or Germanic descent aren't true, ethnic French. Pot that called the kettle back, perhaps? I shouldn't be surprised; if one attempts to diminsh the Germanic ancestry of the Germans, then they obviously won't support such in a far more disputed people.


The Hungarians are predominantly of native european origin, they speak a non Indo-European language and adopted some Magyr customs though. There is no huge genetical influence of Mongols to be found there.

Again, I have to ask if you're serious? The Magyars are the primary ancestors of the modern Hungarians, not just a small portion of their genetic stock. Ethnically, linguistically, and, in many ways, culturally, Hungarians are far closer to their Asiatic cousins than European groups which don't descend from Asian nomads. Your own argument, displayed quite clearly in your previous post, calls for the exclusion of certain ethnic and meta-ethnic groups who arrived comparatively late from standard nation identity. Then again, maybe this only applies when it compliments your argument.


How many times have you been in France? And, where have you been?
My maternal grandma was from Strasbourg, I can ensure you people from Reims or Bordeux or Paris look way different than Alsatians.

So you're part French now as well? In addition to Irish and American? This is becoming more laughable, and more hypocritical, by the minute.

Never, nor do I need to for a picture of the modern French, but I live in a country with a huge ethnic French populace. Here are two examples of French-Canadians whose ancestors do not originate from the Franco-German border areas:

http://i38.tinypic.com/r94e86.jpg

Stephane Dion, whose mother is a born and bred Parisian.

http://i33.tinypic.com/sd1w2b.jpg

Gilles Duceppe, with roots in the west of France.

Do these men appear physically closer to Northern Europeans or Mediterraneans? Of course there are swarthy French, but the same appearance amongst otherwise Nordish people can be found in England, the Netherlands, Norway, and elsewhere.


French overwhealmingly are of Gallo-Romanic origin (blood), with some Germanic influence.

According to you, wheras everything from history, to migration patterns, and so on suggests they are a primarily Celtic and Germanic group, with localized pockets of Romance blood.


Supremely ignorant you are - so far I haven't read one reasonable post from you.

Likewise, although you hail from an online home where ignorance permeates every word with your erroneous and laughable ideas of European nationalism and hatred of "outsiders". Before you scream ignorance again, keep one thing in mind; a native-born Englishman has more in common with an American of English ancestry than they do with a native-born Slovakian.


The Frankish aristocracy dominated a while, but most people of France never were Germanics but Gallo-Romanics. There are small areas where Germanic settlers once settled down.

The injection of Germanic blood provided by the migration of an entire Germanic tribe into a huge portion of the nation is one thing, without taking into consideration inter-marriage with Norse settlers who arrived later, and the Celts spanning the entire country thrown into the mix. Romance blood in the French is far outnumbered by Germanic and Celtic presence.

Psychonaut
Sunday, September 14th, 2008, 10:46 PM
French overwhealmingly are of Gallo-Romanic origin (blood), with some Germanic influence...

The Frankish aristocracy dominated a while, but most people of France never were Germanics but Gallo-Romanics.

First off, the Germanics ruled France for more than just "a while." The Merovingian Frankish dynasty lasted from the early 400s until 580. The Merovingian Franks followed from 580 until about 987. Finally, the Capetian Franks ruled from 987 until the French Revolution in 1789. So, in all that's about 1,400 years of Frankish rule, certainly more than a fleeting phenomena.

Second, when estimating the Gallic input into the French gene pool, we must remember the level of decimation that they suffered under Caesar:


As many as a million people (probably 1 in 4 of the Gauls) died, another million were enslaved, 300 tribes were subjugated and 800 cities were destroyed during the Gallic Wars. The entire population of the city of Avaricum (Bourges) (40,000 in all) were slaughtered.[6] During Julius Caesar's campaign against the Helvetii (present-day Switzerland) approximately 60% of the tribe was destroyed, and another 20% was taken into slavery.

BeornWulfWer
Sunday, September 14th, 2008, 10:59 PM
With all due respect, but Julius Caesar was renowned for exaggerating the numbers.
It seemed to be a very Roman trait to beef up the numbers of the enemy.

Indeed, in the battle of Watling Street, you had Tacitus quoting 100'000 Britons and Cassius Dio quoting over a 1/4 million fighting for Boudicca!

I have always halved and then taken a third off every number given.

OneEnglishNorman
Sunday, September 14th, 2008, 10:59 PM
France is a state which has subsumed varied peoples. It is partly why the French state is so centralised and prescriptive. "French" is a less useful ethnic term than "Danish" for example.

How similar are Lille and Marseille for culture, temperament and race? It is common sense that North-eastern France is racially & culturally more Northern than the South bordering the Mediterranean. Same goes for Brittany sharing roots with the Cornish and British.

I always thought of France as being not one thing or the other, but mostly Central & Southern European. Perhaps someone here can enlighten the forum as to where most French migration to the colonies originated from.

Psychonaut
Monday, September 15th, 2008, 04:16 AM
Perhaps someone here can enlighten the forum as to where most French migration to the colonies originated from.

Man, this took me a long time to compile, so I hope you guys enjoy the fruits of my labor. Here's the deal; of the original 47 families that settled in Acadia based on the 1631 census, my genealogy springs from 30 of these. What follows is a break down of which families came from which regions of France based on my family's genealogy. These are not generalizations based on concentrations of names, rather this is where each family on the census migrated from:

Normandie (Haute and Basse)
There are eleven families from these regions: Cormier, Boudreaux, Aucoin, Breaux, d'Entremont, Robichaux, Brun, Pellerin, Comeau and Hebert

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Haute-Normandie_map.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Basse-Normandie_map.png

Poitou-Charentes
There are nine families from this region: Gaudet, Bourg, Gauterot, Le Blanc, Richard, Landry, Blanchard, Girouard and Savoie

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Poitou-Charentes_map.png

Bretagne
There are two families from this region: Doucet and La Noue

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Bretagne_map.png

Aquitaine
There are two families from this region: Petitpas and Bourgeois

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Aquitaine_map.png

Pays de la Loire
There are two families from this region: Thibodeau and Vincent

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Pays-de-la-Loire_map.png

Midi-Pyrénées
There is one family from this region: Dugas

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Midi-Pyr%C3%A9n%C3%A9es_map.png

Rhône-Alpes
There is one family from this region: Martin

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Rh%C3%B4ne-Alpes_map.png

Nord-Pas de Calais
There is one family from this region: Pitre

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Nord-Pas-de-Calais_map.png

Centre
There is one family from this region: Trahan

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Centre_map.png

Île-de-France
There is one family from this region: de la Tour

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/%C3%8Ele-de-France_map.png


Note: the census information is sourced here (http://www.acadian-cajun.com/genac5.htm)

Aptrgangr
Monday, September 15th, 2008, 10:57 PM
Good thing I didn't make it.

Of course it is true that Romance blood is present in French, but it is mostly isolated in the south of the nation.
It's not only present, it overwhealms.


Sources? Or is this more original Aptrgangr/Stirpes research? I've seen estimates of Negroid blood in the Portuguese as high as 30%, without taking into consideration input from Moors, Jewish Conversos, etc. It depends on where you're getting your information from, and whether or not the source is working under a hidden agenda.
Where did you these numbers get from?
Most moors were converted Spaniards anyway.
You're always detecting hidden agendas.


It seems it's actually you that doesn't. You explicitly stated French people of wholly or predominantly Norse or Germanic descent aren't true, ethnic French. Pot that called the kettle back, perhaps? I shouldn't be surprised; if one attempts to diminsh the Germanic ancestry of the Germans, then they obviously won't support such in a far more disputed people.
Two things happened:
France was ruled by Frankish aristocrats for some years, but these had more a cultural than a genetical influence.
France conquered German(ic) lands like Alsace, Lorraine and parts of Flanders.
Who tries to diminish the Germanic ancestry of Germany? I just say it makes sense to add people to the meta-ethnic spectrum of Germanics without having been of pred. Germanic origin. It seems to me you accept anyone as Germanic who feels like to be one...


Again, I have to ask if you're serious? The Magyars are the primary ancestors of the modern Hungarians, not just a small portion of their genetic stock. Ethnically, linguistically, and, in many ways, culturally, Hungarians are far closer to their Asiatic cousins than European groups which don't descend from Asian nomads. Your own argument, displayed quite clearly in your previous post, calls for the exclusion of certain ethnic and meta-ethnic groups who arrived comparatively late from standard nation identity. Then again, maybe this only applies when it compliments your argument.
BS like the claim Finns were blonde Mongols...


So you're part French now as well? In addition to Irish and American? This is becoming more laughable, and more hypocritical, by the minute.
Where did I say I was partly French? I never said this. My grandma had a scornful laugh for people claiming she was a Frenchwoman. She was Alamanni - and, for your amusement, partly Danish.


Never, nor do I need to for a picture of the modern French, but I live in a country with a huge ethnic French populace. Here are two examples of French-Canadians whose ancestors do not originate from the Franco-German border areas:

http://i38.tinypic.com/r94e86.jpg

Stephane Dion, whose mother is a born and bred Parisian.

http://i33.tinypic.com/sd1w2b.jpg

Gilles Duceppe, with roots in the west of France.

Do these men appear physically closer to Northern Europeans or Mediterraneans? Of course there are swarthy French, but the same appearance amongst otherwise Nordish people can be found in England, the Netherlands, Norway, and elsewhere.
They are western-central Europeans. Of course these phenotypes can be found in these countries enumerated...


According to you, wheras everything from history, to migration patterns, and so on suggests they are a primarily Celtic and Germanic group, with localized pockets of Romance blood.
Saw this map? (http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=855853&postcount=133)
Does this map mean Franks settled in the blue territory? It doesn't.
And I even provided a link where it was clearly shown the people of the non-Germanic part of the Frankish empire spoke Old-French, a non-Germanic language, whereas the western... did so.
There was a racial and cultural divide.


Likewise, although you hail from an online home where ignorance permeates every word with your erroneous and laughable ideas of European nationalism and hatred of "outsiders". Before you scream ignorance again, keep one thing in mind; a native-born Englishman has more in common with an American of English ancestry than they do with a native-born Slovakian.
I just wonder why people having no real relation to Germanics are so interested in meddling in this affair.


The injection of Germanic blood provided by the migration of an entire Germanic tribe into a huge portion of the nation is one thing, without taking into consideration inter-marriage with Norse settlers who arrived later, and the Celts spanning the entire country thrown into the mix. Romance blood in the French is far outnumbered by Germanic and Celtic presence.
There was no migration of a huge tribe - that's the point here. There was a ruling elite.
Spain was host of Germnaic tribes settling there (Visigoths ...) - still it s no Germanic country. And never has been.




First off, the Germanics ruled France for more than just "a while." The Merovingian Frankish dynasty lasted from the early 400s until 580. The Merovingian Franks followed from 580 until about 987. Finally, the Capetian Franks ruled from 987 until the French Revolution in 1789. So, in all that's about 1,400 years of Frankish rule, certainly more than a fleeting phenomena.

Second, when estimating the Gallic input into the French gene pool, we must remember the level of decimation that they suffered under Caesar:
An aristocracy ruling over natives does not make them the same ethnicity like their rulers.
The Bourbons are kings of Spain until today - time to unblock Spanish IPs - no? :D
France is no Germanic country, if ithad been, we would not call them Welsh/Welsche...[Celts]

Loyalist
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008, 02:02 AM
It's not only present, it overwhealms.

You're presenting your opinion as fact again. You have failed to provide any evidence it does, wheras history and common sense says otherwise.


Where did you these numbers get from?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16201138?dopt=Abstract

I believe I asked you the same question.


Most moors were converted Spaniards anyway.

Moors were Islamic Semites from North Africa, who were also likely to have a large degree of Negro blood (the numbers for Portugal and Sicily speak for themselves). They were not a lost tribe of Spaniards making their way home after a few centuries running around in Africa.


You're always detecting hidden agendas.

There's a great deal of them, it seems.


Two things happened:
France was ruled by Frankish aristocrats for some years, but these had more a cultural than a genetical influence.
France conquered German(ic) lands like Alsace, Lorraine and parts of Flanders.
Who tries to diminish the Germanic ancestry of Germany? I just say it makes sense to add people to the meta-ethnic spectrum of Germanics without having been of pred. Germanic origin. It seems to me you accept anyone as Germanic who feels like to be one...

Who installed those Frankish aristocrats into power? Did they not bring legions of soldiers and commoners to conquer the land, build their empire, and populate the nation? Yes, they did, and it was this Germanic migration into France which inter-married with the indigenous populace. You're also completely ignoring the genetic contribution of the Normans and other Germanic tribes which migrated into the nation.


BS like the claim Finns were blonde Mongols...

Many are, and we've seen countless examples of "Nordic" Mongols; not all possess jet black hair or yellow complexions.


Where did I say I was partly French? I never said this. My grandma had a scornful laugh for people claiming she was a Frenchwoman. She was Alamanni - and, for your amusement, partly Danish.

So your grandmother is a Germanic Frenchwoman? :D


They are western-central Europeans. Of course these phenotypes can be found in these countries enumerated...

You asserted that French individuals from outside the "Germanic regions" would appear more Mediterranean, or at least visibly distinct, from their more Germanic countrymen. However, just two men of non-northeastern French ancestry have shown otherwise.


Saw this map? (http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=855853&postcount=133)
Does this map mean Franks settled in the blue territory? It doesn't.
And I even provided a link where it was clearly shown the people of the non-Germanic part of the Frankish empire spoke Old-French, a non-Germanic language, whereas the western... did so.
There was a racial and cultural divide.

So, as the various French kingdoms shifted and amalgamated, the Franks and their descendants never migrated to other parts of the nation? Neither did the Normans? How about the Alamanni? Yes, individuals of distinct meta-ethnicites remain in one place, and marry amongst one people, for all time.


I'm sure there's one or two Germanic Frenchmen in or around Marseille right now. ;)


I just wonder why people having no real relation to Germanics are so interested in meddling in this affair.

I know what you mean; why a forum exists where Slavs, Latins, and Balts are advising us on affairs pertinent to our group is beyond me. :-O


There was no migration of a huge tribe - that's the point here. There was a ruling elite. Spain was host of Germnaic tribes settling there (Visigoths ...) - still it s no Germanic country. And never has been.

The Normans were a ruling elite in England subsequent to 1066, yet virtually every English (and indeed, British Isles) individual would be hard pressed to not have a few Norman ancestors present in their family history. The number which migrated with William the Conqueror was probably equal to, or even smaller than, the Frankish migration into France, yet they had a massive genetic impact on the indigenous peoples of Britain and Ireland. I've found more Normans than Brythons or Anglo-Saxons in my own lineage, for example, and my family originates from a highly Brythonic region.


An aristocracy ruling over natives does not make them the same ethnicity like their rulers.
The Bourbons are kings of Spain until today - time to unblock Spanish IPs - no? :D
France is no Germanic country, if ithad been, we would not call them Welsh/Welsche...[Celts]

See above.

Psychonaut
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008, 02:44 AM
There was no migration of a huge tribe - that's the point here. There was a ruling elite.
Spain was host of Germnaic tribes settling there (Visigoths ...) - still it s no Germanic country. And never has been.
[Celts]

Pardon me, but there was not only a migration of one tribe, but migrations of several Germanic tribes throughout France during the Early Middle Ages. Aside from the Franks, the Burgundians established a kingdom right here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Map_Burgundian_Kingdom_EN.png/588px-Map_Burgundian_Kingdom_EN.png

Additionally, the Alemanni also established a kingdom bordering and overlapping with that of the Franks and Burgundians:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/Alamannien_Hochburgund_ca_1000.png/680px-Alamannien_Hochburgund_ca_1000.png

Then we must contend with the formidable Visigoths, whose kingdom, at its peak, looked like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/Visigoth_Kingdom.jpg/588px-Visigoth_Kingdom.jpg

And, finally, we can't forget the ever influential Normans:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/Normannen.png/800px-Normannen.png

So, all things told, we have an area of land that we now call France. This land was originally inhabited by some type of Upper Paleolithic people who left us nifty cave paintings in Lascaux. Next up, the Gallic tribes invaded and were the dominant ethnic group for a while. After a bit, Caesar came in and killed off quite a bit of the Gallic population and changed their language into a Gallo-Roman hybrid. Over the next several hundred years five Germanic tribes conquer and inhabit various parts of this territory.

Looking at this history, who are the primary contributors to the French people? We have a mixture of Gauls, Romans, Goths, Franks, Burgundians, Alemanni and Normans. The Germanic seems to outweigh the Gallo-Roman. In fact, I'd wager the only reason we're having this discussion about France (and not about Germany or Switzerland) is because the Franks decided to adopt the Catholic Religion and Latin language. It just seems strange to contend that an area of land that was conquered by five Germanic tribes is not predominantly Germanic ancestrally.

SuuT
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008, 01:03 PM
[...]An aristocracy ruling over natives does not make them the same ethnicity like their rulers.[...]

You have said, en summa, that today's France is, by way of it's genesis, anagenesis, and ethnogenesis, a Gallo-Roman nation.

Let's assume this to be true.

You make the above admission of ruling elites.



The question is begged: Who defines the character of a nation? - the rulers; or, the ruled....?


Not so incidentally, today's France is obsessed with the (at least) nominal re-establishment of the noblesse de race.

Youenn
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008, 10:34 PM
Most Acadian ancestry stems from Normandie or Alsace-Lorraine.

Normandy, certainly. But Alsace Lorraine ?
The majority of Acadiens have Poitevins ancestors for sure, like Quebecois.


It just seems strange to contend that an area of land that was conquered by five Germanic tribes is not predominantly Germanic ancestrally.

Strange but it's like that.
Just travel in the hexagon. In Lorraine, the difference is important between the Germanic and the Gallo-roman part.


With the French revolution. Which eventually replaced Germanic-Nordic aristocracy with Romanic-Alpinid plebeian rule.

I suppose you got this from Hans Gunther. I read "Kleine Rassenkunde Europas" and there are many mistakes. Precisely on that you said. For exemple, the Bas-Poitevins (called "Vendéens" by Republicans) were the most anti-republican and the most pro-monarchy people of France and Poitevins are in good part Alpinid and Atlanto-Med.


One must then factor in Norse influence from inter-marriage in Normandy and the surrounding area, German input from Alsace-Lorraine, and Brythonic presence in Brittany. Of course it is true that Romance blood is present in French, but it is mostly isolated in the south of the nation.

Normandy have less viking blood comparing to Brittany. See my post (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=95605&page=3).
Alsace-Lorraine - or rather Elsass Lothringen - is not French, like South-Flanders or Brittany. It's just an expansion of the French empire who is not based on identity. And about the south, there are Occitania, north-Basque Country, north-Cataluna and Corsica. All of them are clearly Latin with of course, with more or less differences between them.

The rest is the real France, la Francie, and they are Gallo-romans with Germanic influence on the boarders (Picardi, Artois, Champagne, Lorraine, etc.).


Not so incidentally, today's France is obsessed with the (at least) nominal re-establishment of the noblesse de race.

I don't know what do you mean but today's France is republican, anti-monarchic and atheist as hell.

Aptrgangr
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008, 10:54 PM
You're presenting your opinion as fact again. You have failed to provide any evidence it does, wheras history and common sense says otherwise.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16201138?dopt=Abstract

I believe I asked you the same question.
Then Spain and Portugal would be negroid countries. But they are not.
Today's Germany or England are now more negroid than Spain ever was.
Swarthyness =/=negroid.
I had posted a genetic map of Europe and one showing the haplo-groups of Europe.
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=98037&page=12


Moors were Islamic Semites from North Africa, who were also likely to have a large degree of Negro blood (the numbers for Portugal and Sicily speak for themselves). They were not a lost tribe of Spaniards making their way home after a few centuries running around in Africa.

Many Spaniards converted and became moors. It's mainly a cultural term.
There was mixing too, of course.


There's a great deal of them, it seems.
Explain?
I can ensure you - if I had a hidden agenda you were the last one to detect it.

Who installed those Frankish aristocrats into power? Did they not bring legions of soldiers and commoners to conquer the land, build their empire, and populate the nation? Yes, they did, and it was this Germanic migration into France which inter-married with the indigenous populace. You're also completely ignoring the genetic contribution of the Normans and other Germanic tribes which migrated into the nation.
No, they were a ruling class, there was no population replacement.
Of course, mixing happened, most Germanics disappeared into the crowd so to speak.


Many are, and we've seen countless examples of "Nordic" Mongols; not all possess jet black hair or yellow complexions.
There is a mixing, Yes, but most genes hail from Europe.


So your grandmother is a Germanic Frenchwoman? :D

No, she was a true German.


You asserted that French individuals from outside the "Germanic regions" would appear more Mediterranean, or at least visibly distinct, from their more Germanic countrymen. However, just two men of non-northeastern French ancestry have shown otherwise.
There is an north-south divide within France. The northern Oil France differs from the more Mediterranean Occitania of course.


So, as the various French kingdoms shifted and amalgamated, the Franks and their descendants never migrated to other parts of the nation? Neither did the Normans? How about the Alamanni? Yes, individuals of distinct meta-ethnicites remain in one place, and marry amongst one people, for all time.
There is a difference between Germanic settlements, and Germanic kingdoms ruled by a Germanic aristocracy.


I'm sure there's one or two Germanic Frenchmen in or around Marseille right now. ;)

Yes, can be.


I know what you mean; why a forum exists where Slavs, Latins, and Balts are advising us on affairs pertinent to our group is beyond me. :-O

What do you mean?


The Normans were a ruling elite in England subsequent to 1066, yet virtually every English (and indeed, British Isles) individual would be hard pressed to not have a few Norman ancestors present in their family history. The number which migrated with William the Conqueror was probably equal to, or even smaller than, the Frankish migration into France, yet they had a massive genetic impact on the indigenous peoples of Britain and Ireland. I've found more Normans than Brythons or Anglo-Saxons in my own lineage, for example, and my family originates from a highly Brythonic region.

Being of Norman stock does not automatically mean being of Germanic stock. The Normans of Normandy were highly frenchisized.



Pardon me, but there was not only a migration of one tribe, but migrations of several Germanic tribes throughout France during the Early Middle Ages. Aside from the Franks, the Burgundians established a kingdom right here:

According to your logic we Germans are all Huns.
http://steppenreiter.de/images/Hun_Empire.gif

Again: There are ethnic and non-ethnic kingdoms.

Psychonaut
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008, 11:22 PM
Normandy, certainly. But Alsace Lorraine ?
The majority of Acadiens have Poitevins ancestors for sure, like Quebecois.

I was basing my assumption off of my own ancestry, which has prominent lines springing from both Alsace and Baden. My family is quite typical of Acadians, so I extrapolated from my experience.




According to your logic we Germans are all Huns.
http://steppenreiter.de/images/Hun_Empire.gif

Again: There are ethnic and non-ethnic kingdoms.

Are you contending that when one people conquer another they simply rule them for a time, then pick up shop and leave when the next batch of conquerers come in? I'm not saying at all that the modes French are the Franks, Burgundians, Normans, Alemanni or Goths. Rather, I am trying to point out that it would be nonsensical to assume that when a people conquer an area they don't leave behind a genetic legacy. This can be easily evidenced in Germany where there is some concentrations of East Baltids (a Mongoloid influenced morphological group) in the East.

SuuT
Wednesday, September 17th, 2008, 12:49 AM
I don't know what do you mean but today's France is republican, anti-monarchic and atheist as hell.

The Association d'entraide de la Noblesse Française agrees with you...except for the inundation of over 20,000 inquiries per month it receives from republican, anti-monarchic and atheist as hell Frenchmen and Woman looking for personal geneaological linkage to the Old Nobility.

________________________________________ _______________________

Which further begs the question that is being dodged.

Aptrgangr: You have said, en summa, that today's France is, by way of it's genesis, anagenesis, and ethnogenesis, a Gallo-Roman nation.

Let's assume this to be true.

You make the admission of ruling elites.



The question is begged: Who defines the character of a nation? - the rulers; or, the ruled....?

Jäger
Wednesday, September 17th, 2008, 06:44 AM
I suppose you got this from Hans Gunther.
From Arthur de Gobineau actually.


I read "Kleine Rassenkunde Europas" and there are many mistakes. Precisely on that you said. For exemple, the Bas-Poitevins (called "Vendéens" by Republicans) were the most anti-republican and the most pro-monarchy people of France and Poitevins are in good part Alpinid and Atlanto-Med.
Alpinids seem to be the most lazy for change, Günther describing them as frugal seems to be quite right :D
However, the problem was not that Pleabian-Alpinids (don't forget the prefix, that there were good Alpinids I don't doubt) lead the crusade against the Germanic aristocracy, it was that with the downfall of the Nordic-Aristocracy, the plebs became a say in politics.

Youenn
Wednesday, September 17th, 2008, 12:02 PM
The Association d'entraide de la Noblesse Française agrees with you...except for the inundation of over 20,000 inquiries per month it receives from republican, anti-monarchic and atheist as hell Frenchmen and Woman looking for personal geneaological linkage to the Old Nobility.

Erm... you spoke about France ("today's France is obsessed with..."), now you speak about "personal geneaological linkage to the Old Nobility.". It's totally different.
I don't know the percentage of nobles in France but it's certainly not the majority. ;)


From Arthur de Gobineau actually.

Arthur de Gobineau influenced Hans Gunther anyway.


Alpinids seem to be the most lazy for change, Günther describing them as frugal seems to be quite right :D

Sometimes it's a good thing to be frugal, particurally in this case. :)

SuuT
Wednesday, September 17th, 2008, 01:13 PM
Erm... you spoke about France ("today's France is obsessed with..."),

As in the majority, the mob, the herd, the 'people', the rule as opposed to the exception. I.e. Quantity.


now you speak about "personal geneaological linkage to the Old Nobility.". It's totally different.

As in over 240.000 individuals out of a nation of 64 million seeking linkage to the afore mentioned exception each year. And each year the inquires rise.

I hope I've made myself clearer.


I don't know the percentage of nobles in France but it's certainly not the majority.

Yes, and that is what the Association d'entraide de la Noblesse Française has to keep telling the 1 out of every 260+ people in the country each year that inquire.

"The noble majority" is an oxymoron. - you seemed to have tripped-over one of the many implications of my original question. You also seem to have a pair; perhaps you will answer:

Aptrgangr has said, en summa, that today's France is, by way of it's genesis, anagenesis, and ethnogenesis, a Gallo-Roman nation.

Let's assume this to be true.

He makes the admission of ruling elites.



The question is begged: Who defines the character of a nation? - the rulers; or, the ruled....?

Of course, if you disagree with Aptrgangr's conclusions, you can state as much.

Youenn
Wednesday, September 17th, 2008, 03:52 PM
The question is begged: Who defines the character of a nation? - the rulers; or, the ruled....?

The best exemple who contradict your view is the language who is Celto-roman and their political culture who is Roman - imperialist and assimilationist.
There are a substratum in the east and there are an aristocracy with Germanic origine (What's the percentage of Germanic in French aristocracy ?) but that doesn't make France as a Germanic country.

And to back on the French aristocracy... How many of them influence France today ? I wonder if you've lived in Hexagone to see they are inexistant comparing to England, Spain or Scandinavian countries.

SuuT
Wednesday, September 17th, 2008, 04:17 PM
The best exemple who contradict your view

I have yet to state a view, sir. I have asked a question. If you will grant me an answer, we will get to our view.

Who defines the character of a nation? - the rulers; or, the ruled....?

Youenn
Wednesday, September 17th, 2008, 04:23 PM
I have yet to state a view, sir. I have asked a question. If you will grant me an answer, we will get to our view.

Who defines the character of a nation? - the rulers; or, the ruled....?

I've replied partially since I believe the character is mostly based on language/culture. So in the case of France, the ruled.

Aptrgangr
Wednesday, September 17th, 2008, 04:38 PM
You have said, en summa, that today's France is, by way of it's genesis, anagenesis, and ethnogenesis, a Gallo-Roman nation.

Let's assume this to be true.

You make the above admission of ruling elites.



The question is begged: Who defines the character of a nation? - the rulers; or, the ruled....?


Not so incidentally, today's France is obsessed with the (at least) nominal re-establishment of the noblesse de race.


The fact Atlandid people live in France is no evidence for Germanic ancestry, they lived there (from the Iberian penninsula over the British Isles to Norway) before the Germanics came.
The character of France today is Gallo-Romanic, more Mediterranean in the south. The ethnic border to the east are the Vosgues, there is a Romanic-Germanic contact zone too. There was a huge divide withing the Frankish empire, since they ruled over a Romanic west, and a Germanic east. Oaths of Strasbourg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oaths_of_Strasbourg)
The capured German territories Alsace and Moselle-Lorraine were rigorously frenchisized, thereis a francophilic ruling caste too that does it's best to oppress the native Alsatian language (resp. Moselle-Frankish in Lorraine).
There is still a division visible up to today - not only architecture/culturally, but also ethnically. Alsatians belong the the Germanic tribe of Allamanic people, a Romance influence is visible, but still does not outweight. So the French rulers failed to assimilate Alsatians entirely into France - like the Franks failed
If Alsatian nationalists would see France as their homeland, and French people as their bloodbrothers, they would not create a small but smart resistance movement against France.
http://unsri-heimet.blogspot.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9E10t9z5eo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzw0hN5RY38

http://rotunwiss.free.fr/ (http://rotunwiss.free.fr/)
http://www.alsacedabord.org/ (http://www.alsacedabord.org/)
http://www.nfel.org/ (http://www.nfel.org/)
http://dialecte.alsacien.free.fr/ (http://dialecte.alsacien.free.fr/)


Adding Alsatian roadsigns
http://www.dailymotion.com/related/2075250/video/xum0z_ope-panneaux-alsace-fers-elsass/1 (http://www.dailymotion.com/related/2075250/video/xum0z_ope-panneaux-alsace-fers-elsass/1)
Flying the flag Rot un Wiss (Red and White)
http://www.dailymotion.com/elsass_km/video/x18h9u_ope-ruw-fe (http://www.dailymotion.com/elsass_km/video/x18h9u_ope-ruw-fe)

Yes, they are obsessed to negrificize everyone these days in France...

SuuT
Wednesday, September 17th, 2008, 04:42 PM
[...] So in the case of France, the ruled.

So, just to make sure we are crystal clear, you are saying that those French who were controlled, directed, unable to exercise dominating power, without authority, unable to enact or enforce decree until after the fall of the Third Republic, define the character of today's France?

OneEnglishNorman
Wednesday, September 17th, 2008, 07:43 PM
The fact Atlandid people live in France is no evidence for Germanic ancestry, they lived there (from the Iberian penninsula over the British Isles to Norway) before the Germanics came.

You know that much of what is Germanic Europe, long-standing Germanic language countries, are not racially Northern Germanic?

If we used your hard definition, Atlantids/Nordids/Alpinids and all of that bag of tricks, then what territory is substantially Germanic, is few and far between.

I do not think France is Germanic to any large degree. But there are parts of the state of France, on the fringes, also in upper social classes, where individuals pull in another direction. If we talk about a random Frenchman, we cannot say what he is. Likely he is a "Gallo-Roman". But equally he could identify as (and be) a Breton, and so on.

It's obvious from geography & history that France is a jumble of influences, strung together by a centralist republican state.

Aptrgangr
Wednesday, September 17th, 2008, 08:41 PM
You know that much of what is Germanic Europe, long-standing Germanic language countries, are not racially Northern Germanic?
I do know this - I just do not know why you adress me for that.


If we used your hard definition, Atlantids/Nordids/Alpinids and all of that bag of tricks, then what territory is substantially Germanic, is few and far between.
Germanics are a meta-ethnicity. Several but clearly defined subraces are part of that, some are domiantly present, others less.
It was not me ignoring the fact France had native inhabitants before Franks came around.
And having a monarchs originate from the Carpetian Franks does not equal having Germanic rulers :P
http://www.nndb.com/people/858/000093579/louis-xi-2-sized.jpg


I do not think France is Germanic to any large degree.
Absolutely right.


But there are parts of the state of France, on the fringes,
Mainly conquered lands like Alsace-Lorraine...
BTW; I just found this vid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znaOlIY-n8A), please read the comments, you as Englishman is more familiar with French, even if you did not study it in school, because English is a romanicized (frenchicized) Germanic language.


also in upper social classes, where individuals pull in another direction.
Can you name some?
If it was like that, I would not be surprised, overhere in Germany it's mostly the Nordids of the so-called upper-class that promote and carry out the geoncide of their own people. The Jacobins regularly get their best elections results in Alsace too :-O


If we talk about a random Frenchman, we cannot say what he is. Likely he is a "Gallo-Roman". But equally he could identify as (and be) a Breton, and so on.
Then we better say just: Westeuropean...


It's obvious from geography & history that France is a jumble of influences, strung together by a centralist republican state.
Yes, and the Germanic influence is only visible at the sidelines so to speak. I did not start the "Germanic France" thread...I just wait for the "Germanic Tunisia" thread - the Vandal kingdom, you know...

Psychonaut
Thursday, September 18th, 2008, 10:59 PM
And having a monarchs originate from the Carpetian Franks does not equal having Germanic rulers :P
http://www.nndb.com/people/858/000093579/louis-xi-2-sized.jpg


What point are you trying to make here? That people with big noses aren't Germanic? That picture of Louis XI doesn't look too dissimilar from most of the paintings of Goethe I've seen.

http://www.musicweb-international.com/classRev/2004/Feb04/Schubert_Goethe3_8554667.jpg

http://www-lat.rusf.ru/fc/img/big/goethe2.jpg

Bärin
Thursday, September 18th, 2008, 11:05 PM
What point are you trying to make here? That people with big noses aren't Germanic?
Everyone knows by now he has no point, except repeating nonsense about Germanics like a mantra. :D

In short, you are only Germanic if you look 101 % Nordic, even if you have Irish ancestors, while Germanic people with no non-Germanic ancestry but big noses and other un-Germanic features are not. Reminds me of the old SF philosophy: if it looks white, it must be white. Even if it has 1/4 Amerind/Negroid/Asian ancestry or something like that. ;)

Jäger
Friday, September 19th, 2008, 08:11 AM
As a general note, one should not assume that paintings are photo-like copies of the real world.
Pictures of different artists (or even same artist but different drawings) mostly are not really equal in depicting a certain person/thing.

It is generally a bad idea to try to classify people through drawings.

Aptrgangr
Saturday, September 20th, 2008, 08:57 PM
I was basing my assumption off of my own ancestry, which has prominent lines springing from both Alsace and Baden. My family is quite typical of Acadians, so I extrapolated from my experience.
Baden and Alsace have a good share of Celts and Romanics, anyway Acadians have nothing much to do with them though.


Are you contending that when one people conquer another they simply rule them for a time, then pick up shop and leave when the next batch of conquerers come in? I'm not saying at all that the modes French are the Franks, Burgundians, Normans, Alemanni or Goths. Rather, I am trying to point out that it would be nonsensical to assume that when a people conquer an area they don't leave behind a genetic legacy.
If you would have read what I wrote, you would have seen I never said Germanics left 0 traces in France. Neither did the Hunns leave without leaving their genes - Jengis Khan and Attlia forced hundreds of Germanic (and other) women to give birth to their mongrel kids.


This can be easily evidenced in Germany where there is some concentrations of East Baltids (a Mongoloid influenced morphological group) in the East.
Indeed. Like Franziska Petri.

http://i38.tinypic.com/2ef2ozm.jpg



What point are you trying to make here? That people with big noses aren't Germanic?
No but that non-Germanic people with big noses aren't Germanic.


That picture of Louis XI doesn't look too dissimilar from most of the paintings of Goethe I've seen.
You rather should compare him with Günther Öttinger, Baden-Württemberg's PM.

http://i38.tinypic.com/2v33go7.jpg

http://i38.tinypic.com/1zcfgd0.jpg

Could you imagine him to be a leader of a Frankish or Saxon battle formation? I can't...




Everyone knows by now he has no point, except repeating nonsense about Germanics like a mantra. :D

In short, you are only Germanic if you look 101 % Nordic, even if you have Irish ancestors, while Germanic people with no non-Germanic ancestry but big noses and other un-Germanic features are not. Reminds me of the old SF philosophy: if it looks white, it must be white. Even if it has 1/4 Amerind/Negroid/Asian ancestry or something like that. ;)
What's your tribe?

Psychonaut
Saturday, September 20th, 2008, 10:00 PM
Baden and Alsace have a good share of Celts and Romanics, anyway Acadians have nothing much to do with them though.

I'm sorry, are you all of a sudden an expert on Acadian genealogy and ethnology as well? That seems like an awfully strange hobby for a German.


No but that non-Germanic people with big noses aren't Germanic.

This is nonsensical. Have you ever looked at the genealogies of the Capetians? Since they're my ancestors I have. Going back all the way to the Merovingian times, the closest thing to a non-Germanic influence in their bloodline was Henry the I's marriage to Anne of Kiev, who was half Rus and half Swedish.


You rather should compare him with Günther Öttinger, Baden-Württemberg's PM.

Could you imagine him to be a leader of a Frankish or Saxon battle formation? I can't...

Do you have an pictorial evidence of what the Franks or Saxons looked like? Are you privy to photos of their skulls that we can take a look at?

Aptrgangr
Sunday, September 21st, 2008, 07:12 PM
I'm sorry, are you all of a sudden an expert on Acadian genealogy and ethnology as well? That seems like an awfully strange hobby for a German.
Indeed, and having some Germanic ancestors does not make one a Germanic, since being Germanic requires to be socialized in a Germanic tribe as pre-condition.


This is nonsensical. Have you ever looked at the genealogies of the Capetians? Since they're my ancestors I have. Going back all the way to the Merovingian times, the closest thing to a non-Germanic influence in their bloodline was Henry the I's marriage to Anne of Kiev, who was half Rus and half Swedish.
This is nonsensical. They were clearly Gallo-Romanic. Since the culturally were part of a Gallo-Romanic society too, they can't have been Germanic, even if they have some Germanic ancestors.
The blood line alone does not make one Germanic, it's it and being nestled into a Germaic tribe.


Do you have an pictorial evidence of what the Franks or Saxons looked like? Are you privy to photos of their skulls that we can take a look at?
They weren't Dinarids for sure.

Psychonaut
Monday, September 22nd, 2008, 12:22 AM
Baden and Alsace have a good share of Celts and Romanics, anyway Acadians have nothing much to do with them though.


I'm sorry, are you all of a sudden an expert on Acadian genealogy and ethnology as well? That seems like an awfully strange hobby for a German.


Indeed, and having some Germanic ancestors does not make one a Germanic, since being Germanic requires to be socialized in a Germanic tribe as pre-condition.

What kind of response is that? You asserted that Acadians "have nothing much to do with" Alsace and Baden. That is simply wrong. As you have no knowledge of what Acadians are or are not, you may want to remain silent.


This is nonsensical. They were clearly Gallo-Romanic. Since the culturally were part of a Gallo-Romanic society too, they can't have been Germanic, even if they have some Germanic ancestors.
The blood line alone does not make one Germanic, it's it and being nestled into a Germaic tribe.

Again, this is something about which you apparently don't have in-depth knowledge, so you might want to restrain yourself. As I said before, my genealogy springs from the Capetians, Louis the IX to be precise. As I also said before, there is exactly one person that I've found in that genealogy who is not of Germanic ancestry. It's not as if the Merovingians, Carolingians and Capetians had one or two Germanic ancestors; pretty much all of their ancestors were Germanic. In fact, the ancestry of the German nobility is, surprise, much of the same people as the French nobility. Now, every source that I've come in contact with describes the Franks as a West Germanic tribe. No where that I've seen are they described as being Gallo-Roman. Certainly, they ruled over certain groups of Gallo-Romans, but according to my research, the nobility at no point interbred with those they conquered. So, given all of this, are we to believe that a people of nearly 100% Germanic ancestry cease to be Germanic the moment they begin speaking another language? You believe that the Franks became a Romance people just by using their tongue? By this logic, the masses of Turks in your nation that speak German are Germanics.


They weren't Dinarids for sure.

How do you know this? If you have evidence of what morphological type the Franks were, please share it. If you don't have any evidence, why are you making such bold remarks?

TheGreatest
Monday, September 22nd, 2008, 02:50 PM
I'm sorry, are you all of a sudden an expert on Acadian genealogy and ethnology as well? That seems like an awfully strange hobby for a German.



This is nonsensical. Have you ever looked at the genealogies of the Capetians? Since they're my ancestors I have. Going back all the way to the Merovingian times, the closest thing to a non-Germanic influence in their bloodline was Henry the I's marriage to Anne of Kiev, who was half Rus and half Swedish.



Do you have an pictorial evidence of what the Franks or Saxons looked like? Are you privy to photos of their skulls that we can take a look at?

Anne of Kiev was old (West) Rus. The Rus were pushed into Central Europe when the Moscowvite-Mongols (they were a tributary/vassal state of the Mongol Empire) invaded and destroyed all the Rus States (Yaroslav, Novgorad, Tver and Kiev) some of which prior to destruction still had strong connections with Scandinavia and the Holy Roman Empire.


Pictorial evidence and even skull remains can be questioned... For example in the Dark Ages there was an obession with huge noses (for god's know what reason) in European art.


And Diet has a huge impact on phsyical appearence. For example the German population became much more corded and blond following the war.

Aptrgangr
Tuesday, September 23rd, 2008, 08:03 PM
What kind of response is that? You asserted that Acadians "have nothing much to do with" Alsace and Baden.
I grew up in Baden, I have family in Alsace, the tribe I grew into are the Alamanni that are native there - they have nothing to do with the Acadians.


That is simply wrong. As you have no knowledge of what Acadians are or are not, you may want to remain silent.
Acadians, Acadiens = French setlers that came to Canada. So?


Again, this is something about which you apparently don't have in-depth knowledge, so you might want to restrain yourself.
Just have a look who's making a clown of himself here...


As I said before, my genealogy springs from the Capetians, Louis the IX to be precise.
So you're a Gallo-Romanic.


As I also said before, there is exactly one person that I've found in that genealogy who is not of Germanic ancestry. It's not as if the Merovingians, Carolingians and Capetians had one or two Germanic ancestors; pretty much all of their ancestors were Germanic.
Wrong. They were assimilated by the Gallo-Romanic realm of France long ago thus the Bourbons can't be counted as Germanic.


In fact, the ancestry of the German nobility is, surprise, much of the same people as the French nobility.
Again wrong - and I explained it before: To be Germanic one must be living/be incorporated into a Germanic tribe.
The whole once Germanic (Frankish) nobility was absorbed by France. Same happened in Spain with the Visigoths.


Now, every source that I've come in contact with describes the Franks as a West Germanic tribe.
Indeed.


No where that I've seen are they described as being Gallo-Roman. Certainly, they ruled over certain groups of Gallo-Romans, but according to my research, the nobility at no point interbred with those they conquered.
Wrong, they quickly interbred with locals.


So, given all of this, are we to believe that a people of nearly 100% Germanic ancestry cease to be Germanic the moment they begin speaking another language?
Germanic ancestry and personal pipe-dreams are two different pairs of shoes.


You believe that the Franks became a Romance people just by using their tongue?
They assimilated themselves - genetically as well as culturally - into the French nation.


By this logic, the masses of Turks in your nation that speak German are Germanics.
No because they do not belong into a Germanic tribe (and neither are of German blood).


How do you know this? If you have evidence of what morphological type the Franks were, please share it. If you don't have any evidence, why are you making such bold remarks?
As you said above - Franks are a Western Germanic tribe. Noone ever described them to look like south-eastern Europeans, all south-eastern Europeans described them as looking different to them.

Psychonaut
Wednesday, September 24th, 2008, 02:20 AM
I grew up in Baden, I have family in Alsace, the tribe I grew into are the Alamanni that are native there - they have nothing to do with the Acadians.

Acadians, Acadiens = French setlers that came to Canada. So?

So you're a Gallo-Romanic.

Yes, the Acadians are the 'French' settlers who came to Canada in the 16th and 17th centuries. However, what's at issue here is not how their nationality, but their ancestry. You said that they "have nothing much to do with" Alsace and Baden. That is just wrong. Probably every Acadian has ancestry from either Alsace, Lorraine and/or Baden. This is extremely common amongst us. Additionally, as I showed before with the surnames of the original Acadian settlers, about 1/3 of our ancestry comes from Normandie. I can't speak for everyone, but in my case, most of those family lines were actual Normans, who had Norwegian or Danish surnames originally.


Wrong. They were assimilated by the Gallo-Romanic realm of France long ago thus the Bourbons can't be counted as Germanic.

Again wrong - and I explained it before: To be Germanic one must be living/be incorporated into a Germanic tribe.
The whole once Germanic (Frankish) nobility was absorbed by France. Same happened in Spain with the Visigoths.

Wrong, they quickly interbred with locals.

No because they do not belong into a Germanic tribe (and neither are of German blood).

I'd be really interested to see your genealogical evidence that the Capetians, Carolingians or Merovingians interbred with Gallo-Romans. As I said, I've done the work and have found none of that.

So, just to clarify, you believe that someone of Germanic blood (which is what the Frankish, Norman and Burgundian aristocracy was) who speaks French instantly becomes Gallo-Roman, but someone of non-German ancestry (like your Turks) who speaks German does not become German. That's a bit of a contradiction. Personally, I'm of the opinion that Blood is more important than language.


As you said above - Franks are a Western Germanic tribe. Noone ever described them to look like south-eastern Europeans, all south-eastern Europeans described them as looking different to them.

Just as the original French Canadians were described as "well-built, of good height, and they would be accepted without difficulty as soldiers in a guards' regiment. [They are] well-proportioned and their hair is usually blond. [They are] robust, and will endure great fatigue" (Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acadia)). This is the case with my family as well. My father, two of my sisters and my son ended up with clear blue eyes; two are my sisters are blond haired; and none of us have skin that tans very well at all.

Zuid-Vlaming
Wednesday, September 24th, 2008, 04:27 PM
"France" is just an artificial, political construction. Being "French" is, basically, to have the french nationality. Within the borders of France there are many different ethnic groups (not even considering recent non-european immigration).
You simply can't talk about "France" or the "French" in an ethnic meaning.

If there is something like a civilisational and ethnic France, that would be the centre of the current 'hexagon', stretching from Picardy to Auvergne, including the region of Paris and around the Loire. That is the core of french civilization, inhabited by descendants of gallo-romans. This only is ethnic France.

The only germanic presence within the current borders of France lies in Elsass/Alsace and french Flanders (or southern Flanders, Zuid-Vlaanderen) and this because there live different peoples than the ethnic French, with different, germanic ancestors. In these regions, Germanic tribes massively settled, unlike in the rest of former roman Gauls where the germanic presence existed only as a ruling military aristocratic elite that very quickly adopted the gallo-roman culture and language.
One proof of this is that in (what would become) french Flanders, the language changed in favor of the low germanic west-vlaemsch ; in Alsace, the alemannic dialect Alsatian (as well as some frankish dialects in northern Alsace), and that in both these two areas the toponyms and micro-toponyms are massively germanic still today (even if somewhat frenchized in their orthography) ; this means that the newcomers overwhelmed by their numbers the former inhabitants (remember that these germanic dialects were not, like latin at the same time -or later norman-french in medieval England- powerful, administrative, written languages. They couldn't replace the native language unless those who spoke it were more numerous). Most customs, traditions, folklore in french Flanders and Alsace relate to the germanic civilization (trivial but self-speaking example : two regions of beer drinkers in the country of wine). Which is absolutely not the case anywhere else in 'France'. Especially not in regions that the germanic warriors didn't even conquer, like Britanny, of pure celtic background.

In ethnic France, central modern France, there has been a slight germanic influence but only cultural : first monarchic laws and symbols of the kingdom, people's names (Robert, Frederic and so on), vocabulary (a few hundred of words mostly relating to warfare and hunting, are of germanic origin in modern french language).


Edit : Forgot Normandy because I was only thinking of Germanic settlements which occured during the Völkerwanderung. Normandy is quite special, a late income of scandinavians settlers. They came in sufficient numbers to say that there is a notable germanic influence there, but in my opinion, not to say that this is as a whole a germanic land.

Aptrgangr
Wednesday, September 24th, 2008, 10:46 PM
Yes, the Acadians are the 'French' settlers who came to Canada in the 16th and 17th centuries. However, what's at issue here is not how their nationality, but their ancestry. You said that they "have nothing much to do with" Alsace and Baden. That is just wrong. Probably every Acadian has ancestry from either Alsace, Lorraine and/or Baden. This is extremely common amongst us. Additionally, as I showed before with the surnames of the original Acadian settlers, about 1/3 of our ancestry comes from Normandie. I can't speak for everyone, but in my case, most of those family lines were actual Normans, who had Norwegian or Danish surnames originally.
Like I said before - being Germanic means being born into a Germanic tribe. Alsace and Moselle-Lorraine were occupied by France, here and there some went to Canada, but that's it.


I'd be really interested to see your genealogical evidence that the Capetians, Carolingians or Merovingians interbred with Gallo-Romans. As I said, I've done the work and have found none of that.
They did since they are no Germanic royal dynasties for several centuries anymore.


So, just to clarify, you believe that someone of Germanic blood (which is what the Frankish, Norman and Burgundian aristocracy was) who speaks French instantly becomes Gallo-Roman,
Germanic = of native blood, living in a Germanic tribe.
As soon as a Germanic assimilates himself into another group like the Gallo-Romanics, he's no Germanic anymore.

[...] (part deleted - per exceptional "gentleman's agreement" - on user's request on claim of an over-reaction, so as to not inflame hot-headed off-topic discussion on a long-dealt-with debate) - Sig.



but someone of non-German ancestry (like your Turks) who speaks German does not become German. That's a bit of a contradiction. Personally, I'm of the opinion that Blood is more important than language.


Just as the original French Canadians were described as "well-built, of good height, and they would be accepted without difficulty as soldiers in a guards' regiment. [They are] well-proportioned and their hair is usually blond. [They are] robust, and will endure great fatigue" (Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acadia)). This is the case with my family as well. My father, two of my sisters and my son ended up with clear blue eyes; two are my sisters are blond haired; and none of us have skin that tans very well at all.[/quote]
Nice, but this goes for many Celts too, especially in northern-central Europe.

Psychonaut
Thursday, September 25th, 2008, 12:44 AM
Like I said before - being Germanic means being born into a Germanic tribe. Alsace and Moselle-Lorraine were occupied by France, here and there some went to Canada, but that's it.

They did since they are no Germanic royal dynasties for several centuries anymore.

Germanic = of native blood, living in a Germanic tribe.
As soon as a Germanic assimilates himself into another group like the Gallo-Romanics, he's no Germanic anymore.

Why? You neither would become German.
Colonials can have a Germanic ancestry, but can't be Germanics.

Nice, but this goes for many Celts too, especially in northern-central Europe.

It looks like the focus of our dispute has veered off course. My position at no point in this thread has been that the French are Germanic, rather I've been attempting to demonstrate that the French, and the New World French in particular, have hefty levels of Germanic ancestry. In regards to the meta-ethnicity of France, I don't really think that the labels Germanic, Celtic or Romance really do justice to the complexity of the situation. Trying to 'fit' the French into any one of those is an artificial classification that is sure to ignore a good bit of the ancestries, cultures, and languages that have contributed to the formation of the French people. I think in any event, the French and the British, who seem to have much the same mix of Celto-Romano-Germanic roots, would be better served by the label of simply being Western (or Faustian in Spengler's sense).

Imperator X
Thursday, September 25th, 2008, 05:37 AM
What happened to the Gauls? How did the Romans so effectively eradicate the Gaulish tongue, and how did Caesar manage to kill so many of the Gauls?

Psychonaut
Thursday, September 25th, 2008, 05:51 AM
What happened to the Gauls? How did the Romans so effectively eradicate the Gaulish tongue, and how did Caesar manage to kill so many of the Gauls?

Well, according to Plutarch, out of about 3 million, 1.2 million were killed and another million were taken as slaves (Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallic_Wars)). The ferocity of the Gauls was no match for the training, tactics and technology of the Roman Legion.

Youenn
Thursday, September 25th, 2008, 11:27 AM
Yes, the Acadians are the 'French' settlers who came to Canada in the 16th and 17th centuries. However, what's at issue here is not how their nationality, but their ancestry. You said that they "have nothing much to do with" Alsace and Baden. That is just wrong. Probably every Acadian has ancestry from either Alsace, Lorraine and/or Baden. This is extremely common amongst us. Additionally, as I showed before with the surnames of the original Acadian settlers, about 1/3 of our ancestry comes from Normandie. I can't speak for everyone, but in my case, most of those family lines were actual Normans, who had Norwegian or Danish surnames originally.

Never heard that Acadians or Quebecois have ancestors from Alsace-Lorraine or others German regions. That's true there was Normand settlers but like I said before, Normandy is no more Viking (so Germanic) than Celtic countries.
Look the family name, the acadian dialect, it's mostly from Poitou-Saintonge.

http://cyberacadie.com/index.php?/coutumes/Le-francais-acadien-dialecte-Partie-1.html


Les premières familles qui se sont établies en Acadie sous les auspices du sieur d'Aulnay sont issues de plusieurs régions françaises, mais les efforts de recrutement étant effectué dans certaines régions spécifiques, un grand nombre de ces ménages proviennent de l'ouest de la France, principalement : Poitou, Aunis, Saintonge, Guyenne et Pays Basque.It's not a shame to be Celtic or Gallo-Romanic but it's a shame to deny his identity.


I do not think France is Germanic to any large degree. But there are parts of the state of France, on the fringes, also in upper social classes, where individuals pull in another direction. If we talk about a random Frenchman, we cannot say what he is. Likely he is a "Gallo-Roman". But equally he could identify as (and be) a Breton, and so on.

It's surely true but I don't think we can generalize on that. I read in a historical journal that there were many ennobled rich peasant in XV-XVI centuries in provinces around Paris for exemple.

Psychonaut
Thursday, September 25th, 2008, 12:12 PM
It's not a shame to be Celtic or Gallo-Romanic but it's a shame to deny his identity.

That's exactly the point. It's just as much of a shame for a New World Frenchman whose ancestry contains significant Germanic ancestry to deny that as it would be to deny the Celtic, Romantic, Aurignacian or Gravettian influences. France is the crossroads of Western Europe, and its inhabitants are a veritable cross section of the ancient Celts, Romans, and Germanics. It is a mistake to try and pin the French to any one of these labels, as large portions of the French identity must be excluded for an identification with one of the classical meta-ethnic groups. My only point with this whole discourse has been to show just how much potential there is in the 'average' Frenchman for Germanic ancestry. While this ancestry certainly does not translate into a purely Germanic identity, it is a significant component for those of us in North America.

Gottried
Tuesday, November 4th, 2008, 01:12 AM
France was basically, from Clovis times, a nation with a Celtic body and a Germanic head trying to be more Roman than the Romans, and who conquered and tried to annihilate local Germanic (Elsass-Lothringen, Flanders), Roman (Occitania, Corsica) and Celtic (Brittany) cultures.

France (I consider as French - more or less - lands between Somme river and Loire river where Oil French dialects were spoken) was never a Germanic nation though highly influenced by Germanic peoples (Franks, Normans, Saxons, Burgondians, ...). Kind of peripheral Germanic, perhaps. But France basically surrendered her germanicism when her Frankish elites forgot their Germanic language, culture and habits to take Gallo-Roman ones, around the 7th or 8th century.

Anyway that's a very interesting topic, worth debating...

Anfang
Tuesday, November 4th, 2008, 02:35 AM
I have met a couple of French speaking people online who Identify as Germanic, and are into runes, study the Old germanic texts such as the Voluspa' etc. It was very interesting to meet them online.

There are French Smiths in Northern france that make old style
artefacts such as Buckets and Seaxen. They are part of our Community of Migration age reenactors . Some of them are quite good. They also use Germanic names for themselves.

It seems the Germaic inflence continues to today with thse folks.

Also, I saw the Video or the big concert Rammstein played at the Arenes de nNmes in 2005, a huge concert and I was surprised to see so many French singing the words to all the songs in German!

Psychonaut
Tuesday, November 4th, 2008, 02:53 AM
I have met a couple of French speaking people online who Identify as Germanic, and are into runes, study the Old germanic texts such as the Voluspa' etc.

This is one area where I think it makes sense for many French people to "identify" with the Germanic aspect of their ethnicity. From where I stand, Heathenry is much less about what language you speak and more about who your ancestors were and what Gods they worshipped. While the peoples of France have certainly been culturally Romanized for a long time, the vast majority of our ancestry is either Celtic or Germanic.

Anfang
Tuesday, November 4th, 2008, 05:44 AM
I said I would I read up on the Germanic influence in Asturias Spain as you said your wife has ancestors from there .
The Germanic tribes made up the main migration are the Suevi and the Vandals Visigoths as and Franks.
It is nteresting that the Vandals and the Suevi made a direct line to the NW Coast.

Psychonaut
Wednesday, November 5th, 2008, 12:11 AM
I said I would I read up on the Germanic influence in Asturias Spain as you said your wife has ancestors from there .
The Germanic tribes made up the main migration are the Suevi and the Vandals Visigoths as and Franks.
It is nteresting that the Vandals and the Suevi made a direct line to the NW Coast.

That's very true. Every time I look at pictures of the blue eyed aristocrats in my wife's Asturian family I wonder which of the Northern tribes they came from.

Gottried
Wednesday, November 5th, 2008, 04:54 PM
I said I would I read up on the Germanic influence in Asturias Spain as you said your wife has ancestors from there .
The Germanic tribes made up the main migration are the Suevi and the Vandals Visigoths as and Franks.
It is nteresting that the Vandals and the Suevi made a direct line to the NW Coast.

Franks in Asturias ? I don't think so. Frankish settlements were basically between Loire river and Rhine river, and even between Loire river and Somme river (i.e. northern half of modern France) these settlements were less important.

I don't even think Asturias was ever under Frankish political domination. In its biggest extent, under Charlemagne, the Frankish empire expanded down to the Ebre river and its Marca Hispanica (Spanish March) included most of Catalonia, northern Aragon and Basque lands. Asturias was far too western to be part of it.

This particular Asturian phenotype is rather due to other Germanic invasions (Vandals, Suevi, Wisigoths) and strong Celtic settlements.


There are French Smiths in Northern france that make old style artefacts such as Buckets and Seaxen. They are part of our Community of Migration age reenactors . Some of them are quite good. They also use Germanic names for themselves.

Where are they from in so-called "northern France" ? If they are from "French" Flanders that's quite normal they identify as Germanic... Because they are.

Anfang
Wednesday, November 5th, 2008, 09:38 PM
I think they are near a town called "Chelles"? I am not familiar with France at all. Sorry I do not know where that is.

You may be right about the Franks, I know for sure Vandals and Suevi and Visigoths, heavy on the Suevi. Franks belong inland anyway, lol.

Penn ar bed
Sunday, November 16th, 2008, 12:53 AM
While the peoples of France have certainly been culturally Romanized for a long time,The Gaulish language shared strong common roots with Latin (all celtic languages are far much closer to latin than to the germanic ones), so in fact, French is more "Celtic" than we think usually, It's verifiable particularly in toponymy.

the vast majority of our ancestry is either Celtic or Germanic.No, it's true that Celts outnumbered Germanics and Latins, but in my opinion, French with latin blood are even more numerous than those with germanic. And all these "Germanic" invaders were not so germanic at all... For exemple, the presence of the sarmatian Alans along with the Vandals is a proved historical fact.

Veritas Æquitas
Sunday, November 16th, 2008, 01:41 AM
In Québec, you can really notice the Latin presence in French people here.. There's alot of Italians and even more Spaniards it seems and you can't really notice the difference..

That's kinda part of the reason why I left Ontariostan to come here... To be with those who I can relate to more.. (Birds of a feather, flock together.. as they say..)

Anfang
Sunday, November 16th, 2008, 02:05 AM
The Gaulish language shared strong common roots with Latin (all celtic languages are far much closer to latin than to the germanic ones), so in fact, French is more "Celtic" than we think usually, It's verifiable particularly in toponymy.

I think that may happen when languages have common Indo european roots.
After all aqua and wasser are very related. guerre and krieg, Sol and Sonne,
so also germanic and latinate languages are related.

"No, it's true that Celts outnumbered Germanics and Latins, but in my opinion, French with latin blood are even more numerous than those with germanic. And all these "Germanic" invaders were not so germanic at all... For exemple, the presence of the sarmatian Alans along with the Vandals is a proved historical fact."

You seem to be somewhat antagonistic to Germanics. Even in your profile you write something about being thrown out of England and now have to be Bretton. What's the deal with that? Am I wrong?

--------------------------------------
Les yeux verts vont a L'Enfer,

Les yeux noirs vont au Purgatoire,

Les yeux gris vont a Paradis,

Les yeux bleus vont aux Cieux.

Gottried
Sunday, November 16th, 2008, 06:29 PM
No, it's true that Celts outnumbered Germanics and Latins, but in my opinion, French with latin blood are even more numerous than those with germanic.

It's true if you consider the Occitans as French, which they are not. But Roman settlements north of Loire river were virtually inexistent.

catchmeifyoukhan
Wednesday, November 19th, 2008, 11:45 PM
If I may add my personal contribution as a half bred ethnic French, residing there from time to time, I would say this :

- French scholars estimate the contribution of Germanic invasions to the French population at a low rate of 5%.

- However, they do not count in this estimation the contribution of late Germanic invasions such as the Normans and the role of late territorial extensions by the French kingdom, such as the French Flanderns (as from the 13th century) and such as Elsass-Lothringen. This would add a further 5 % contribution of germanics.

- It might also be possible to consider as "Germanic" about half of the former gaullish population located north of the river Seine, since many signs suggest remote germanic origins. Cesar himself noted this and it is also suggested by the names of most Belgian tribes such as the attrebati, the morini, or the aduatuci. French historians tended to minor the Germanic character of Belgians, in order to favour the "Gaullish legend" which was to supersede the "Frankish legend" after the French revolution.

All in all, I would personally estimate the Germanic contribution to, at most, 20% of the French population, the rest being principally of celtic, aquitanian and roman extraction, with the celts forming a majority.

Racially, what strikes any foreigner coming to France is the heavy dominance of extreme alpinid types, closer to the lapps, and next to whom Bavarian alpinids would pass for giants. These alpinids seem to stem from reduced brunns or north atlantics, as the importance of freckles and red hair shades suggests. The more you go to the south, the more these alpinids are mixed with mediterraneans, forming a mixed type Bertild Lundman called "berid". The hair complexion of the French is dark (medium brown) in average, wheras the proportion of light or mixed eyes is between 40% and 50%. although about 30% of the French could fall into the peripheric "nordish" extended family, real central nordic types (celtic, Hallstatt, brunn, borreby) only occur in the border provinces of French Flanderns and Elsass. Part of the peripheric nordish racial stock of France is constituted by the "Bretons" who migrated from Britain to Bretagne during the 5th century. Many of these Bretons moved to Paris and its region during the 20th century, where they constitute one fourth of the population.

From a linguistic point of view, most of the French vocabulary stems from latin (85% of the vocabulary), complemented with greek (5%) and Germanic roots (5%). There is a notorious lack of celtic roots in the French language, but the French accent and pronounciation are supposed to be derived from the anciant gaullish language (especially the nasal voyels).

Oswiu
Thursday, November 20th, 2008, 12:20 AM
- It might also be possible to consider as "Germanic" about half of the former gaullish population located north of the river Seine, since many signs suggest remote germanic origins. Cesar himself noted this and it is also suggested by the names of most Belgian tribes such as the attrebati, the morini, or the aduatuci.
I just bought an English translation of De Bello Gallico, and it seems quite straightforward that Caesar is pointing to them as Gauls, but a bit peculiar, having a German past, by which he seems to be referring unknowingly to the deCelticisation of much of modern Germany as the Germanic speakers expanded southward. Germanic with regard to the Belgae seems more a geographical thing than an ethnolinguistic one (though I would never deny that the two original Celtic and Germanic protogroups were rather similar racially anyway). Linguists seem to agree that the tribal names of the true Belgae are solidly Celtic. Caesar himself distinguishes the Aduatici and others, including perhaps the Remi, as non Belgian descendants of true Germanii.

Or has my translation unduly simplified matters?

Many of these Bretons moved to Paris and its region during the 20th century, where they constitute one fourth of the population.
So many? Does it show in surnames? Is it a widely known fact?

catchmeifyoukhan
Sunday, November 23rd, 2008, 11:19 AM
Or has my translation unduly simplified matters?

You are right, there are many interpretation of Caesar's de bello gallico:

First Caesar himself is suspected having slightly modified the truth. Indeed the Senate gave him mandate to liberate "Gallia Celtica" from the Suevians, a German Tribe led by Arioviste that invaded Gallia ten years before the arrival of Caesar. However, since the Belgians were themselves allies of the Suevians, Caesar had to fight further north and to add Belgica to its conquests, pretending that the Belgians were "Gauls". Hence, although "Gaul" and "Kelt" were synonimous as an ethnonym, they differed geographically speaking. As from Caesar, Romans distinguished three Gallias, namely (1) Gallia Cisalpina in the north of Italy, partly inhabited by Kelts and partly by Raetians, (2) Gallia Celtica, exclusively inhabited by Kelts and corresponding to the part of France which is situated southern from the river Seine, and (3)Gallia Belgica, inhabited by Belgians, part of whom were considered as Kelts and another part were assimilated to Germans.

The interpretation of "de bello gallico" made by Frenchs scholars (first of whom was Jules Michelet around 1850) tend to go beyond Caesar's assimilation of Belgians to Gauls. The idea is to consider everything that was west to the River Rhine as keltic. Hence, Bataves were considered by French historians as Kelts, although Caesar himself admits that they form part of the Chatti Germanic confederation. In the same way, Aduatuci, a group of warriors left by the Cimbrians sixty years before Caesar came to Gaul, are assumed by French scholars to be kelts, on the assumption that Cimbrians would also have been Kelts. These historians make an abusive comparison (as some British kelticists also do) between the Cimbrians from Jutland and the Kymrys from Northern Wales.

On the other side, German and Belgian historians suggested a more balanced approach, considering as Germans all tribes about which Caesar has made an explicit linkage with any Germanic tribe, either because they claim being German or because they claim being related to an undisputable Germanic tribe. As a consequence, are considered as Germans the Batavi, the Aduatuci, The Menapi, the Ubii, the Tongri, the Nervi, the Condrusi and the Eburoni, to whom should also be added the Vangions, the Triboci and the Nemetes from the south east part of Belgica. Other tribes from the coast of Picardie seem to have been germanic, such as the Morini. Furthermore the coast of Picardie (and also of Normandie) had been actively colonised by saxons and frisians during the third and fourth century with Roman permission and was therefore called "litus saxonorum" (the same for the british coasts on the other side of the Channel). Of course there is no proof about the language these Belgian tribes actually spoke. Tribe names are very difficult to interprete since they have signification in both Celtic and Germanic languages, and more probably stem from a proto germanic root. But the toponomy of the region does not provide any root that can be attributed to a keltic language. Instead, only Roman roots or Germanic roots originating from the later roman and germanic administrations can be found. Yet, were considered undisputably keltic only the the Atrebati, the Bellovaci, Veliocassi, Catalauni and the Suessiones because of their undisputable keltic etymology shared with a keltic topography. The Remi and perhaps the Treviri might also have been Kelts, because there is a small kernel of Keltic toponyms between Reims and Trier.




So many? Does it show in surnames? Is it a widely known fact?

Yes, the very catholic and prolific bretons migrated massively during the thirties and fifties in the Parisian suburbs (and also in some quarter of Paris, such as the Montparnasse quarter)
They were refered as "ploucs", because many bretonic surnames begin with "Plou" (which means parish in breton). Later, the word "plouc" was generalised to everybody stemming from a "non bourgeois milieu" with rough and simple manners. Hence, it is now used as a designation of self contemption and self hate made by French liberal and cosmopolite intellectuals about their own countrymen.

Name of Breton origin are of three kinds :
- "Keltic" Breton names (mostly from the departments of Finistère, Morbihan and Côtes d'Armor) : Goacoulou, Kerviel, Plougastel, Ploumenec, Trouadec, Pleven, Citroen, Conan, Floch, Panhard, Larcher, Haour, Baour, etc.
- Mixed "keltic" Breton names are generally a combination of the above names suffixed by "Le" (meaning "the") : Le Pen, Lefloch, Leguen, Le Garec...
- "Gallo" Breton names come from the two eastern departments from Bretagne (Ile et Villaine and Loire Atlantique) that were superficially "brittonised", but form the kernel of the former kingdom of "Bretagne". These names have mostly roman roots or derive from germanic firstnames (since the use of germanic firstnames was a fashion during Dark Ages) . One particularity of "gallo" surnames, also shared with surnames from Normandy, is that they often use the prefixe "Le" : Lebrun, Le blond, Legris, Le Gall, Le Breton, Le Normand, ...

Oswiu
Sunday, November 23rd, 2008, 02:03 PM
Lots of interest above, merci beaucoup!

The Remi and perhaps the Treviri might also have been Kelts, because there is a small kernel of Keltic toponyms between Reims and Trier.
Do you have any examples?

They were refered as "ploucs", because many bretonic surnames begin with "Plou" (which means parish in breton). Later, the word "plouc" was generalised to everybody stemming from a "non bourgeois milieu" with rough and simple manners. Hence, it is now used as a designation of self contemption and self hate made by French liberal and cosmopolite intellectuals about their own countrymen.
VERY interesting - should be written here in the etymological dictionary!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=bloke&searchmode=none
Better than the supposed Hindi origin, at least:
bloke
"fellow," 1851, London slang, of unknown origin, perhaps from Celt. ploc "large, stubborn person;" another suggestion is Gypsy and Hind. loke "a man."

How old is the term in French, if we can explain it entering English by 1851?

Name of Breton origin are of three kinds :
Citroen,
:-O
I thought it was solidly Germanic!
GMQnPWjK5pE;)

catchmeifyoukhan
Monday, November 24th, 2008, 11:26 PM
Do you have any examples?

Unfortunately no example to my mind for the region close to Trier, but you may find them in "Rolf Hachmann, Georg Kossack and Hans Kuhn, Völker zwischen Germanen und Kelten, 1986". In general, French Gallic keltic toponyms (not to be confonded with bretonc keltic) begin with "bourb" (means "small river", like Bourbon, Bourboule) or end with "dun" (means "town" like chateaudun), or contain a keltic name of person or of tribe (Limoges derives from Lemovices).


How old is the term in French, if we can explain it entering English by 1851?

According to wikipedia the word "plouc" is reported to be used in France since about 1880. One could infere from your sources that the French word is an interpolation between the English term "ploc" and a clear identification with the (then) catholic habits of the bretons ("plou" meaning parrish in breton, hence Plou'Menez, Plou'veneur, Plou'Arnel, Plougastel, ...). English slangs were widely used among the French bourgeoisie and could have inspired the deliberate choice of a word with a contemptuous meaning (like - snob - arsouille, ... read Marcel Proust). The term "plouc" has been extensively used for the breton conscripts during first word war. They were often sent in front line and about one third of the 300.000 Breton conscripts left their life there. Later, Breton womens coming to Paris were used as nurses (like the character "Becassine" enbodying the typical silly Breton maid), many of them falling into prostitution. Until now, the bretons are still widely represented among the lower middle classes (a bit above the proletarian stimmies of Flemmish origin).

Oswiu
Tuesday, November 25th, 2008, 12:40 AM
Unfortunately no example to my mind for the region close to Trier, but you may find them in "Rolf Hachmann, Georg Kossack and Hans Kuhn, Völker zwischen Germanen und Kelten, 1986".
Doesn't Kuhn concern himself with an earlier period - that of the Bronze Age, or thereabouts? He's the man who supposes an old IE group in the region, neither Celtic nor Germanic, which may have left traces of itself in substrate and toponymy, no?
Ah, here he is;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordwestblock
Does he go into the evidence in toponymy of the known groups too?

In general, French Gallic keltic toponyms (not to be confonded with bretonc keltic) begin with "bourb" (means "small river", like Bourbon, Bourboule) or end with "dun" (means "town" like chateaudun), or contain a keltic name of person or of tribe (Limoges derives from Lemovices).
Have you seen any modern Celtic cognates suggested for this bourb element? Interesting to see the Dynasty's name so explained. And the biscuit... ;)
My Caesar translation has a good index which shows how the tribal names he uses have developed.
Remi > Rheims, Nemetes > Nimes, Atrebates > Arras, Ambiani > Amiens etc. Fascinating stuff.


According to wikipedia the word "plouc" is reported to be used in France since about 1880. One could infere from your sources that the French word is an interpolation between the English term "ploc" and a clear identification with the (then) catholic habits of the bretons
The 'ploc' in my link is rather a hypothetical thing, though. The exact origin isn't specified, and without any other details, I'd say that your term seems as likely an etymology.

(a bit above the proletarian stimmies of Flemmish origin).
I don't understand this. What do you mean? That stimmies word is unfamiliar to me.

catchmeifyoukhan
Tuesday, November 25th, 2008, 11:15 PM
I don't understand this. What do you mean? That stimmies word is unfamiliar to me.

The Ch'tis (or Stimmies) designate the proletarian inhabitants of the French Flandern provinces (together with some parts of the coal mining areas of Belgian wallonia in an area extending from Douais to Namur). They speak a simplified French dialect known as Picard, with roman vocabulary deformed by Germanic soundings and spellings and a tendancy to monosyllabism, like modern English. This dialect has been probably adopted during the 19th century, when whole flemmish families were employed in mining until the night work of women and children in coal mines was banned by law (around 1840). The resulting aculturation led not only to the abandon of west flemmish for the ch'ti dialect, but also to an obvious lost of morality. Prostitution and child abuse is still reported to be very common among the Ch'tis, despite the many efforts of the remaining catholic minority. Being one of the small spots of central nordics among the predominantly alpinid-nordish French population, ch'tis females constitute the favorite prey for every immigrant seeking for settlement in France, as well as a common subject for blonde jokes (See the latest hit joke on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bienvenue_chez_les_Ch%27tis )

teutonkoenig
Thursday, March 19th, 2009, 11:10 PM
Did France surrender it's Germanicism with the rise of Napoleon or was it the defeat of the Vichy government? You'll probably say during Mediaeval times, so let's here it...

Do you even know what Germanic is? France is not Germanic, it may have been once inhabitied by Germanics hundreds of years ago, however that doesn't determine what they are today. France was Romance/Latin far before Napoleon came into the picture. Just to let you know, to determine if you are Germanic it is determined on if your ethnicity speaks a Germanic language.

TheGreatest
Thursday, March 19th, 2009, 11:29 PM
Been to France and I'm not convinced that they're Germanic. I felt tall even though I'm average height for a Northern European male...

Andrew man
Friday, April 3rd, 2009, 03:57 PM
If they were Germanic than they must still be racially, right?

AngloTeutonic
Friday, April 3rd, 2009, 07:55 PM
There may be some Germanic French people, but they generally are NOT a Germanic country. The reason is because they accepted the Romanic culture instead of the Germanic culture. Proof that they are not Germanic is that they do not speak a Germanic language. Just because some people have some Germanic blood doesn't make them Germanic, since Germanic/Nordic people often have more recessive genes to other Aryans (just like Aryans have recessive genes to blacks, browns and asians). So the Germanic genes died out through intermarriage with Roman and Meditteranean people, the same way Italians and Slavs have a bit of Germanic blood, but are not Germanic. But if there are still any pure or mostly pure Frankish, Flemish or any other Germanic communities within France, then those communities would definately be Germanic. But as a whole, they are not Germanic.

Andrew man
Saturday, April 4th, 2009, 06:29 AM
Thanks for the advice. :)

Anfang
Saturday, April 4th, 2009, 06:47 AM
There may be some Germanic French people, but they generally are NOT a Germanic country. The reason is because they accepted the Romanic culture instead of the Germanic culture. Proof that they are not Germanic is that they do not speak a Germanic language. Just because some people have some Germanic blood doesn't make them Germanic, since Germanic/Nordic people often have more recessive genes to other Aryans (just like Aryans have recessive genes to blacks, browns and asians). So the Germanic genes died out through intermarriage with Roman and Meditteranean people, the same way Italians and Slavs have a bit of Germanic blood, but are not Germanic. But if there are still any pure or mostly pure Frankish, Flemish or any other Germanic communities within France, then those communities would definately be Germanic. But as a whole, they are not Germanic.


I agree. There are some few French that are either Heide or in the Germanic reenactment community who identify as Germanic. Of these few even fewer try to learn the German language. (Not good) As far as I know these folks are mostly in the area around and North of Paris and a couple in Britany.

goidelicwarrior
Monday, April 6th, 2009, 12:48 PM
Been to France and I'm not convinced that they're Germanic. I felt tall even though I'm average height for a Northern European male...ok.. so anyone tall and fair is germanic ? is that what u are trying to say ?:|

Eburos
Monday, April 6th, 2009, 06:48 PM
I bet that there are many Germanics in the area of Brittany and Normandy.
I have never been to Europe so that is pure speculation.
It would seem to me that the part of France along the Rhine would have many Germanics.

As an American I have heard that most of the strong and able bodied men of France have been killed during their many wars throughout history, leaving a mostly weakling culture.
I am sure their Germanics would have been prized warriors.

Anfang
Monday, April 6th, 2009, 07:44 PM
I bet that there are many Germanics in the area of Brittany and Normandy.
I have never been to Europe so that is pure speculation.
It would seem to me that the part of France along the Rhine would have many Germanics.

As an American I have heard that most of the strong and able bodied men of France have been killed during their many wars throughout history, leaving a mostly weakling culture.
I am sure their Germanics would have been prized warriors.


New York Hamburg Roundtrip =€ 478.
******Lufthansa******
:Dsafest airline:D


You mean *our* Germanics.:D
I think that there is significant Germanic ancestry along the entire European Atlantic Coast. We have to think that in ancient times, the sea was the highway. "We are Celts" seems to be the popular mantra in Britany and North West Spain.

Unregistered
Tuesday, April 5th, 2011, 02:53 AM
They have the Franks, Normans, Burgondians and other Germanic tribes. I'm of the opinion France is more like Celto-Germanic but some level of Romance influence that's exaggerated through culture. As we know culture doesn't equal blood. I believe it's in a way like Germany became less Celtic through Germanicization. Hungary is Finno-Ugric but genetically nothing like it. Perhaps some of you who have better knowledge of history can enlighten me?

Northern Paladin
Tuesday, April 5th, 2011, 04:11 AM
France is named after the Franks, a Germanic tribe. Some parts of Eastern France are definitely Germanic, but France as a whole is Latin.

Unregistered
Tuesday, April 5th, 2011, 06:09 AM
France is named after the Franks, a Germanic tribe. Some parts of Eastern France are definitely Germanic, but France as a whole is Latin.

I believe Franks are one of the greatest Germanic tribes of all probably up there with the Goths. I'm not French but German. I have Alsatian ancestors which got me wondering and they had German names.

Some pictures

SE France
http://www.idboox.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/IDBOOX_Ebooks-Michel-Barnier-1-2.jpg

NW France
http://shop.sportsworldcards.com/ekmps/shops/sportsworld/images/nantes-mathieu-berson-122-panini-2001-2002-uefa-champions-league-sticker-45321-p.jpg

French Canadian
http://media.onsugar.com/files/2011/01/03/5/1339/13392164/1c/26mary1.jpg

Paris
http://www.digitaljournal.com/img/9/1/2/2/9/7/i/8/3/0/o/FranA_oise_Hostalier.JPG

SW France
http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/imgml/peoples/225x225/50040.accred.jpg

N France
http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Romain+Barras+French+Athletes+Attend+Lun ch+i2hnIe3Lslgl.jpg

Paris
http://www.celebs-wallpaper.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/Julie%20Delpy.jpg

Paris
http://static.tvfanatic.com/images/gallery/clemence-poesy-picture.jpg

East-Central France
http://nymag.com/daily/food/12_boulud_lgl.jpg

Paris
http://www.nationspresse.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/marine_le_pen_18.jpg

Paris
http://www.clayderman.co.uk/images/Covers/Music_of_Richard_Clayderman.jpg

Central France
http://starstwins.com/sit_pro/images/CH4F25gerard-depardieu.jpg

Paris
http://s.plurielles.fr/mmdia/i/77/3/guillaume-canet-2245773_1368.jpg

Permafrost
Tuesday, April 5th, 2011, 09:07 AM
Ethnically, or genetically, I'd say that the whole North-Eastern part of France is Germanic (+ the Normans).
But on a cultural point of view, in my opinion there is only Alsace and some parts of Moselle that are still Germanic.

Just look at surnames and cities names in these parts of France : it's nearly 100% German (Muller is the most common name in Alsace, and nearly every city has a name ending with -heim).

Moreover if you look at people's behavior in Alsace/Moselle you could also tell it's Germanic.
Most of Frenches living in Alsace don't like it because they find us very unfriendly with people we don't know. And we use to never be late at appointments, to take care of our goods (just compare houses/old cars from Alsace and those from others regions) and generally I can say that we are quite hard-workers (the unemployment rate has been the lowest in France for decades until recently, and GDP per capita in Alsace is the second highest in France after the Parisian region).

These are just examples, but I'm sure you won't see any difference between us and our Swabian neighbors if you come here ;)

To conclude, here is a proverb about Alsatians which I find very suitable :
"The Alsatian is as rigorous as Germans, as punctual as Swiss and as merrymaker as Frenches".

PS : you can have a look at this thread (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=137725&highlight=france) too.

Ingvaeonic
Tuesday, April 5th, 2011, 03:31 PM
I'd have thought that there's no question that there are Germanic elements in France, given that the country's name is even taken from the name of a Germanic tribe. And undoubtedly there is concentrated in Alsace-Lorraine/Elsass-Lothringen many ethnically Germanic people, who are really ethnic Germans, with a Germanic culture pervading the region. And Norman/Frankish and Burgundian ethnic elements are very probably prevalent elsewhere in northern and eastern France. I believe that there are even Dutch/Flemish-speaking people in an area in the extreme northeast of France.

Linden
Tuesday, April 5th, 2011, 05:44 PM
It seems that racially speaking, there are a reasonable amount of Germanic peoples in France:

http://www.white-history.com/earlson/hfk/reoechap6.htm

Aragorn
Tuesday, April 5th, 2011, 07:27 PM
Ethnically, or genetically, I'd say that the whole North-Eastern part of France is Germanic (+ the Normans).
But on a cultural point of view, in my opinion there is only Alsace and some parts of Moselle that are still Germanic.



Wrong!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Flanders (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikip edia.org%2Fwiki%2FFrench_Flanders)

The traditional language of northern French Flanders (Westhoek) is a dialect of the Dutch language (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikip edia.org%2Fwiki%2FDutch_language) known as West Flemish (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikip edia.org%2Fwiki%2FWest_Flemish), specifically, a subdialect known as French Flemish (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikip edia.org%2Fwiki%2FFrench_Flemish), spoken by around 20,000 daily speakers and 40,000 occasional speakers

http://nsm02.casimages.com/img/2010/02/06//100206024141970735385074.jpg

http://nsm05.casimages.com/img/2011/02/11//110211092342970737628766.jpg

Hamar Fox
Tuesday, April 5th, 2011, 08:06 PM
N France
http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Romain+Barras+French+Athletes+Attend+Lun ch+i2hnIe3Lslgl.jpg

East-Central France
http://nymag.com/daily/food/12_boulud_lgl.jpg

Central France
http://starstwins.com/sit_pro/images/CH4F25gerard-depardieu.jpg

Paris
http://s.plurielles.fr/mmdia/i/77/3/guillaume-canet-2245773_1368.jpg

None of these look very Germanic. The French are an interesting people ethnically. The people I saw in Paris were quite swarthy, but I've seen French movies where the people look no different from the English. Amelie was set in Paris, and most characters were nordish (except the N. Africans). The Diving Bell and the Butterfly also had a predominantly nordish cast. I've not really travelled France enough to say anything about regional differences. A lot of people in Paris were undoubtedly of recent non-French heritage, so I suppose my observations there don't count.

Æmeric
Tuesday, April 5th, 2011, 10:50 PM
Germanic is a cultural term. There is a racial element to being Germanic, Europid of the Nordish & central European branches of the Europid race. Racially a lot of the indigenous inhabitants of France fall within the same racial spectrum as many Germanics & there was significant input from Germanic tribes 400 AD-900 AD. But culturally & linguistically it is a Romance (Latin) society, the Germanic folk being absorbed into the exisitng Gallo-Romance culture.

The OP
Wednesday, April 6th, 2011, 02:00 AM
None of these look very Germanic. The French are an interesting people ethnically. The people I saw in Paris were quite swarthy, but I've seen French movies where the people look no different from the English. Amelie was set in Paris, and most characters were nordish (except the N. Africans). The Diving Bell and the Butterfly also had a predominantly nordish cast. I've not really travelled France enough to say anything about regional differences. A lot of people in Paris were undoubtedly of recent non-French heritage, so I suppose my observations there don't count.

I looked up famous French people quickly in a few minutes without even knowing which part of France they were from. Then I looked I up where they were from and a lot of them just turned out to be from Paris. I don't know what's so very un-Germanic about Gerard Depardieu. His nose does kind of stick out. I am ethnically German and I don't think he looks unusual. About the other three men, well, it's easy to see what you did. The commonality is they're darker. I have read part of Races of Britain by John Beddoe. It shows the English darker than the Irish and Scots yet the English are more Germanic.

Hamar Fox
Wednesday, April 6th, 2011, 02:28 AM
I don't know what's so very un-Germanic about Gerard Depardieu. His nose does kind of stick out.

He's not so very un-Germanic. He's just not particularly Germanic either.


I am ethnically German and I don't think he looks unusual.

He doesn't look unusual. He just doesn't look Germanic. People from Scotland and Ireland don't look unusual, but they aren't Germanic either.


About the other three men, well, it's easy to see what you did. The commonality is they're darker.

Well, the first and fourth look completely un-Germanic in terms of features. The second looks more Germanic, but has an un-Germanic nose.


I have read part of Races of Britain by John Beddoe. It shows the English darker than the Irish and Scots yet the English are more Germanic.

Hmm, that would be inaccurate. Pictish influence makes the Scots a lot darker haired and eyed on average. The Irish are as light eyed as the English but are darker haired on average.

Melisande
Wednesday, April 6th, 2011, 06:23 AM
Germanic refers to language (and to some extent, culture). Not genes.

This forum struggles continuously with the meaning of the word - but many languages have Germanic influence.

Obviously, French (as a language) has both Latinate and Germanic influence. Watcha gonna do? It's just like that.

If one views Germanics as capable of exclusionary reasoning and behaving, then any non-Germanic peoples would be excluded. What to do with the English-speaking world? English is only partly Germanic (obviously).

If Scots and Irish folk still spoke Celtic language, everything would be so easy - but they don't.

And English (like French) hovers on the borderline of Latinate/Greco.

Hamar Fox
Wednesday, April 6th, 2011, 12:37 PM
Germanic refers to language (and to some extent, culture). Not genes.

This forum struggles continuously with the meaning of the word - but many languages have Germanic influence.

Obviously, French (as a language) has both Latinate and Germanic influence. Watcha gonna do? It's just like that.

If one views Germanics as capable of exclusionary reasoning and behaving, then any non-Germanic peoples would be excluded. What to do with the English-speaking world? English is only partly Germanic (obviously).

If Scots and Irish folk still spoke Celtic language, everything would be so easy - but they don't.

And English (like French) hovers on the borderline of Latinate/Greco.

We know it doesn't refer to distinct racial types. It does however refer to a range of possible racial types, which some of the people posted by the OP fall without.

Juthunge
Wednesday, April 6th, 2011, 02:15 PM
I looked up famous French people quickly in a few minutes without even knowing which part of France they were from. Then I looked I up where they were from and a lot of them just turned out to be from Paris. I don't know what's so very un-Germanic about Gerard Depardieu. His nose does kind of stick out. I am ethnically German and I don't think he looks unusual. About the other three men, well, it's easy to see what you did. The commonality is they're darker. I have read part of Races of Britain by John Beddoe. It shows the English darker than the Irish and Scots yet the English are more Germanic.

Let's word it like this:
All of them could (arguably) be Germanics based on their phenotype but they don't necessarily need to be so for those phenotypes or subraces aren't exclusively Germanic nor even especially typical for them.
Although 1 and 4 definitely stretch the range of Germanic phenotypes.

Hamar Fox
Wednesday, April 6th, 2011, 02:43 PM
If we want a list of people whose faces could only exist because of (predominantly) Germanic blood, then it should be something like this:

SE France
http://www.idboox.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/IDBOOX_Ebooks-Michel-Barnier-1-2.jpg


SW France
http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/imgml/peoples/225x225/50040.accred.jpg

Paris
http://static.tvfanatic.com/images/gallery/clemence-poesy-picture.jpg

Paris
http://www.nationspresse.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/marine_le_pen_18.jpg

Paris
http://www.clayderman.co.uk/images/Covers/Music_of_Richard_Clayderman.jpg

This guy is probably what the Gauls looked like (i.e. continental Celtic):

NW France
http://shop.sportsworldcards.com/ekmps/shops/sportsworld/images/nantes-mathieu-berson-122-panini-2001-2002-uefa-champions-league-sticker-45321-p.jpg

Permafrost
Wednesday, April 6th, 2011, 02:50 PM
Wrong!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Flanders (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikip edia.org%2Fwiki%2FFrench_Flanders)

The traditional language of northern French Flanders (Westhoek) is a dialect of the Dutch language (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikip edia.org%2Fwiki%2FDutch_language) known as West Flemish (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikip edia.org%2Fwiki%2FWest_Flemish), specifically, a subdialect known as French Flemish (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikip edia.org%2Fwiki%2FFrench_Flemish), spoken by around 20,000 daily speakers and 40,000 occasional speakers


Yeah there are surely even more Germanic dialects speaking people in France, but under a certain amount of people I don't think it's worth mentioning it ;)

If we take the amount of Alsatian speaking people in Alsace for example, we see that it's close to 750,000 individuals (approximately 40% of Alsatians), so it's not negligible in my opinion.

Linden
Wednesday, April 6th, 2011, 11:11 PM
I was looking through the Gallery and found this:

http://forums.skadi.net/photoplog/index.php?n=3088

Melisande
Saturday, April 9th, 2011, 06:45 AM
My ancestors are from Normandy (mostly), but also Artois, Brittany, Burgundy, Maine and Lorraine. That's about 1/4 of my ancestors (I'm including the first generation of Norman conquerors of England). Great map, a keeper.

Unregistered
Saturday, April 16th, 2011, 12:55 PM
A lot of people in Paris were undoubtedly of recent non-French heritage, so I suppose my observations there don't count.

Many whites in France have Spanish, Portuguese and southern Italian ancestry, hence their swartyness.

Hamar Fox
Saturday, April 16th, 2011, 06:34 PM
Many whites in France have Spanish, Portuguese and southern Italian ancestry, hence their swartyness.

Very true. And keep in mind there may be some recent North African elements. 25-50% Berber may be mistaken for swarthy Medish French. I'd be very interested to find a gallery of pictures of French people from various regions 100 years ago (when the French were still French).

Aragorn
Sunday, April 17th, 2011, 07:27 AM
Yeah there are surely even more Germanic dialects speaking people in France, but under a certain amount of people I don't think it's worth mentioning it ;)

Considering Flemish in Flanders not worth mention is, from my perspective as a Dutch Diets Nationalist insulting considering the fact that Flemish culture in France isn't death, and that the Flemish identity neither is Death.


If we take the amount of Alsatian speaking people in Alsace for example, we see that it's close to 750,000 individuals (approximately 40% of Alsatians), so it's not negligible in my opinion.

Thats only because Alsace is a much larger territory, but in Nord-Pas-de-Calais, people do call themselves Flamand (Flemish), how many Alsatians call themselves ''Allemand''?

Permafrost
Sunday, April 17th, 2011, 08:59 PM
Sorry I didn't mean to be insulting by saying that, and I know that Flemish in France are strongly Flemish, it's just a matter of numbers, as it's quite a small community compared to the number of Frenches ;)

Not a lot of people call themselves "Allemand" in Alsace you're right, but the majority of them want to be called "Alsacien", like a French Flemish calls himself Flemish and not Dutch.

Aragorn
Monday, April 18th, 2011, 08:21 AM
Not a lot of people call themselves "Allemand" in Alsace you're right, but the majority of them want to be called "Alsacien", like a French Flemish calls himself Flemish and not Dutch.

Ofcourse they dont call them not Dutch, since French Flanders is historically Flanders, not Netherlands in the historical perspective. True Flanders is only French Flanders, the Belgian provinces East and West Flanders and the South of Dutch province of Zeeland (Zeeuws-Vlaanderen). These areas are the historical Flanders.

Ikke registreret
Monday, April 25th, 2011, 05:06 AM
Very true. And keep in mind there may be some recent North African elements. 25-50% Berber may be mistaken for swarthy Medish French. I'd be very interested to find a gallery of pictures of French people from various regions 100 years ago (when the French were still French).

Does Napoleon look Germanic to you? BIG LOL! The French have many elements in them, one happens to be Germanic. Simple.

Melisande
Monday, April 25th, 2011, 07:59 PM
I woke up this morning thinking about this question (How Germanic is France?) Well, France wouldn't exist as we know it without the efforts of Charlemagne. And even his efforts were based on the earlier efforts of the Merovingians, to build a state and create a functioning post-Roman civilization in France.

I realize the language (and the people) have Roman influence, but early rulers of France were Frankish (Germanic), Charles the Hammer's (Charles Martel) maternal grandfather was Ervik of the Visigoths, his father was Pepin of Herstal, his paternal grandfather was Ansegisil of Austrasie.

Charlemagne was taking the kingdom built up by the Merovingians and expanding it to conquer the remainder of France, incorporating it into his Frankish homeland, and then expanding past that - to be a real Germanic kingdom builder. But he couldn't have done it without the Merovingians, who had unified much of what is France even earlier.

The Merovingians' greatest ruler (arguably) was Clovis the Great, whose father was King of the Franks and whose mother was Basina Andovera, Princess of Thuringia, daughter of the King of Thuringia (and the founder of the Hanover dynasty, if one wants to really look carefully at her lineage). Her maternal grandfather was King of the Ostragoths. Her mother was a Princess of Saxony (through her mother). Naturally, the Merovingians felt they had claims, through these women to the Ostragoth, Thuringian and Saxon territories - and did a pretty good job trying to obtain them.

Although, it was Charlemagne who eventually managed to secure those lands for his kingdom - which he never called "France" (that's an English word). Charlemagne allowed each kingdom to keep its identity, but they all had to acknowledge him as Emperor, above all kings, and he himself kept titles like King of the Franks (later dividing up the territories among his sons, which was a bad idea for empire-building).

The fact that Charlemagne conquered Italy and made the Pope crown him Holy Roman Emperor does not change the fact that Charlemagne was Frankish.

And French, as a language, while supposedly Latinate, is the most divergent of the Latin-based languages, as it still has strong kinship with old Germanic tongues. I understand (I guess) why France doesn't have its flag on the homepage here (because of the language), but the history of France (and its genetics) overlap substantially with that of the Germanic and Nordic speaking tribes.

The fact that fairly large chunks of what is now France were frequently in control of the Normans (Old Norse and more modern Norse speakers) and that those "invaders" switched to speaking French instead of keeping their Norse language is also important in considering the history of France. Burgundy, likewise, was a Germanic-speaking entity for much of its history.

English, French and Germans often intermarried (throughout all history - and if you're American, probably in your own family tree). That was only natural, since the three places have had good transportation and reason to interact for centuries.

But Charlemagne wasn't just Frankish, himself, he sought out women from the following places (and had children with them): Swabia, Austrasia, Saxony, Alamanni, descendant daughters of Bavaria, Metz and a few more Germanic girls whose names are the main clue to their descent. From his point of view, the future nation of German needed to be created by a Frankish civilization force, and he did manage to subdue/unite Germany (not the first time perhaps that such a nation-building exercise was imposed on the Germanic tribes, but a very successful one).

He then sought to put these Germanic sons on the throne of much of Europe (Pepin, son of the Swabian woman, was given Italy). And did Pepin marry an Italian girl? Nope. Sometimes he forgot to "marry" altogether (being still pagan in his heart), but his heir was the son of a Duke of the Franks and a grandson of both Clovis and Rotrude the Allemanian.

That son, Bernard, married a woman who was of Germanic nobility on her paternal line (Pfalzgraf of the Franks) and of Germanic on her mother's side (core Frankish territories and lines - not a Kelt among her ancestors).

So for centuries, the Kings of France were Frankish. I'm studying Old French and to do so, have to study Old German - the languages were very close. French has a way of inventing words on its own (just like German and English), and does so following its own (not Roman) rules - so eventually the language is not that much like German, but frankly speaking (pun intended), most indigenous French speakers who live near Germany (or in Switzerland) can easily manage both languages.

The ancient Parisi (who were Keltic) play a weak role in the founding of the nation of France we know today (although their Keltic relatives to the south in Brittany and Aquitane of course had to be conquered, that happened more or less during the Renaissance, if it has actually happened at all).

The ways in which Frankish culture (of all branches) spread into the rest of Austrasie, Neustria, Thuringia, Saxony, Swabia, etc. are quite interesting to study, in history. The ways in which ideas and culture flowed back into Frankia from those places is interesting, as well.

theiamania
Monday, April 25th, 2011, 08:01 PM
The French are such a miscegenated people. You cant count on the French at all any more because they all preach egalitarianism due to the widescale miscegenation there.

Melisande
Monday, April 25th, 2011, 08:07 PM
Does Napoleon look Germanic to you? BIG LOL! The French have many elements in them, one happens to be Germanic. Simple.

Every French person knows that Napoleon was an outsider, a little Corsican. Way, way back, Napoleon is a descendant of the Este's, who may or may not be Germanic (I think they came down into Italy at about the same time the Lombards did). But Napoleon's Este ancestors immediately intermarried with ancient Italian/Roman families (namely Malaspina). His ancestor's first names are names like Giuseppe, Carlo Maria, Giovanni and Letizia - they are Italian.

Every French person knows that Napoleon was an external conqueror, taking advantage of a revolutionary moment in French history - deposed twice in favor of French people. Napoleon was smart enough to know he needed to marry a French woman (Josephine), but also to marry a German princess (Mary Louise of Austria provided his heir).

His real heir, Napoleon III, who managed to rule for awhile, was the product of a marriage between an Italian (Napoleon's brother) and a French girl (Napoleon's wife's daughter - Josephine's daughter). In this fashion the Beauharnais family was greatly elevated, and they were quite French. At the same time, Napoleon elevated himself from lowly Italian roots (although his ancestors were illustrious warriors at times), by studying in Paris, moving to Paris, volunteering to fight for France, etc - and marrying French.

How many descendants of Napoleon can you find in France today? Not many.

Bjorkobeck
Monday, April 25th, 2011, 10:45 PM
Perhaps they do have Germanic elements, but what of the Norse who went to france and then adopted the latin language? What was so wrong with their original tongue? If it had not been for the Normans invading Britain and then forcing their garbage French language on the local people we would still all be speaking a proper Germanic language now. Who knows, we may have been able to even understand each other without translation? These people tried to force French on the locals for a hundred years before finally giving up. By that time there was so much French already absorbed that we were stuck with it. French sounds terrible, almost as if they are about to throw up. Only one other language sounds worse and that is Arabic. I have no respect for the Normans. As for present day French, why are they always the ones who object to going with the general choices of the European community? The only time they are in favour of anything is if it is mainly in their interests. Remember when Britain came into the common market and the French unions were blocking British produce as it was coming into their ports? Instead it stood there to rot. This was against the policies of the common market, but these guys did not like the British competition! I still don't trust these guys. The Brits have been at war with both Fance and Germany in the past. Although the last time was with Germany, we are now good friends, however, we have never been able to cosy up to the French. There will always be a 'them and us.' The Germans and the Brits, and the Scandinavian countries will always be close I think; we are family. The French seem to resent this? I have worked with a German outfit out in Saudi Arabia, and I found that generally their feelings about the French reflected ours, (as do many Americans). I don't know why the French seem to feel superior? Does anyone else see it this way?

Melisande
Tuesday, April 26th, 2011, 02:31 AM
There was nothing wrong with the Norman's original tongue - but they were shrewd, pragmatic people and had arrived in southern climes for a reason.

The reason was to be successful there and take over a great piece of land on the Atlantic Coast, from which to take over more pieces of land.

Which they did. It's like asking why the Romans taught Greek (and educated Romans spoke it) or why 19th Century Russian elites spoke French - it makes sense.

It's why a whole lot of people speak English. The number of French who today speak English is quite a high percentage (many speak it better than some English and American speakers, frankly).

I love the sound of French (though my parents did not). I've never noticed that the French feel superior - but they certainly do value civility more than some people.

Unregistered
Tuesday, April 26th, 2011, 04:37 AM
[Moderator note: I approved this post for one reason only. I want to remind everyone here of how non-white immigrants truly feel about the people in the lands they have been allowed refuge in. The danger of allowing them into Europe should be plain to see, and should be driven home to our people at every opportunity.

HoM]

I'm fucking French of North Africa descent and I want you fucking whites but especially Germanic blondies to die! You are fucking racist scum! The world should get you gassed altogether! SCUM!

Ahnenerbe
Wednesday, April 27th, 2011, 03:24 PM
[Moderator note: I approved this post for one reason only. I want to remind everyone here of how non-white immigrants truly feel about the people in the lands they have been allowed refuge in. The danger of allowing them into Europe should be plain to see, and should be driven home to our people at every opportunity.

HoM]

I'm fucking French of North Africa descent and I want you fucking whites but especially Germanic blondies to die! You are fucking racist scum! The world should get you gassed altogether! SCUM!


No White men, no internet, Achmed... And by the way, we invented gassings too :D

Those bougnoules are constantly in a state of envious rage and hatred towards everything better than them (which is pretty much all of humanity). They hate the Whites, the Jews, the Asians.... If there's no one else around them, they start hating and fighting each other. They are also cruel, they love to rob, torture, mutilate and harm people, for no other reason than their ego being bruised (which is every day, when you are a frizzy-haired, camel-faced mongrel living in the midst of European society).

But anyway, the French deserved pretty much what they got. The general behavior of their immigrants is now a combination of both the usual French habits of arrogance, vanity and false superiority and of traditional African/Arab stupidity.

Hamar Fox
Wednesday, April 27th, 2011, 04:31 PM
Yes, it's true the French have no racial consciousness. But that doesn't mean I wish a plague of revolting Moors on them, even though the French themselves don't care.

Anyway, was the Maghrebi also the TC, or just another anon user who joined the thread? I ask because I don't see the relation between the original post and that final one.

Huginn ok Muninn
Wednesday, April 27th, 2011, 05:28 PM
Yes, it's true the French have no racial consciousness. But that doesn't mean I wish a plague of revolting Moors on them, even though the French themselves don't care.

Well, you cannot paint them with that broad a brush, since there are certainly many French who do care. The problem is, France, like the USA, was founded upon naive enlightenment ideals which had no practical basis in reality. You can't just scream "Liberté, égalité, fraternité," and have that assume the basis of some quasi-religion when it is so ill-conceived and simplistic that it includes every single biped on this godforsaken planet! As should be quite obvious, it just doesn't work out the way these folks expected it to. You would think what immediately happened in Haiti would have given them a clue and made them trash the whole idea, but the French Revolution was far removed from being an honest intellectual enterprise. It was all about using the passions of the masses to usher in regime change, just as it happened in Russia in 1917 and is happening in Arab countries today. Rabble-rousing has evolved into a real science, it seems.

Part of the problem with France was and is that it is a mixed-up mess of differing attitudes, and has been since the 400s. It is an historical argument in how problematic "White Nationalism" is. You had Germanic, Celtic, and Romance cultures all trying to combine and form a nation. This might have done wonders for food, but the ethnic anarchy removed any opportunity for common sense.

I have to add here that this might well be the dark motive of those who are pushing the multicult agenda... to rob the people as a whole of their common sense by robbing them of their commonality, and thus making them easier to manipulate. We as Germanics can reason and alter course when things don't work out, as happened in 1848, but if our nations are overrun with racial and ethnic others, the lowest common denominator takes control of the mixed whole and reduces the masses to a dumbed-down mess governed by the most vocal and emotional in the crowd. To this amorphous group, "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" is one of the few things they can agree upon as a common whole, because it is utterly non-specific, like the "HOPE" and "CHANGE" posters Obama used to wrangle the sheep to his cause. These ideals cease to have any possibility of attainment, because they are not a common practical goal, but rather a cheap slogan... a lie, really, to reach each and every one as individuals because there is no possibility of reaching them as a cohesive, organic nation, which they have long ceased to be.


Anyway, was the Maghrebi also the TC, or just another anon user who joined the thread? I ask because I don't see the relation between the original post and that final one.

I'm not sure, but I doubt he was.

Unregistered
Friday, April 29th, 2011, 03:31 AM
You can't just scream "Liberté, égalité, fraternité," and have that assume the basis of some quasi-religion when it is so ill-conceived and simplistic that it includes every single biped on this godforsaken planet!
( ... )
"Liberté, égalité, fraternité" is one of the few things they can agree upon as a common whole, because it is utterly non-specific

Maybe you're very wrong.

Just suppose "égalité" would mean "equality in genetic value" and "fraternité" would imply the technical likeliness of being brothers from one stem. This is the unsaid part of the French revolution (which also invented modern nationalism BTW).

This revolution was also fueled by many an idiotic idea born in the Age of Enlightenment but its dual nature is reflected by the contradicting stereotypes about modern day France. "The French have no racial consciousness" on the one hand, while France is often described in Anglospheric MSM as an outrageously racist society.

Ouistreham

Melisande
Friday, April 29th, 2011, 05:10 AM
One thing the French have noticed is that sometimes there's considerable variation among one's own population, which can be distasteful. Whether they made a mistake in extrapolating that one should look at various populations with an equal eye, I'm not sure.

I think that preferring people who are one's gene pool, regardless of philosophy or character, is rather backward. But then, I'm Frankish as well as Gaulish. Oddly, the English and the Scots have also pondered similar notions of equality (meaning that one cannot judge people without an equal eye - prejudging because of their genes can be a real mistake).

Witness the in-fighting among the German tribes pre- and post-Roman times. And the "Germanic nations" are not in total union, either, on ideological points.

The French, whether they had the actual values right or wrong, at least tried to be unified (and have been, for a long time) in stating those values. Modern France can indeed be traced to the Merovingians, and for certes, to the Carolingians. They/we know something about state-building.

Frankish Kings of France were the first to espouse "fraternité," AFAIK, not always utilitarian or pragmatic (but it isn't necessary to be utilitarian or pragmatic all the time).

Germany is not the only Germanic nation - and whether or not France is, on Skadi (so far), England is - and England shares in similar enlightenment values.

So does Scotland. It would interesting to see if Scotland, were it to have its own government, would espouse these ideals or not.

Idealism is a Germanic trait, making fun of French idealism is just fine if you don't see Frankish principles as Germanic, but then, you have to explain just what you do see as Germanic.

France is, in short, espousing ideals also espoused by other Germanic nations. Being a nation is different than being a linguistic group, an ethnic group - or an online forum.

TXRog
Friday, April 29th, 2011, 05:19 AM
[Moderator note: I approved this post for one reason only. I want to remind everyone here of how non-white immigrants truly feel about the people in the lands they have been allowed refuge in. The danger of allowing them into Europe should be plain to see, and should be driven home to our people at every opportunity.

HoM]

I'm fucking French of North Africa descent and I want you fucking whites but especially Germanic blondies to die! You are fucking racist scum! The world should get you gassed altogether! SCUM!

First of all, I would like to thank the moderator here on SF for allowing this comment to be posted. We should all extend our gratitude.

It seems this half Negro mongrel and his remark has (quite unintentionally) provided the single best argument against miscegenation.

Now will someone please throw him a banana.:D

The OP
Friday, April 29th, 2011, 05:43 AM
Anyway, was the Maghrebi also the TC, or just another anon user who joined the thread? I ask because I don't see the relation between the original post and that final one.

No, it's wasn't me. Some of the other unregistered posts are not by me.

Catterick
Saturday, August 20th, 2016, 08:52 PM
The post-Roman Germanic arrivals in France were the Franconians, Normans, Burgundians, Vandals, Suebians and Goths. They were not the only peoples involved in French origins by any means. Such exotic races as Greeks in the extreme south and Basques/Gascons left their mark to this day. And any German racial element is unevenly distributed around the country, the Nordic strain being strongest in Normandy. Maybe its because the Ile-de-France is obviously N European that thinking of France as Latin seems wrong. Remember, too, that the Oil languages are thought by some to have emerged from Church Latin, not ancient Roman like the Oc dialects to their south. Old Franconian survives just about in the Low Countries.

There is a problem with defining an ethny by its language family. Had France not had a language shift she would be West Germanic like her English and the German neighbours. Yet her ethnic components both racial and cultural would have remained the same. France has to be reckoned one of those exceptions that tests the rules.

Ahnenerbe
Sunday, August 21st, 2016, 10:55 AM
Well, the central work on reference on this topic is Ludwig Woltmann's 'Die Germanen in Frankreich' (1907) [Researches on the influence of the Germanic racial element on the history and culture of France] which has been translated in French, but never in English.

Here is the full German version: Ludwig Woltmann - 'Die Germanen in Frankreich' (1907) (http://www.theapricity.com/earlson/france/index.htm)


INHALTSVERZEICHNIS

Vorwort
Einleitung

Erster Abschnitt: Die Rassengeschichte der französischen Nation
1. Grundfragen der historischen Rassetheorie
2. Die europäischen Menschenrassen
3. Die Verteilung der anthropologischen Merkmale in Frankreich
4. Rasse und Charakter der Gallier

Zweiter Abschnitt: Die Germanen in der französischen Geschichte und Kultur des Mittelalters
1. Die Niederlassung der Germanen in Gallien
2. Die soziale Geschichte Frankreichs
3. Die germanischen Elemente in der französischen Sprache
4. Die französische Literatur
5. Die bildende Kunst

Dritter Abschnitt: Die Anthropologie der französischen Stände und Genies
1. Die anthropo-soziologischen Verhältnisse in Frankreich
2. Die Rassenabstammung der französischen Genies
3. Die blonden und brünetten Typen
4. Übersicht über die anthropologischen Merkmale der Genies
5. Die Rassenentartung der französischen Nation

Vierter Abschnitt: Die Bedeutung der Germanen in der Weltgeschichte
1. Die Renaissance in Italien
2. Die Goten und Sueven in Spanien
3. Rasse und Milieu
4. Schlußbetrachtung

Lothringer
Wednesday, November 2nd, 2016, 01:40 AM
If I may voice here my personal view on the subject as a French citizen, I would say that the core of the "Français de souche" ("souche", pronounced "chouque" in Normandy, being a French word of Gaulish origin akin to "stock") must be mostly of Celtic blood while some French provinces (Normandy, Picardy, Burgundy...) probably received strong admixtures of Germanic blood. The French language is of course Latin for the most part and, although its phonetic evolution clearly sets it apart from other Romance languages, the northern Italian dialects of Gallia cisalpina do show similar phonetic traits, which would lead me to think that French owes its linguistic separatism to the Celts rather than to the invading Franks after which the country and its language were named.

That being said, I think French people are different from other Romance-speaking peoples and would be hard pressed to feel a sense of community with Italians or Spaniards in the same way as Teutonic peoples may sense they belong to the same ethnic group whatever their citizenship may be.

Interestingly enough, the Alemannic vs Frankish linguistic border is still a reality in Elsass-Lothringen : more than a millennium and a half after the Völkerwanderung, we Rhinefrankish-speakers continue to think of ourselves as basically different from our Alemannic-speaking Alsatian neighbours whereas everybody here would agree that Saarländisch-speaking Germans are more or less the same as us.

My point here is that the sense of community (or the absence thereof) resides not only in a common language or citizenship but also in a kind of gut feeling which tells you who is closest to your own ethny or who is not.

Ahnenerbe
Thursday, November 3rd, 2016, 05:36 AM
Here is what Dr. Alfred Rosenberg has to say about France, in The Myth of the XXth Century (https://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=153240) (1930):


France was of particular concern to Rosenberg, for he saw it as an archetype of what was, in the 1920s, happening to Germany. If the trend was not reversed, the chaos that marked France would be the earmark also of Germany and Great Britain.

England was at the same crossroads as Germany, and it, too, had to decide how to plot its future course. It was not a lost cause as was France. There was, thus, a natural racial alliance possible with Britain.



"The dispute concerning the nature of the Gothic has ended. Its foundations were laid in Nordic France. At that time, the ancestors of the Huguenots had not yet been driven out. At that time the guillotine had still not shed any precious Nordic blood. At that time a European rhythm still prevailed in the kingdom of the Franks. But slowly, the elements of the Romantic Mediterranean and the Alpine races of the southeast pushed forward to be mixed with the Germanic, creating those Frenchmen who reached their peak in the 17th and 18th centuries. Some great men still look back today at the vanished past with a longing. These are the men of perishing blood."


"Greece, Rome and France declined, because they did not appreciate the value of pure Nordic blood. They prostituted the value of race and permitted alien blood to take over, bit by bit, until the Nordic blood was so diluted that it could not recognise its own worth and importance."


"The newly enlightened observer can next see how the unenterprising, brunette Alpine (https://forums.skadi.net/forumdisplay.php?f=452) race, which is nevertheless well endowed with powers of resistance, patiently pushes forward and multiplies. The Alpine does not openly rebel against the dominant Teuton. Here and there, by mass penetration, it actually increases in individual cases the Germanic powers for tenacious resistance. But it also clouds the creative talents, overlays and smothers them. Great areas of France, Switzerland and Germany already show the stigmata of Alpine influence, which is inimical to all that is great. Political democracy, spiritual sterility, cowardly pacificism, combined with craftiness in business and a lack of principle in commercial enterprises when profit is in view, these are the awful signs of an Alpine influence over European life."


"All the great and bloody struggles of the Teutons against the Roman racial chaos weakened, often for a considerable time, the vitality of the former. Moreover, even though Alpine man was not infrequently involved in wars, he was nevertheless spared far more than the Nordic insurgents who, initially as heretics, cleared a path for free thought, that is, thought linked to racial type."


"Whoever looks at modern France, democratised, misgoverned by crafty lawyers, plundered by Jewish bankers, spiritually glittering, but living now only on its past, could scarcely imagine that this land once stood from end to end as the focal area of heroic struggles and, for over half a millennium, produced figures of the boldest type who were succeeded, generation after generation, by men of heroic disposition. Who among the cultured of today actually knows anything about Gothic Toulouse, the ruins of which still attest to a proud race? Who knows of the great ruling families of that city which were annihilated in bloody wars? Who is familiar with the history of the Counts of Foix, whose castle is today only a miserable heap of stones, whose villages are desolate, whose lands are occupied only by wretched peasants?

The pope, declared one of these bold counts about 1200, has nothing to do with my religion, because the faith of each man must be free. This fundamentally Germanic idea, which even today is only partially realised, cost southern France its finest blood, and was smothered forever with its extermination in this region. As a last vestige of the Visigothic spirit, Montauban, France's only protestant college, is still to be found there."


"Now, in 1545, came the severest trial. The soldiers of the secular authority marched into Merindol, strangled everyone they found there, and destroyed the entire little town. Calvieres and the other villages suffered a like fate. Those who had fled into the mountains begged a safe passage to Germany. This being refused, they starved to death in their hiding places. Altogether, over twenty two villages were destroyed, 3,000 people murdered, more than 600 Waldensians condemned to the galleys, and others most horribly tortured.

Then false reports were dispatched to Paris concerning the atrocities of the heretics. However, the tortures inflicted by the inflamed soldiery and sadistic monks reached the ears of Francis I, and even on his death bed he urged Henry II to ease the plight of the Waldensians, which the latter, in fact, did."


"The Waldensian community, despite its wide dispersal, was not very strong, and consequently lacking in aggressive thrust. Nevertheless, the idea of resistance to monkish degeneracy and spiritual gagging permeated France in a hundred other forms. It was a France which was at that time still Germanic Nordic in character, and well supplemented by a Mediterranean element. Eventually, all these currents came together in the bold Huguenot movement which, had it been victorious, would have given the history of Western Europe another impetus -- an upward one.

The numbers of those who fought for a life which would be true to their racial type was extraordinarily large in the France of the time. They were to be found in all classes and all professions, from cardinals and princes of the blood down to the humblest artisan. Hundreds of recorded cases tell us of simple folk, dragged before the clerical and secular courts, who proved to be more learned in the scriptures than those who sat in judgement on them, and who could give more intelligent answers to questions of the creed than the learned Inquisitors.

This knowledge of their own superiority gave them the fortitude to face the torments of the stake. Often enough, it led the judges themselves to professions of support for the heretical idea."


"Yet it still seemed as though the old Germanic character would triumph in the end. The court had already once been under Huguenot influence, and in place of debauched revels there had entered into the royal palaces a hard, even narrow minded, sobriety. Once more the Huguenots gained acceptance when Charles IX summoned Coligny to his service. To the leader of the heretics he said, I bid you welcome as no nobleman has been welcomed for twenty years! Thus for a brief time a new hand guided the destiny of France -- until everything was destroyed in the massacre of saint Bartholomew's Eve. Vacillating, characterless, given to fits of maniacal rage, the king inclined to the Roman faction, and they pushed him into the murder of Coligny.

Now there was no turning back. The Germanic tide, which had seemed about to sweep triumphantly through France, collapsed. When Coligny's bloody corpse was thrown before the feet of the Duke of Guise, the latter wiped the blood from Coligny's face and said contemptuously, Yes indeed, that is he, and proceeded to kick the cadaver. Meanwhile in Rome, at the Castle of saint Angelo, the massacre was celebrated with public holidays, and a special coin was minted in honour of Coligny's murderer. In Paris, the pious rabble even cut off the hands of France's great hero and dragged the corpse for three days through the filth of the streets.

The end was fast approaching. The remaining Huguenot leaders who had gathered in Paris for the wedding of Henry of Navarre to Margaret of Valois either perished in the blood bath of saint Bartholomew's Eve, or were slaughtered after fleeing to other areas. In Orleans, 1,500 men, as well as numerous women and children, were murdered in the course of five days; in Lyons, 1,800 perished. Day after day the cities of Provence witnessed mutilated corpses floating down the rivers. Arles could draw no drinking water from the river for many days. In Rouen, the maddened scoundrels murdered 800 people in two days; in Toulouse, 300.

The tall, blond Huguenot women -- distinctive as ever -- whose men folk had been treacherously murdered, were frequently subjected to the most obscene indignities at the hands of the rabble which was egged on by foul mouthed monks and priests. The mob, with the blessing of the church, showed no mercy to the heretics. The final results of saint Bartholomew's Eve were more than 70,000 slain."


"When later struggles brought no success, hundreds of thousands of Huguenots preferred to leave a spiritually oppressed France. Prussia, England, and the Netherlands reckon the descendants of these emigres (estimated at almost two million) as among the finest of their fellow citizens. The decisive fact that emerges from all this bloodletting is, however, the deterioration of the character of the French nation. That true pride, that unbending resolution, that nobility of mind, which the early Huguenot leadership epitomised, was lost. When in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, classical French philosophy undermined church dogma and brought it into disrepute, it was certainly imbued with much acuteness of intellect and scintillating wit.

Nevertheless, it is evident with Rousseau and even with Voltaire that it lacked genuine nobility of mind such as distinguished Berquin, Condé, Coligny and Teligny. This intellectualism was abstract and divorced from life, and in this way the 14th of July 1789 was a symbol of impotence of character.

The revolution under Coligny had been a true and full blooded one while the events of 1793 were merely bloodthirsty and sterile because they were not sustained by anyone of great character. No geniuses inspired the Girondins and Jacobins -- only insane philistines, egomaniacal demagogues and those hyenas of the political battlefields who plunder the forlorn corpses. Just as in Russia during the Bolshevik revolution the Tartarised subhumans murdered anyone who, by their tall stature and confident carriage, looked suspiciously like an aristocrat, so also did the swart Jacobin rabble drag to the scaffold anyone who was slender and blond.

Expressed in terms of racial history, with the destruction of the Huguenots, the Nordic racial strength in France was, if not absolutely eliminated, at least seriously weakened. Classical France displayed only intellect without greatness of soul.

This decline of character was instinctively realised by the hungry masses who joined with the rapacious subhuman elements to do away with the last men of quality. Since that time, the mixed Mediterranean Alpine type (not the Celt) has stepped into the foreground.

The shopkeepers, lawyers, and speculators have become the masters of public life. Democracy, which is to say the rule of money rather than of character, had arrived. Now it no longer mattered whether France was a monarchy or a republic; the nineteenth century citizenry remained racially uncreative.

For that very reason, the Jewish banker was able to push himself to the front, followed by Jewish journalists and Jewish Marxists. Only the tradition of a thousand years of history and the enduring geographical factors still continued to determine the basic thrust of French power politics. But this was manifested in a very different manner than in the period between the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries. Whoever was still of noble disposition in France withdrew from the dirty business of politics and lived in conservative seclusion on provincial estates from which their sons left only to serve the fatherland in the army, and especially in the navy. Even at the end of the nineteenth century, observers at naval balls were astonished to discover that all the officers were blond.


"This strength, which still existed in northern France (Normandy was always regarded during the time of heresies as Little Germany), was what confronted the German Reich in 1914. It was a strength, however, which was no longer under the direction of leaders of the same race, but under Rothschild bankers and other financial interests of that breed. In addition there were the types of Fallieres or Millerand, and the Alpine inadequacies of many of the Marxist leaders. Today, the very last few drops of the valuable blood are finally trickling away. Over vast stretches of the south, it has entirely disappeared and is now being replaced by African elements, as was once the fate of Rome.

The port cities of Toulon and Marseilles transmit unceasingly the germs of bastardisation throughout the land. An ever more degenerate populace circumambulates the Notre Dame. Negroes and mulattos stroll about on arms of white women. An exclusively Jewish quarter has arisen with new synagogues. Arrogant and repulsive bastardlike creatures pollute the race of the still beautiful women who are drawn to Paris from the French provinces. It is a modern repetition of the tragedy which long overtook Persepolis, Athens, and Rome.

This is why a close alliance with France, quite apart from the military and political aspects, would be racially so dangerous. On the contrary, what is needed is a clarion call for defence against African infiltration, for the closing of frontiers on the basis of anthropological considerations, and the establishment of a Nordic European coalition for the object of cleansing Mother Europe of the filth of Africa and the Levant. This would be in the true interests of the French themselves."


"Today the history of the kingdom of the Franks is ended. It matters little whether France is governed by clerical power seekers or inane free thinkers; the great creative impulse is moribund. France will henceforth be afflicted by an instinctual racial angst which is the inescapable heritage of the crossbreed, however superficially secure he may appear to be. It is this which accounts for the still obsessive fear of a Germany which was only overcome with the aid of the entire world. Germany, then, has the best of reasons for studying the life courses of its neighbours in order to arouse all its inner strength to avert the same dire fate."


"It was the blood sacrifices of the nations upon the battlefields of the world which gave the democratic men of the East and their bastardised accomplices in the large cities the opportunity to achieve ascendancy. That human type which first began to gain predominance in the France of 150 years ago, has since 1918 -- financed by the wealth of the Levant -- assumed the leadership of democracy in Germany. It is a type to which the older values are incomprehensible and which therefore fights openly and insolently against those values on every street and square. The stupidest of ideals is the ideal of the hero, proclaims the Berlin Daily Newspaper. Honour was accorded to successful speculators. Eastern Jewish bankers became the sources of finance for the parties committed to preserving the state, whereas those who fought against such a mockery of the Germanic character were thrown into prison on the charge of attacking the form of government.

This inversion of values is the inevitable accompaniment of the change in the ruling caste. A single glance at the lineup of the Marxist democratic leadership demonstrates in a horrifying way the racial decline which had taken place between the time of Moltke, Roon, Bismarck and William I, and that of those parliamentarians who, until 1933, managed the German stock exchange colony from Berlin."


"The dominion of this cast up Alpine Jewish amalgam, at a time when the worthier part of the nation was living in dreadful despair, seemed assured as a result of its immediate and instinctive alliance with those forces governing present day France -- a France whose threadbare ideology it used to justify the spiritual poverty of the revolution of 1918. As it had achieved power through these false values, it was incapable of changing its course. German democracy, a form of French politics in Germany, originates in the last analysis from the natural affinity between decadent spirits which see upright character as a living reproach, and thus seek to ally themselves with what is degenerate.

This is also the explanation for the sympathy which postrevolutionary Russia calls forth in all centres of Marxist subhumanity. Behind the glittering facade of touted principles, or Realpolitik considerations, there flows a current of subconscious racial power, a surging flood filled with the sewage of racial chaos."


"The great French revolution signified the destruction of the Germanic constituents and interpretations of law. Since then France, that is, the land of the Franks, has been Jewish Roman in its determination. England was created by Saxon law. Norman law shaped the foundation of the ancient Russian state. Germanic law created life and customs in the Eastern settlements of the Knights Order, later the Hanseatic League. German cities' codices formed the communal system even in the Ukraine. Lübeck law ruled and cultivated Reval, Riga, Novgorod. Magdeburger law created the substructure of the Polish state; it was the binding link which continued to be a effect, type forming, when the Polish state disintegrated through the counterreformation, approaching its decline."


"From a racial political aspect it is therefore important to emphasise that the type determining French life today has almost no relationship to the type of ancient France. It must be regarded as the descendant of another racial stratum, the eastern round headed, as compared with the earlier Nordic western long skulled one.

The Frenchman Vacher de Lapouge has already established this. He came to the conclusion that the kind of disposition among the present day French is completely different from that of the past. This reveals itself, says Lapouge, in the smallest details. It suffices to compare the poetry of Tingeltangels, a true negro poetry, with the folkish poetry of the middle ages, in order to make clear the spiritual retreat.

Further, It is the first time in history, that a round headed race has attained rule. The future alone can instruct how this remarkable attempt will develop. The ideas of Democracy are the ideas of the Eastern race which was earlier ruled by the Nordic race, to which the northern French, Germans and Slavs belong. These eastern forces openly triumphed in 1789 and 1871 in France, and 1918 in Germany.

The struggle for German renewal is a struggle for the reestablishment of the validity of the Germanic heroic idea over and against democratic shopkeeper ideas. It is a struggle for the European racial strength and its freedom. The best of each people has cause, solely out of self preservation, to take up the same struggle within the confines of its own folkhood."


"Thanks solely to the policy of the French parliament threatening the West with the aid of the whole of Africa, present day political Paris appears as a danger of first rank to the whole of Europe. When the Greek states once feuded, they fetched over new slave hosts from Asia Minor and Africa. By these slaves, rather than by internecine struggle, did Hellas' nations perished.

In order to preserve Europe, the sources of Nordic strength in Europe must be brought alive again, strengthened. This includes Germany, Scandinavia, Finland and England. Conversely, the influence of France, which in the south is already completely Mulattoised, must be halted so that it can no longer act as an advance area for the Africans."

Leliana
Monday, November 28th, 2016, 09:35 PM
French people aren't Germanic, fullstop. What makes someone Germanic? Three main aspects:

-Blood/Heritage
-Language
-Culture

Let's check the frogs:

Blood/Heritage? Significant mixing with Celts and Romanic people. A genetic mixing lab of different European tribes.

-Language? 95% Romanic language. Full distance to German(ic), the disconnection started in the times of Karl der Große (I won't say 'Charlemagne')

-Culture? : Different to ours. 'Joy de vivre'. France is more like Italy and Spain in all important matters of mindset, traditions and lifestyle.

Final result: The few remaining tiny particles of Germanic in French people don't justifiy the Frogies to be called 'Germanic'.

Ahnenerbe
Tuesday, November 29th, 2016, 03:23 PM
The French culture is non-Germanic and degenerated and the population is largely mixed with Med elements. However there is still some good blood here and there, maybe 5-10%.

That is the whole issue we always had with all the people of Nordic-Germanic blood who identify with their non-Germanic culture of birth (such as Russian, Polish, French, etc) and fight against their Germanic "mother-folk"...

When you tell them they are Germanic by blood, of course they don't understand. Which is why the NS authorities tried by all means to "germanize" and to "attract all the Nordic blood to us so that it doesn't fight against us again" (RFSS Himmler).

I always had the fantasy to deport all the Germanic-looking French to Germany (or at least to Alsace-Lorraine) and deport all the French-looking Germans to France (to Burgundy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_State_of_Burgundy) for example). ;)

This racially progressive French woman from Picardy recently came to my attention. She looks like an archetype of primordial Germanic subnordic stock.


https://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=112732&stc=1&d=14832514

Catterick
Tuesday, November 29th, 2016, 11:25 PM
Subnordic is not a race its a waste bin. Subnordics are anywhere Alpines and Nordics mix without producing a stabilised Dinaric/Noric/whatever blend. She is pred. Alpinid with dinaricisation, her nose looks a bit Roman and could be from such source.

France is intra-Europe rassenkaos but at least parts of the country are predominantly Teutonic.

Ahnenerbe
Wednesday, November 30th, 2016, 02:05 AM
The term "Subnordic" was coined by a Frenchman after all (Montandon (https://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=41447)).

Another French anthropologist, René Collignon even termed it the "Lorraine race"...

From Carleton S. Coon:


(10) Noric: A blond, planoccipital brachycephal frequently encountered in South Germany and elsewhere in central Europe. This is apparently an Iron Age Nordic brachycephalized by Dinaric mixture and seems in most respects to take the form of a blond Dinaric variant.

Both Deniker and Czekanowski have recognized this type, and it is a standard race, under various names, in most Russian studies. The name Noric was gived it by Lebzelter. A brachycephalized Neo-Danubian, common in Jugoslavia, is a parallel or variant form.


Deniker's Sub-Nordic definition:


To this race is related a secondary race, fair, mesocephalic, of tall stature, called Sub-Northern, with angular face, turned-up nose, straight hair; it is found especially in Northern Germany, among the Letto-Lithuanians, in Finland, and on the west coast of Norway (in Figs. 89 and 90).

Catterick
Wednesday, November 30th, 2016, 03:58 AM
The Noric is merely a blond Dinarid. Though sometimes I still wonder whether Dinarids and such are merely products of parallel dinaricisation or migrated from a Dinaric hearth: The non-Mongoloid Pamir type seems evolved from local lepto-dolichocephals of the Caspian area. Though you could call the Noric-like intermediates a blend it feels improper since this is degrees of a local trend seemingly without true Alpine stock.

Lothringer
Wednesday, November 30th, 2016, 06:47 AM
To my point of view, the problem is that Germanicness is mostly equated with language : the Germans are considered of Germanic stock because of their language, and the same goes with the inhabitants of former Elsass-Lothringen but this is erroneous, as you will invariably chance upon non-Germanic-looking Germans and upon Germanic-looking Frenchmen.

Catterick
Wednesday, November 30th, 2016, 07:13 AM
When the Romans came France was Continental Celtic in the north and Ligurian in the south with Aquitanian (=Basque) in the southwest and the Belgics and Germans pushing into the north. Formerly the Ligurians were described in texts an non-IE but they were related - somehow - to Celtic and Italic. Then there were Greek speaking colonists in the extreme south. Only the Aquitanians are thought to be non-IE. The Romans themselves were successful Latinising the lot but there were Gaulish survivals in the Alps into the Medieval period and of course Basque did not go extinct.

Come the migration age come the Germanic conquests including the Frankish expansion, and the Iranic Alans who were also racially Nordic. (The living Ossetians became brachycranial later.) The East Germanics were heavily mixed with Iranian nomads because they arrived themselves from the steppes so the Alanic language in France should seem less shocking. At around the same time the Bretons from Dumnonia (=Cornwall and the West Country) moved into the northwest. But they had a limited reach like the Basquitanians.

Finally the Normans from West Scandinavia changed the racial demography of northern France by introducing strong Nordic strains.

Lothringer
Wednesday, November 30th, 2016, 07:42 AM
On the whole, I would say that the inhabitants of the coastal regions of Normandy look more Germanic than the average Elsässer or Lothringer - I am, of course, not quoting any book on the races of the former kingdom of the Franks, but only describing what I was able to see with my own eyes.

Germaniathane
Saturday, May 20th, 2017, 03:37 PM
I would like someone to explain to me just how Germanic or un-Germanic France is.

As a whole French people are not a Germanic people as we could say of the people of England (Anglo-Saxons), Netherlands (Franks, Saxons, Frisians), Germany (Saxons again, Frisians, Franks, Alemanni, Bajuvars, Thuringians, Swabians, etc...). However there are strong Germanic admixture in the north especially North East France where some strong Frankish settlement occurred. As well the Norsemen ("Normands" in French) or Vikings who settled what is known as Normandy today and parts of Brittany. Other loose Germanic people such as the Burgundians from the Baltic region, as well as the Visigoths (Western Goths) also invaded parts of France, the Alemanni in the east again from whence the French name for Germany came from ("Allemagne").
Northern European physical characteristics such as blond hair, blue eyes or red hair, green or gray eyes are much more frequent in the regions of France with stronger Germanic admixture. The Nord-Pas-de-Calais region has the highest frequency of Germanic paternal lineages (40%), and the Contentin peninsula in Normandy has the second highest frequency for Germanic paternal lineages (33%). About 30% of French people in Northern France have blue eyes!!! This is nearly 10% higher than the average for the whole country at 20.2% (Recent 2012 study).

Germaniathane
Saturday, May 20th, 2017, 04:39 PM
He's not so very un-Germanic. He's just not particularly Germanic either.



He doesn't look unusual. He just doesn't look Germanic. People from Scotland and Ireland don't look unusual, but they aren't Germanic either.



Well, the first and fourth look completely un-Germanic in terms of features. The second looks more Germanic, but has an un-Germanic nose.



Hmm, that would be inaccurate. Pictish influence makes the Scots a lot darker haired and eyed on average. The Irish are as light eyed as the English but are darker haired on average.

Only to correct your last statement. Sorry, yes as a whole the English (35%) are blonder-haired than both Scots(26.1%) and Irish (23%), but less blue/light-eyed and red-haired.
We could do this by comparing their percentage of blue eyes only per region;
English regions
Central = 50%
Yorkshires = 49%
North East = 47%
South East = 44%
East = 41%
South West = 35%
VS
Scottish regions
South East = 57%
North West = 49%
South West = 49%
North East = 48%
Central = 48%
Irish regions
Connacht = 53%
Leinster = 52%
Ulster = 50%
Munster = 50%
Thus the bluest-eyed region of the British Islands is in Scotland.
% of Red hair genes per region in the British Isles
England
Yorkshires = 35%
North = 34%
South West = 28%
South East = 27%
Central = 26%
East = 21%
VS
Scotland
South East = 40%
North East = 37%
Central = 36%
South West = 35%
North and West = 29%
Ireland
Munster = 38%
Leinster = 38%
Ulster = 35%
Connacht = 34%
Again the most red-haired region of the British Island is found in Scotland, the same region which has the highest frequency for blue eyes.

Sawyer
Saturday, May 20th, 2017, 10:45 PM
The French culture is non-Germanic and degenerated and the population is largely mixed with Med elements. However there is still some good blood here and there, maybe 5-10%.

How does one define "degenerated", in this case. The French are without doubt equally as impressive as Germany, historically. In some cases, more so.

Ingvaeonic
Monday, May 22nd, 2017, 06:50 AM
I once read a statistic somewhere, I cannot remember where, that about 15 percent of the lexicon of modern French is of Germanic origin. That's about one word in six. I wonder if it is true.

Well, there has to be some Germanic elements in France. After all, even the whole damn country and the name of the nationality are named after a Germanic tribe, viz. the Franks, naturellement.

saxonbrit
Thursday, May 25th, 2017, 05:46 AM
Looking at many pictures of Northern French people, mostly of them definitely look like the Nordic racial type - tall and fair with narrow heads and noses. However, that very well could be from Celtic rather than Germanic stock. As I've stated previously, Celts are definitely Northern European closely related to Germanics. Appreciate any input.

Ahnenerbe
Thursday, May 25th, 2017, 12:11 PM
How does one define "degenerated", in this case. The French are without doubt equally as impressive as Germany, historically. In some cases, more so.


Here is the timeline (it's a racial train wreck):

- In the 16th century, the Hugenot elites (Germanic blood) had to leave the country.

- Under king Louis XIII, the royal bloodline degenerated further by intermarriage with a Spanish (Moorish) woman. Louis XIV, a half-Moorish mongrel, showed the result of that mixed blood with his obsession with pageantry. This gave birth to the "court culture" which has been in effect for the last 3 centuries in France, where appearances and intrigue count more than actual efficiency and truth.

- The remaining (Catholic) elites and nobility of good blood were slaughtered or fled abroad during the proto-marxist revolution of 1789.

- Right after that (under Napoleon), Jews were freed from all restrictions and their influence grew considerably.

- During the 19th century, several authors noticed the growing influence of the French meridional racial elements in the Parliament, press and commerce. They noticed clearly the differences between the Northern and Southern racial elements.

- At the end of the 19th century started a flow of Italian, Spanish, Portuguese immigrant workers to fuel the second industrial revolution. This trend kept increasing during the whole 20th century. As a result, over 30% of the current "French" have some direct Italian/Spanish/Portuguese/Polish ancestor.

- Add to this countless shitty nationalities such as Armenians that found refuge in France during the 20th century (where the Jews had opened the country to immigration under the excuse of "human rights") + a lot of Jews from all over Europe.

- WW1 bled the remaining "heroic" strains in the rural people. The selfless ones died, the shirkers, wankers and cowards survived.

- In the 1960s after the Algerian war, 500,000 Sephardic Jews emigrated to France (enough said... This alone is enough to ruin any civilization in 30 years).

- Since the 1970s, millions of Africans/North Africans followed, now numbering around 15 million.

- Today: 300,000 new immigrants enter each year, while 300,000 French youngsters with degrees leave the country each year.

[+ EDIT: 10,000 millionaires left France in 2015...]

In other words, there is nothing to save anymore - the train wreck is imminent.

There might be 10% of the population of good blood left, but they are so diluted, they have no choice but to absorb the mainstream mongrel culture. Even if they might look Germanic, they are pretty useless in actual fact.


That's why it's pointless to talk about "countries" all the time. Countries are just administrative jurisdictions that may remain identical in appearance, while the underlying racial and biological quality of the population has completely changed.

The actual, pure French people have been an absolute minority for a long time already.

The actual biological composition of the population is what explains directy why the "nationalists" simply cannot win the "elections" - its pointless to keep hoping on such simple "solutions". But if you are a peasant with nothing else in life, it is of course comfortable to place all your hopes in such things (instead of becoming resilient, creating your own business, your own support group, etc.


It's like the case of Germany also, where most of the good blood has emigrated to the US, while those who remained are the children and grandchildren of those who surrendered during the war, those who found a safe hiding place, those who betrayed, etc.

So you go from having the German Empire as a major superpower that produced more Nobel Prizes than the rest of the world combined between 1870-1945... to a country that is today just a European version of Korea (a toothless exporter of machine-tools, with clean streets and stuff, but not much else).

In Germany - just like in France in the 19th-early 20th century - it is the mediocre, unadventurous, homely Alpine element which is now predominant. Those are the people actually attached to the land, the routines, and who are desperate and clueless about the situation. The true Nordics/Germanics just pack and settle elsewhere (like in North America or Australia).

Juthunge
Thursday, May 25th, 2017, 03:13 PM
- In the 16th century, the Hugenot elites (Germanic blood) had to leave the country.
The Edict of Fontainebleau, which revoked that of Nantes, which had granted Huguenots freedom of religion, was only issued in 1685, so the 17th century.

I suppose, when you say “Germanic” you mean racially Nordid. I’ve read this claim by NS writers countless times but is there any actual proof for this?
Because the regions, where Huguenots were strongest, are precisely the regions where Nordid(and generally, Germanic) influence is lowest:

http://pages.uoregon.edu/mapplace/EU/EU20_France/Maps/EU20_02ReligiousWars.jpg
http://oi653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/Tyranos/Image45.jpg


- Under king Louis XIII, the royal bloodline degenerated further by intermarriage with a Spanish (Moorish) woman. Louis XIV, a half-Moorish mongrel
The wife of Louis XIII and the mother of Louis XIV was Anne of Austria.
She herself was the daughter of Philipp of Spain and Margarete of Austria. This pattern of Spanish-Austrian marriage goes on as you follow her line (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_of_Austria#Ancestry) back.

You could possibly make a case for degeneration through Habsburg inbreeding but not through any (recent) Moorish influence.


It's like the case of Germany also, where most of the good blood has emigrated to the US, while those who remained are the children and grandchildren of those who surrendered during the war, those who found a safe hiding place, those who betrayed, etc.
[...]
In Germany - just like in France in the 19th-early 20th century - it is the mediocre, unadventurous, homely Alpine element which is now predominant. Those are the people actually attached to the land, the routines, and who are desperate and clueless about the situation. The true Nordics/Germanics just pack and settle elsewhere (like in North America or Australia).

That depends in what way you look at it. Let’s see, who’s more impressive:

Those that, in a time of major hardship(be it war, famine, plague, poverty) just pack up, flee and move to another place, without any concern for their fellow countrymen and the Volksgemeinschaft, perhaps even to that nation that is majorly responsible for the hardship in the first place, which could be considered the ultimate betrayal?

Or might it be not rather those, who stayed where their ancestors loved, worked, fought, bled and died – in short, lived - for a thousand years or longer, amidst the ruins of their homes but who then rebuilt a nation from scratch as their ancestor did before, despite all adversity?
Besides the fact that millions of the ancestors of those you’ve just decided to insult, likewise died for their fatherland in WW2 and before. Side by side with those who never had the chance to have children themselves.

What has become of Germany by now is a different matter but not one down to racial degeneracy but to decades of indoctrination, the millennia old German gullibility and outer circumstances brought about by those that exploit it.

As for Alpines and that homeliness should be specific to them:
“Lenz findet bei der fälischen Rasse nicht den gleichen Drang in die Ferne wie bei der nordischen, vielmehr ein Haften am Hergebrachten und an der Heimat. Er findet den fälischen Menschen eher noch zuverlässiger als den nordischen, zu Grübelei geneigt, zu „Tiefe“ und „Innerlichkeit“.“
-HFK Günther, Die seelischen Eigenschaften der fälischen (dalischen) Rasse (http://www.theapricity.com/earlson/falische/falische02.htm) ;)

I suppose we can agree, that a Faelid/general CM strain is generally(by physical appearance also) more important among Germans as a whole than your loathed Alpinid one.


So you go from having the German Empire as a major superpower that produced more Nobel Prizes than the rest of the world combined between 1870-1945... to a country that is today just a European version of Korea (a toothless exporter of machine-tools, with clean streets and stuff, but not much else).
There’s just a slight flaw in your theory: The simple fact, that most migration out of Germany happened from the middle of the 19th century up to WWI, so for the most part, during the Empire and not after WWII.
So what the Empire produced and accomplished was despite a supposed brain drain by emigration.

Huginn ok Muninn
Thursday, May 25th, 2017, 03:40 PM
- Under king Louis XIII, the royal bloodline degenerated further by intermarriage with a Spanish (Moorish) woman. Louis XIV, a half-Moorish mongrel, showed the result of that mixed blood with his obsession with pageantry. This gave birth to the "court culture" which has been in effect for the last 3 centuries in France, where appearances and intrigue count more than actual efficiency and truth.


The wife of Louis XIII and the mother of Louis XIV was Anne of Austria.
She herself was the daughter of Philipp of Spain and Margarete of Austria. This pattern of Spanish-Austrian marriage goes on as you follow her line (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_of_Austria#Ancestry) back.

Yet who was the mother of the very dark and alien looking Louis XIII himself?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/64/LouisXIII.jpg/220px-LouisXIII.jpg

Well, it was one of the evil Medicis, Marie de' Medici.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/Maria_de_Medici_by_Frans_Pourbus_or_Scip ione_Pulzone.jpg/220px-Maria_de_Medici_by_Frans_Pourbus_or_Scip ione_Pulzone.jpg

Ahnenerbe
Friday, May 26th, 2017, 03:37 AM
The Edict of Fontainebleau, which revoked that of Nantes, which had granted Huguenots freedom of religion, was only issued in 1685, so the 17th century.

Yes but massacres of the Hugenot elite started a century earlier, with the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew%27s_Day_massacre) After that, we can guess than the rest of the elites smelled the coffee and quickly fled.


The Huguenot political movement was crippled by the loss of many of its prominent aristocratic leaders, as well as many re-conversions by the rank and file

Then it probably took a century to finish the job.

It's just like today, when 10,000 millionaires left France in 2015 (http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/01/news/millionaires-fleeing-france/) after the terrorist attacks (of course many of those were probably Jews as well). The real elites don't take any chance - they leave the boat at the slightest sign of danger. Then the people with a portable talent leave, then the bourgeois... In the end only the peasants remain, and they are the last ones to be massacred or forcibly assimilated.



I suppose, when you say “Germanic” you mean racially Nordid. I’ve read this claim by NS writers countless times but is there any actual proof for this?
Because the regions, where Huguenots were strongest, are precisely the regions where Nordid(and generally, Germanic) influence is lowest:

http://pages.uoregon.edu/mapplace/EU/EU20_France/Maps/EU20_02ReligiousWars.jpg
http://oi653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/Tyranos/Image45.jpg


There was apparently a sizeable Nordid minority in the South, which gave birth to the Cathar, or Albigensian movement, which was a Christian spiritual renewal of a Nordic character. This is explained by Rosenberg in The Myth, where he also explains that the architecture of the local churches is Nordic in style ("gothic" style).

Also we are talking about the 1200s there, while the racial maps were drawn only in the 19th century... The meridional elements have choked the Nordics there over the centuries.

In Antiquity the Nordic race extended up til North Africa, then it disappeared/got diluted there first, then in Spain, then in the South of France... And these days even the Northeast of France, Luxembourg, etc are getting absorbed by the influx of French meridionals and Spanish/Italian Meds.



The wife of Louis XIII and the mother of Louis XIV was Anne of Austria. She herself was the daughter of Philipp of Spain and Margarete of Austria. This pattern of Spanish-Austrian marriage goes on as you follow her line (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_of_Austria#Ancestry) back.

You could possibly make a case for degeneration through Habsburg inbreeding but not through any (recent) Moorish influence.

Yeah, sorry it was rather Louis XIII that was already a mongrel, son of a Medici.

And Henry III of France (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_III_of_France) before him was already the son of an earlier Medici, Catherine (he was also a sodomite).

I also mixed up with one of the Princes of Condé around that time which had described as having married a short, swarthy Spanish woman, and after that the lineage was observed as basically dead.

So these three cases probably show a more general pattern of interbreeding of the royal/noble lineages with impure members of the Mediterranean royalty/nobility.

Sawyer
Saturday, May 27th, 2017, 01:37 AM
A lot of this is interesting, Ahnenerbe, but mostly theory. Some of it is somewhat logical, but has not been empirically verified. I am actually genuinely interested in seeing the data on Iberian migration into France during the 19th century, if you could provide it.

I'm not sure why so much weight would be given to the opinions of Alfred Rosenberg. His academic history has no link to his later racialist views. Again, most of his work is just theory that has not really been verified.

Claims about North Africa being Nordid and the Cathars being representative of a Nordid Soul are especially troublesome. Nordicism is, again, pretty impossible to actually verify. It may not be your claim, but as it's likely you are also influenced by HFK Guenther: logically, it would appear quite outrageous all advanced societies were founded by Nordid elements. The burden of proof is on you, in this case. But my own reading has not turned up any empirical truth on this matter.

Secondly, if you take off the rose tinted glasses, the Cathars were quite an insane bunch. I fail to see how a dualist religion that viewed the material world as the creation of the Devil bears any resemblance to any traditions coming out of the verifiably Nordid regions of Europe. They even actively opposed pro-creation, as an act of evil.

Juthunge
Saturday, May 27th, 2017, 10:36 PM
There was apparently a sizeable Nordid minority in the South, which gave birth to the Cathar, or Albigensian movement, which was a Christian spiritual renewal of a Nordic character. This is explained by Rosenberg in The Myth, where he also explains that the architecture of the local churches is Nordic in style ("gothic" style).

That’s a bit illogical. We can establish a (sub)race by phenotype/bodily characteristics and then try to ascribe mental characteristics to it by empirical analysis.
We cannot do it the other way round and ascribe the presence of a (sub)race to a given region based on the mental characteristics/culture (or even architecture!) present there. I’m aware this was the modus operandi of Rosenberg, though.

And, indeed, nothing I know about the Cathars leads me to believe, that they were a manifestation of the mental characteristics ascribed to Nordids in the first place. Which might actually explain why they were eradicated by the Northern French.
I have the feeling, that Rosenberg "made" them Nordid largely because of his antipathy for more traditional forms of Christianity.

It’s simply a bit strange, that these purportedly Nordic spiritual movements always seem to happen in places where you would reasonably expect, in past or present, a low presence of Nordids. Rather than, something like the Cathar movement happening in places where the population was, and is, strongly or even predominantly Nordid.


Also we are talking about the 1200s there, while the racial maps were drawn only in the 19th century... The meridional elements have choked the Nordics there over the centuries.
We were actually talking about the 16-17th century in regards to the Huguenots(you probably accidentally mixed that up with the Cathars you brought up).

Even so, it’s reasonable to expect a certain degree of De-Nordification already in 1200 in these areas, yes. Already quite simply because it was cut off from Nordid areas that could have replenished it and was instead entirely surrounded by populations of non-Nordid subraces.

But it’s equally reasonable to assume, and nothing I read about race in years leads me to believe otherwise, it wasn’t very strong there to begin with.
(Extreme) Southern France saw several waves of colonisation both preceding (Phoenicians/Carthaginians, Greeks, Italics(and whatever they brought with them)) and succeeding(Arabs/Berbers) the Germanic settlements.

Since neither the native population nor the colonizers could reasonably have been Nordid, these components could only have arrived with the Visigoths and Burgundians.
Those on the other hand, didn’t arrive in numbers anywhere near to having a strong influence on the local genepool and besides that, in the case of the forme,r had on their long travel already lived in and traversed areas that were largely non-Nordid.


In Antiquity the Nordic race extended up til North Africa, then it disappeared/got diluted there first, then in Spain, then in the South of France...
If you're saying Antiquity, are we talking about the time preceding even the Germanic migrations to these areas? If so, do we have any evidence that Nordids were present there(especially, North Africa) in half-way significant numbers or is it pure speculation?

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Tuesday, January 2nd, 2018, 04:02 AM
As the original poster of this thread, I have to say that I consider France to almost always have had three Indo-European metaethnic components (Basque the other), of varying degrees and sizes. In today's age, only Flanders and Alsace-Lorraine are Germanic, only Brittany is Celtic, with everywhere else Romance (originally Greek)--but that hasn't always been the case. The Three Estates of the Realm are: Romance Priests, Germanic Princes, Celtic Peasants. France wasn't called First Daughter of Holy Mother Church for no reason, while the cause of anticlericalism and irreligion owes its origin to the fact that Romance has always been imposed via Provence (in tandem to Greek Marseilles).

Whatever the past tribal fragmentation of France, today's demographic distribution makes as much sense as pre-Voelkerwanderung arrangements, although the proportions and sizes are different. That being said, while the vast majority of France is now Romance and probably just as receptive to ancient (Greco-)Roman culture, why shouldn't the Salians of Flanders and Ripuarians of Alsace-Lorraine venerate their Die Nibelungenlied, or the Celtic Bretons put forth their legends of Arthur and Vercingetorix? The names of the people had always been either Gaul or Frank, with or without (Greco-)Roman interference.

SaxonPagan
Wednesday, July 11th, 2018, 05:40 PM
In today's age, only Flanders and Alsace-Lorraine are Germanic, only Brittany is Celtic, with everywhere else Romance (originally Greek)

I've just read this thread with great interest :)

As some previous posters have done, I would also add Normandy to the above list ^

Aelfgar
Wednesday, July 11th, 2018, 09:56 PM
Genetically, it's common for Normans to cluster with English or Germans. I don't know about Bretons.

SaxonPagan
Thursday, July 12th, 2018, 01:40 AM
The Bretons tend to have their own sense of identity and a separatist movement similar to that of the Cornish in England.

Jean-Marie Le Pen is a Breton, BTW ;)

Patrick
Sunday, November 4th, 2018, 02:57 AM
The idea that Germans were only aristocrats in France isn't true. Germans were often peasants and farmers in France just like they are in Germany. There are French surnames of German origin, here are some: Roger, Leger, Herbert, Goguen, and etc. French DNA is classified as very close to German on DNA tests. The French are a mix of Gauls, Germans, Latins, and various Mediterranean people. There is German influence on the French language. Someone earlier in the thread said that The French Revolution ethnic cleansed the Germans from France. I used to believe this too until I got a DNA test by 23andme and it said France and Germany were in the same category and also when I studied the surnames of the French side of my family tree I found a portion of the names to be of Germanic origin with other surnames being of Latin and Breton origin and Basque.

I used to believe in the German aristocrat theory about the German presence in France but if that was the case how would the German surnames in my family tree be explained from people who were peasant farmers and why does a portion of my DNA say French/German on it? Germans have a history of being small farmers whether they are in South Africa or Germany or France. France is still Germanic. I don't believe its mixture with Mediterraneans has degenerated it as some here have suggested but I respect peoples right here to believe that and I respect their right to work to preserve a relative purity of the Germanic blood. I am more focused on Germanic culture though.

Patrick
Sunday, November 4th, 2018, 09:29 PM
France is closer to Germany than England is on a genetic map of Europe. On a genetic map of Europe England is closer to Ireland than France is, and France is closer to Germany than England is. The most biologically Germanic part of Europe in recent history is likely to be Scandinavia. Germany would probably follow that, France is probably less Germanic than Germany but very close to being as biologically Germanic as Germany is, then following that you have England followed by Scotland, and then Ireland.

In both 23andme and AncestryDNA they classify German and French DNA in the same category.

113778

Quote From Ancestry.com DNA site:
People in this DNA ethnicity group may identify as:
Belgian, French, German, Dutch, Swiss, Luxembourgian, Liechtenstein

Above is talking about an ethnicity called Europe West. Below is a link to an article about genetic ancestry in UK.

https://www.ancestry.com/corporate/international/press-releases/DNA-of-the-nation-revealedand-were-not-as-British-as-we-think


Average UK resident is 36.94% British, 21.59% Irish and 19.91% Western European (French/German)

It appears The Anglo Saxon admixture in English people is classified as French/German by that DNA testing service. In other words France is so close to Germany in terms of genetics that it is almost impossible to separate the two. In the image below we again see France and Germany linked together and we see The British Isles as their separate entity. [edit: the image below is not a test I personally took, I am just showing it to show people the way these tests lump nationalities together].

113777

Here is a short ethnic history of The British isles. After The Romans decimated Britain the native British people were defenseless against colonization. A Scot is an Irish person, The Scots migrated to Britain from Ireland and conquered the northern half of Britain while imposing their culture and intermarrying with the native British people. The Anglo Saxons conquered southern Britain and imposed their language on it and intermarried with the native British people. The native British people are The Welsh. English people genetically are a mix of Welsh, Anglo-Saxon, Scot(Irish), and Roman.

Ireland has Germanic influence as well. Anglo-Saxons settled the Eastern part of Ireland and intermarried with the locals there and set up a place called "The Pale of the Settlement". "Beyond the pale" in the western part of Ireland it was Gaelic/Celtic dominated. It is not clear just how biologically English or Scottish eastern Ireland is but they were under English domination and settlement for a long time. Also cities such as Waterford and Wexford and Dublin were established by viking colonists. The Orkney Islands of Scotland were settled by vikings.

Tacitus in his book Germania, the Roman historian, he mentions Germanic tribes all throughout Gaul(France). He mentions both Celtic and Germanic tribes being in Gaul. All sorts of Germanic tribes travelled through France, a significant portion of French last names are of German origin such as names like Herbert, Roger, and Leger.

Germany itself had Celts and Romans moving through there a lot, so they are not pure Germanic and their level of purity is close to France. Scandinavian countries probably have the most Germanic blood but they were also populated by thralls taken from Ireland so there is Celtic influence on their too. Ireland though has Germanic and Nordic influences but it is mostly Celtic or Gaelic.

According to my DNA test I have British Isles ancestry, Scandinavian ancestry, and I have Germanic ancestry which is in the same category as French. I am grateful my Scottish ancestry granted me admission to this forum. I was told that my French ancestry would not qualify me but that my Scottish ancestry would qualify me admission. I do recognize the Germanic heritage that is part of Scotland and so I would not dispute Scottish being allowed to grant someone entry but Scotland is less Germanic than France is according to these genetic tests that have come out.

Plus on the French side of my ancestry I have seen ancestry from Austria, England, Netherlands, and etc who intermarried into the French side.

English DNA tends to get lumped in the same category as Ireland does and the Anglo Saxon aspect to English DNA gets identified as French/German by testing companies.

Icelandic DNA is heavily Germanic from the Nordic influence but it is likely over 50% Celtic because it was populated by Scandinavian men and Irish concubine women.

I am not using Germanic admixture to propose a hierarchy either. I am not trying to besmirch anyone by mentioning this. But please look at the DNA testing. Why does it put France and Germany in the same category? England is farther away from Germany and according to DNA English people have less Germanic blood in them than French people do. Anglo Saxon people travelled through France and had settlements there. The idea the Germanics were only aristocrats in France is not true, Germans are mainly a farmer peasant people and many French peasants are Germanic just as many German peasants are Germanic.

Look at the people in this video, this is a French owned island that borders Canada. These are French people, they look Germanic in the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2gMCuYY4rk

This is a picture of people from Normandy France, where a portion of my French ancestry comes from. I am not posting a picture of Normandy due to being a "nordicist". I don't think so called Nordic people are better or worse than anyone. And who really knows how Nordic Normandy is or whether or not it is Nordic. I don't really care about that.

113779

And this is just some random French farmers

113780

I am grateful my Scottish ancestry granted me admission to this place but the Germanic part of my identity is likely from France, if there is Germanic contribution from the Scottish side it is likely less than the contribution from the French side and I do recognize Celtic presence on the French side too and other stuff there. I am not saying Germanic is better or worse than anything either, I am just saying that according to current science France is more Germanic than England.

The notion that the peasants of France were only Celts and the aristocrats the only Germanics in France is outdated. It is a speculation by people from the 1800's who had access to limited information. Current science, not that I believe everything current science says, but current science indicates that Germanic genetics were dispersed throughout the social classes of France just as Germanics were dispersed throughout the social classes of Germany. The notion that the French revolution cleansed France of Germanic genetics is outdated and modern DNA testing asserts that France is a Germanic nation, more Germanic than England.

113781

French Canadian re-enactors above and below a picture of sabots the French canadian settles wore, a type of clogs.

113782

Below is French Canadian people

113783

I am not sure where people get this idea French are not Germanic but DNA testing and looking at culture proves otherwise. French are Germanic. England is farther away from Germany than France so naturally less Germanic tribes went to England than went to France, and modern DNA science supports that idea.

Aelfgar
Sunday, November 4th, 2018, 09:31 PM
Maybe 23andMe do not have enough DNA samples from Germany and France to be able to properly distinguish between the two. But there will naturaly be a lot of genetic similarity either side of the modern political border, dating from the Bronze Age.

The Mercian
Sunday, November 4th, 2018, 10:00 PM
The French can be considered Germanic based on their blood on a case by case basis. They renounced their Germanic heritage as a people during the tyranny of Carl the Butcher and his son Louis the Pious. Those that acknowedge their original heritage are our brothers.

Anglo-Saxon's are all a mix of Germanic and Celtic depending how far North and West you go. Closer to the East, the more Germanic. In reality there is barely any genetic difference between Germanics and Celts, we're cousins.

SpearBrave
Sunday, November 4th, 2018, 10:10 PM
Germanic is a racial cultural linguistic group, The French do not have the same language group as Germanics, please someone correct me if I'm wrong but French is Latin or Romance based language.

Æmeric
Sunday, November 4th, 2018, 10:17 PM
French is a Romance language. English is usually classified as Germanic but some have called it more of a creole language and it is heavily influenced by French and Latin via France.

Patrick
Sunday, November 4th, 2018, 10:44 PM
The French can be considered Germanic based on their blood on a case by case basis. They renounced their Germanic heritage as a people during the tyranny of Carl the Butcher and his son Louis the Pious. Those that acknowedge their original heritage are our brothers.

Anglo-Saxon's are all a mix of Germanic and Celtic depending how far North and West you go. Closer to the East, the more Germanic. In reality there is barely any genetic difference between Germanics and Celts, we're cousins.

I recognize my original Germanic heritage through my French side, I'm glad my Scottish side granted me access to this forum but I don't consider Scottish people to be biologically Germanic(maybe culturally Germanic), French people I consider biologically Germanic and DNA testing supports that. As for the issue you have with Charlemagne and his interactions with the Saxons, I believe it was. I don't think the English have a right to deny French their Germanic heritage based on what the French did to the Saxons considering what The English did to the Germans in Dresden. If what the French did to the Saxons polluted their souls, then the English by that standard are at least as equally as guilty. But I think the English should be forgiven and I think the French should be forgiven, I don't think now is the time for Germanics to hate each other considering the state of the world, instead people should be working to preserve Germanic culture.

So I think the English should be forgiven for Dresden and I think the French should be forgiven for what they did to the Saxons. I don't support Hitler or anything, I am against Hitler. I just think Dresden was a genocidal act. But I can forgive that, now is the time for forgiveness and soft-heartedness. We really should be focusing on loving each other and restoring our customs in the midst of the current social situation, its not a bleak situation.

We are in a good situation. Its just that now is the time for unity and love.

Aelfgar
Sunday, November 4th, 2018, 10:45 PM
From a purely genetic point of view, the categories are somewhat artificial. Exactly who is Germanic depends where you want to draw the line. But if we take Danes as the central Germanics, then the English (and Irish for that matter) are closer to them than the French. But I think there is a fair case for including north-eastern French who feel Germanic.



Anglo-Saxon's are all a mix of Germanic and Celtic depending how far North and West you go. Closer to the East, the more Germanic. In reality there is barely any genetic difference between Germanics and Celts, we're cousins.The south and east English have a greater Saxon element but the Danish is fairly evenly present in all the English and the Norwegian element is greater in the northern English and Scots.

J.Yaxley
Sunday, November 4th, 2018, 10:49 PM
1. Posting pictures of French Canadians is IMO a bit misleading as many French-Canadians have British & Irish blood.

2. I think it'd be fair to call the French 'fellow Western Europeans' but most of them are not especially Germanic looking nor do they identify as Germanic. Tell a Frenchman he is Germanic and he will probably be very confused.

3. Other genetic studies have claimed the English are almost indistinguishable from Northern Germans. The science is not quite perfect yet. After all, the ancestry map you posted lists you as 13% Eastern European even though you claim to be Irish, Scottish, & French. The map also lists Slovenians as Western Europeans. Melania Trump is a famous Slovenian:

https://s3.r29static.com/bin/entry/bed/x/106040/image.jpg

Her eyes, nose, & cheekbones are obviously not very Germanic looking. The map seems to be sketchy, at best.

______________

Just want to say that I greatly admire certain aspects of French culture (they produced some of the greatest architecture the world has ever seen) and I want to be allies with them - but I don't think we should try to redefine them as Germanic. Let France be French.

J.Yaxley
Sunday, November 4th, 2018, 10:55 PM
@Patrick, you list your politics as 'civic nationalism' - would you explain that a bit? Civic Nationalism is typically antithetical to racialism or ethnic nationalism.

Aelfgar
Sunday, November 4th, 2018, 11:04 PM
Melania Trump is a famous Slovenian:

Her eyes, nose, & cheekbones are obviously not very Germanic looking. The map seems to be sketchy, at best.She looks like she's had a facelift.

http://www.fiba.basketball/api/img/team/coverimage/5/9446/618/550/418

Patrick
Sunday, November 4th, 2018, 11:30 PM
The ancestry map I posted was not the test of my genes, just something to show the way they are lumping nationalities together. I should have clarified that maybe.



... the ancestry map you posted lists you as 13% Eastern European even though you claim to be Irish, Scottish, & French.

The English should realize that The French were more loyal to their Germanic blood than England because during WW2 The French did what was honorable and they surrendered to German power. I dislike Hitler and I dislike The Nazis, I not only dislike them, I disagree with them. I don't believe in explicit racial nationalism. However I think The French did what was right in surrendering to the authority of The German people.

The English, whom I respect, and The Americans, whom I also respect, betrayed Germany. They went to war against Germany. I am not saying this to shame or guilt America or England. I'm not interested in doing that. I am simply saying the true pride of WW2 was France for having the courage to surrender to German domination.

Next time you think of France during ww2 think of that U2 song "Pride, in the name of Love". That's France during ww2. France respected the true hierarchy of Europe while America and England rebelled in their arrogance. I am not shaming the English and the Americans, I believe the gods or God can forgive people and redeem people for their mistakes.

fjaran
Sunday, November 4th, 2018, 11:30 PM
There are those from France who are Northwest European, though I am not sure how many. There are also those who are not. I don't believe France as a whole is 'closer' to Germany either. Not from what I have seen in all other studies. It always places more southernly overall, but that doesn't apply to all individuals within France. I am sure the more Northern/Eastern you go in France, the closer it is to Germany.

113786

As already mentioned, there are other reasons why France is not considered a Germanic nation. I am not sure why you draw issue with it.

A considerable percentage of the paternal lineage of Iceland is from Scotland/Ireland by the way, something most people are ignorant of. Both the paternal/maternal sides are from Norway, Scotland, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, and perhaps England.

J.Yaxley
Sunday, November 4th, 2018, 11:49 PM
I am simply saying the true pride of WW2 was France for having the courage to surrender to German domination.

Next time you think of France during ww2 think of that U2 song "Pride, in the name of Love". That's France during ww2. France respected the true hierarchy of Europe while America and England rebelled in their arrogance.


I'm normally a patient guy but here's the truth: none of that makes any sense. The French surrendered because they lost the war. The Germans had beaten them on the field of battle. The French didn't surrender because they thought the Germans were the 'true hierarchy of Europe' - they fought as best they could and they lost.

BTW - why do you call your politics 'civic nationalism'? Civic Nationalism is normally opposed to Racialism & Ethno-Nationalism. It is based off of shared loyalty to a government rather than to a racial or ethnic group.

velvet
Monday, November 5th, 2018, 02:27 AM
I used to believe this too until I got a DNA test by 23andme and it said France and Germany were in the same category

The SNPA project (https://www.theapricity.com/snpa/index2.htm) may help you understand some details to your results.

But looking at the distribution of R1[a|b] and U5, they are not very conclusive. The R1 group is present from Spain to Russia, even the longer sub-definitions like R1b1a2 etc are not at all limited to a region or ethnicity. The mtDNA is slightly more informative, but still not really.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Haplogroup_R1b_%28Y-DNA%29.PNG
http://www.hartforth.com/images/u5_mtdna_800x581.png



Germanic presence in France may well date back to 6th / 7th century, and it is generally very low except for some regions, where it is a bit more prevalent, but still doesnt constitute a majority or a generally present element.

So to lump both groups together is quite wrong, and strongly goes against the goal of Germanic preservation, which is intrinsically based on ethnic preservation.

Ahnenerbe
Monday, November 5th, 2018, 03:46 AM
The idea that Germans were only aristocrats in France isn't true. Germans were often peasants and farmers in France just like they are in Germany.

I used to believe in the German aristocrat theory about the German presence in France but [...] Germans have a history of being small farmers whether they are in South Africa or Germany or France.

The same in Alsace-Lorraine, where the local rural substrate remained overwhelmingly German until recently, while the elites tend to be majority Welsch (French). People with Med blood tend to naturally rise to the top in civic societies to do their higher verbal intelligence and social skills. Nordics rise to the tops due to their dynamism, entrepreneurial spirit and superior technical skills. The Alpines make the conservative middle class, preoccupied with money, stability, social order, etc.

The explaination is simply that the Germans are for the most part not Germanic. Just like in the rest of Europe, the local substrate is in majority pre-Indo-European (Alpines and other aboriginal races). Those were subjugated by a minority of original Germanics and other Aryan tribes (Cimmerians and others), and all kinds of racial mixes and local cultures resulted from this.

Germans do have 20-25% of true Germanics, which is why it can be said "Germans were the aristocrats/dominants". The rest however, being technically "Germans", were the peasants. Which is why you can't simply reduce everything to a national or ethnic grouping (but the peasants/commoners love to do that, because it lumps them together with the dominant classes).

In practical terms, this translates into all kinds of people we see here who cling to the Germanic metaethnicity concept yet are not racially Germanic themselves, but latch onto it simply because they are part of a Germanic linguistic/cultural area. Here we find all the Austrians/Bavarians who are only linguistically Germanic, black-haired Dutch, semi-Mongoloid Scandinavians and others (and dudes like myself who can only claim to be ethnic Germans and that's about it). Therefore I personally advocate more for Teutonicism than the Germanic meta concept.

No one fantasizes more about "Germanics" than ultra-conservative Austrians/Bavarians for instance. While the true Germanics are generally very liberal, sexually and socially open, and do not consider someone "a foreigner" because he's just from a different valley 10km away, etc. So we can see a huge contradiction here.

The true Germanics (tall, blonde, dolichocephalic with straight noses) also do not have that sentimental attachment to a patch of land and are by nature mobile. Only the pure Anglos, Scandinavians, Dutch and Northwest Germans of today are the true Germanics. They are active, dynamic, adaptative. If the situation sucks whee they are, they either fix it or move towards greener pastures.

Those who are left behind are the people from the pre-Indo-European substrate who are stuck to their patch of land, to rigid social structures, local cultural idiosyncracies etc and who lament societal change, while being powerless about it. Those are the ones we see online whining about immigration and societal change all the time.

Patrick
Monday, November 5th, 2018, 07:16 AM
The SNPA project (https://www.theapricity.com/snpa/index2.htm) may help you understand some details to your results.



Thanks I found this image there that depicts the Nordic/Germanic regions of France being in the north of France and the east

113787

And the French part of me is French Canadian and here is a map of where French Canadians come from.

113788
From the picture of where French Canadians come from you can see there is a clear nordic and germanic influence. But I think the Germanic influence on France is dispersed throughout France, regardless of the anthropological map, but there you go. There is a anthropological map showing the nordic influence upon French Canadians.

To put it simply Normandy has a significant influence on French Canadians and Normandy is significantly Germanic, considering it was possibly from the Normandy region where Germanic tribes, Saxons, migrated into Britain from to found England.



In Merovingian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merovingian) times, continental Saxons were associated with the coast of what later became Normandy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy). Though sometimes described as also fighting inland, coming in conflict with the Franks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks) and Thuringians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuringians),

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxons

The above article also has an image portraying Normandy as a place where the Franks lived.

113789

And so the Germanic influence on Normandy is not merely due to viking colonization, it is to a greater degree it seems due to Frankish and Saxon settlements there that were there when the Viking Normans conquered it. It is not clear to what degree the viking colonization affected the genetics of Normandy and so I prefer to describe the Germanic aspect of Normandy as being Frankish and Saxon predominately.

I prefer to call the Germanic contribution I have from France: Frank, I really can't be sure what tribe but calling it Frank is just a way of signaling its from France. For that reason I identify as Frankish ethnically.

The maternal haplogroup I have from France is u5 and u5 is more prevalent per capita in Scandinavia than other European areas. I am French via my mother and so my maternal line is where I inherit my Germanic identity. French means Frank.

113790

Above a map of Neustria(Neustrie), a Frankish Kingdom. It's the area of present day Normandy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neustria

velvet
Monday, November 5th, 2018, 05:11 PM
And so the Germanic influence on Normandy is not merely due to viking colonization, it is to a greater degree it seems due to Frankish and Saxon settlements there that were there when the Viking Normans conquered it. It is not clear to what degree the viking colonization affected the genetics of Normandy and so I prefer to describe the Germanic aspect of Normandy as being Frankish and Saxon predominately.

The "Frankish" history is very complicated, but it is important to understand that they are by no means a 'single ethnicity'. They're indeed a conglomerate of Saxons, Frisians, Gauls, Italians... and specially after the Franks have become Franks, conquered and dominated lands populated with people of neither their religion nor ethnicity. They were the ruling class and understood themselves as such, seperate from (and also above) the general populace. At some point, when nations developed, everyone living on Frankish-possessed lands became French, although France still today is ethnically very diverse and just because you're French doesnt automatically mean you're Germanic, even if individuals can be Germanic. Which is the reason why France is not included in this board's scope, since it is not a generally Germanic country. Admission therefore is a case to case decision. :)

velvet
Monday, November 5th, 2018, 06:29 PM
While the true Germanics (Icelanders, Scandinavians) are generally very liberal, sexually and socially open, do not consider someone "a foreigner" because he's just from a different valley 10km away, etc. So we can see a huge contradiction here.

The true Germanics (tall, blonde, dolichocephalic with straight noses) also do not have that sentimental attachment to a patch of land and are by nature mobile. Only the pure Anglos and Scandinavians of today are the true Germanics. They are active, dynamic, adaptative. If the situation sucks whee they are, they either fix it or move towards greener pastures. Those who are left are the people from the pre-Indo-European substrate who are stuck to their patch of land, to rigid social structures, cultural idiosyncracies etc and who lament societal change, while being powerless about it.

So what we see is a great weakness. Everyone can come to Europe, settle here, and when it starts to suck for us, we move on. But this isnt 5000BCE anymore, there is no more place to go. The white race faces extinction because we fail to defend what is ours. We happily mix away our bloodlines, because we fail to distinguish between "us" and "them". We accept every (((latest fashion))) of sexual deviance and other ideologies that go counter our existence, and because someone wraps it in eloquent words, the prideless, spineless, borderless, mobile "noble" takes it for truth and then goes on to spit on those who provide the basis for this arrogant, dispatched lifestyle. We dont value what we are, in fact, we dont even have a conscious about who and what we are, as you just explained. And this is the reason why the white race will go extinct. Btw, not in some distant future, but within the next 10 years...

Patrick
Tuesday, November 6th, 2018, 04:35 AM
The "Frankish" history is very complicated, but it is important to understand that they are by no means a 'single ethnicity'. They're indeed a conglomerate of Saxons, Frisians, Gauls, Italians... and specially after the Franks have become Franks, conquered and dominated lands populated with people of neither their religion nor ethnicity. They were the ruling class and understood themselves as such, seperate from (and also above) the general populace. At some point, when nations developed, everyone living on Frankish-possessed lands became French, although France still today is ethnically very diverse and just because you're French doesnt automatically mean you're Germanic, even if individuals can be Germanic. Which is the reason why France is not included in this board's scope, since it is not a generally Germanic country. Admission therefore is a case to case decision. :)

I respect your right to have a different opinion than me about my ancestors, and I respect you for your willingness to assert your ethnic boundaries. You don't have to include a smiley face at the end of your statement though, you can assert your ethnic boundaries without doing that.

velvet
Tuesday, November 6th, 2018, 04:11 PM
I respect your right to have a different opinion than me about my ancestors, and I respect you for your willingness to assert your ethnic boundaries. You don't have to include a smiley face at the end of your statement though, you can assert your ethnic boundaries without doing that.

Okay, I stop being friendly then.

You come on this board, apparently without reading its mission statement, and start spamming the forum with "France should be included". You base your assumptions on highly unreliable, and in case of 23andme, intentionally wrong groupings and falsified results (the company is widely known to return false results, if they return results at all, that is). While ignoring the question in this thread (#147), you write the anti-national piece "A defense of civic nationalism". furthering the impression that you're not interested in a forum community, but only here to promote multiracialism.

Juthunge
Tuesday, November 6th, 2018, 06:34 PM
In both 23andme and AncestryDNA they classify German and French DNA in the same category.

113778

Below is a link to an article about genetic ancestry in UK.

https://www.ancestry.com/corporate/international/press-releases/DNA-of-the-nation-revealedand-were-not-as-British-as-we-think

It appears The Anglo Saxon admixture in English people is classified as French/German by that DNA testing service. In other words France is so close to Germany in terms of genetics that it is almost impossible to separate the two.
In the very link you've shared, they identify their "British" component with Anglo-Saxon DNA and not the French/German. Which makes no sense either though, unless we are supposed to believe, that the southwestern English have the most Anglo-Saxon ancestry outside of Yorkshire and that Anglo-Saxon ancestry is super-homogenly spread in England and Wales, when even Wales gets 36% British.


In the image below we again see France and Germany linked together and we see The British Isles as their separate entity. [edit: the image below is not a test I personally took, I am just showing it to show people the way these tests lump nationalities together].
113777

This picture alone should tell you, that the component definition of Ancestry.com is just nonsense. If someone's ancestors are 96% from England and he gets just 25% of a British Isles component, something is terribly amiss.


This is a picture of people from Normandy France, where a portion of my French ancestry comes from. I am not posting a picture of Normandy due to being a "nordicist". I don't think so called Nordic people are better or worse than anyone. And who really knows how Nordic Normandy is or whether or not it is Nordic. I don't really care about that.

113779

And this is just some random French farmers

113780

Basically shows they're Western European, who would have guessed...That's a necessary but not a sufficient - by far - precondition to make someone Germanic.


I am not sure where people get this idea French are not Germanic but DNA testing and looking at culture proves otherwise.
Perhaps because of common sense, linguistics, professional DNA testing, looking at culture objectively and not through rose-tinted glasses, history, toponyms, physical anthropology(looking at the averages of peoples, not individual phenotypes) and so on. Pick one.

I'll just leave this here, an actual PCA/"genetic map" of Western Eurasia from an actual professional study.


https://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=113183&stc=1&d=1504441868


Northwestern Europeans from Norway to the Alps and from there to Ireland cluster strongly together. Germanic speaking peoples do so due to shared ancestry from the Migration Period, the Irish, Highland Scots and Welsh cluster with us because of shared ancestry from the Copper Age and Bronze Age, that preceded the split of Celtic and Germanic. That doesn't make those latter three peoples Germanic though because there's more to a Germanic identity than genes.
That this northern ancestry of the British Celts isn't due to Vikings or Anglo-Saxons is obvious because they have very little, if any, of the most typical, almost exclusively, Germanic Y(/paternal)-haplogroups like R1b-U106, I1, certain subclades of I2 and R1a-Z284. And if not even the paternal lines are Germanic how, since the Germanic ancestry in those Celtic areas would hardly be female mediated, would they acquire Germanic ancestry? Osmosis?

The French on the other hand are basically a cluster of their own but one that doesn't actually appear to belong closely together either. Even if you don't include the probable Gascons that cluster with Spanish Basques on that map, the French cluster is larger and more diverse than the whole Celto-Germanic cluster. Some of those Frenchmen hover around the edges of the Celto-Germanic cluster but those are in likelihood the most eastern parts of France, like French Flanders, Elsass and Lotharingia, who were still German speaking in very recent times.

Patrick
Tuesday, November 6th, 2018, 07:46 PM
Below is a map of 'italo-celtic" y-dna in Europe.

113793

Frankish peasants occupied much of northern and western France. There is no basis in textual history or in genetics for the notion the Franks were only nobles within France, they comprised a significant portion of the peasantry. There was assimilation of the Romanized Celtic population but there was a large Frankish peasantry in the north and west, ultimately the Franks were dispersed throughout France so I personally would consider France to be Frankish full stop, but the north and the west would be especially so.

fjaran
Tuesday, November 6th, 2018, 08:00 PM
Map of I1 if anyone is interested:

113795

I will say that I'm not interested in Y markers as they mean nothing at this point, outside of that all of Northwest Europeans are R1b, I1, R1a, and minor I2.

Aelfgar
Tuesday, November 6th, 2018, 09:41 PM
I suggest Patrick uploads his ancestry results to GEDmatch.com and sees how he comes out on Admixture (Heritage) >>> Admixture Proportions (With link to Oracle) >>> Project: Eurogenes >>> K13, K15 and EU Test; click the 'Oracle' button for each test.

If you are genetically 'Nordwest', you'll get a bunch of populations at the top of the lists similar to mine from the K13:

01 Orcadian 5.93
02 Southeast_English 5.98
03 Southwest_English 6.04
04 Irish 6.29
05 North_Dutch 6.56
06 South_Dutch 6.65
07 North_German 6.81
08 Danish 7.02
09 West_Scottish 7.2
10 West_German 7.77
11 Norwegian 8.08
12 Swedish 8.98
13 Austrian 11.47
14 East_German 11.55
15 French (central ?) 11.74
16 North_Swedish 14.06
17 Hungarian 16.35
18 Spanish_Cataluna 18.49
19 Southwest_French 18.6
20 Spanish_Cantabria 19.49

It's not perfect, but that's partially because all those NW pops. are so close to each other. The numbers indicate genetic similarity (the lower the more similar) but are not to be taken too literally since they vary with the particular test. The French sample seems to be from the centre or mixed regional. These are the results for a north east French person:

https://i45.servimg.com/u/f45/19/71/28/23/ne_fre10.jpg

Jonathan Eells
Wednesday, November 7th, 2018, 03:04 AM
I'm not being argumentative, I'm merely playing Devil's Advocate about your point (Velvet) that "there's no place to go". Without question, we still go where ever we want to go and completely take it over when we get there, even if there's somebody else in the neighborhood (so to speak). In fact, this process is so common that social scientists and the news media have given it its own name, and they call it "gentrification". As soon as you call the process of "land taking" by its media name of "gentrification", everybody else's brains turn off and they go "Oh, yeah, gentrification. So, I guess that's gonna happen then." And then it does.

Patrick
Wednesday, November 7th, 2018, 04:28 AM
I might do that Aelfgar, and I am going to admit right now that I was wrong about Scotland and England not being significantly Germanic. From doing some more digging it appears to me now that the lowlands of Scotland as well as much of England has significant Germanic contribution.

Velvet I think its good you are able to speak in a aggressive way to people but I am here to do what I can to help Germanic people, of which I am one according to DNA analysis. So I don't enjoy talking to people who speak in an unprovoked aggressive way towards me, so I am going to put you on ignore. I just want you to know though that I am not trying to discourage you from speaking in the way that you do. I think its good to be able to talk like that to people who are not friends of your tribe. But I really just don't feel like talking with people who are not interested in a civil discussion. I think speaking in a uncivil manner is important but generally people of the same tribe are supposed to be respectful of each other.


Okay, I stop being friendly then.

You come on this board, apparently without reading its mission statement, and start spamming the forum with "France should be included". You base your assumptions on highly unreliable, and in case of 23andme, intentionally wrong groupings and falsified results (the company is widely known to return false results, if they return results at all, that is). While ignoring the question in this thread (#147), you write the anti-national piece "A defense of civic nationalism". furthering the impression that you're not interested in a forum community, but only here to promote multiracialism.

Resist
Friday, November 9th, 2018, 01:03 AM
I recommend using the search function as this topic has been discussed several times already. To sum it up, Skadi does not have a forum dedicated to France/the French, as Skadi's definition of the term Germanic is an ethno-linguistic one. While that naturally includes genetic substance, genetic substance alone is not enough to make someone Germanic - just like linguistics alone is also not enough; Germanicity is a combination of both factors. The French as a whole are a mix of several meta-ethnicities (Romance, Celtic and Germanic), and that I'm afraid is not enough to warrant them a particular section on the forum. Now of course some of the French, like the Alsatians, Lorrainians and Normans, as well as their colonial descendents (Acadians) are more Germanic than others, and the board does recognize this and consequently accepts, from time to time, members of such background. However, the staff usually evaluates them on a case by case basis - we accept those who are partially or peripherally Germanic at best. Skadi promotes, among others, cultural and linguistic preservation in addition to ethnic and genetic preservation.

As far as phenotype is concerned, it usually only tells half the story. Being of a certain phenotype does not automatically qualify someone as Germanic just like being considered "atypical" does not necessarily disqualify. Germanics can vary phenotypically speaking, yet genotypically, they are all related. I am sure you're seen plenty of examples of siblings who do not look like each other, or like their parents or other relatives, and yet they come from the same genepool. For example, a brown eyed Germanic can have a blue eyed gene or viceversa.