PDA

View Full Version : Why Are Only Blondes Considered Pure Germanics?



boudicca
Monday, April 18th, 2011, 03:59 PM
I'm a female whose 5'10 with a mix between red and blonde hair... I'm 100 percent anglo-saxon, so why am I not considered a pure Germanic because my hair isn't blonde... when my DNA and ancestry proves otherwise?

Seems kind of stupid :thumbdown

GroeneWolf
Monday, April 18th, 2011, 04:12 PM
Your statement is incorrect. Not all Germanics necessarily have to have blond hair and not all those with blond hair are Germanics.

Midgård
Monday, April 18th, 2011, 04:14 PM
why am I not considered a pure Germanic because my hair isn't blonde
By whom?
Thread title: Why Are Only Blondes Considered Pure Germanics?
By whom?

boudicca
Monday, April 18th, 2011, 04:25 PM
I saw a thread on here about racial purity and a lot of people replied that a pure Germanic would have blonde hair and blue eyes. Which is stupid because that isn't always the case.

Hilderinc
Monday, April 18th, 2011, 10:31 PM
I saw a thread on here about racial purity and a lot of people replied that a pure Germanic would have blonde hair and blue eyes. Which is stupid because that isn't always the case.

Yes that is stupid.

Read up on the threads in the anthropology section, it's amazing to be able to understand the facts clearly, rather than having to sort through people's incorrect opinions. It is unfortunate, but some people here have unscientific ideas about race.


Oh, and by the way, the most beautiful hair I've ever seen was blonde with a reddish tinge. ;) And of course, the Vikings, which everyone likes to think of as exemplary Germanics, had a predominance of red hair rather than blonde.

Granraude
Monday, April 18th, 2011, 11:08 PM
You are perhaps thinking of Nordicists? Weird bunch.

Red hair was as a matter of fact revered in Norse society ^^

The Aesthete
Tuesday, April 19th, 2011, 03:12 AM
You are Germanic

Hesse
Tuesday, April 19th, 2011, 03:14 AM
You just stated that your hair IS blonde, so why are you asking this??

And red hair is no less Germanic than blonde. I agree with what Hilderinc said reddish blonde is beautiful hair colour you have. I envy it.

Northern Paladin
Tuesday, April 19th, 2011, 03:18 AM
Pure Germanics could have any hair and eye color combination, but there is a common thread among them, and that is that they're all Europid. Pure Germanics could have blond hair, red hair, brown hair, etc, etc. It is true that most have medium-brown to blond hair, but dark-brown to black hair is certainly not impossible.

wehrwolf jack
Tuesday, April 19th, 2011, 03:46 AM
All shades of mankind have a value, however blonde mixed with the pure Nordid features (height, strong jaw, blue eyes, etc.) may be a sign of the highest evolved form of human. That, or the first humans were of this coloring and all other coloring is a sign of a percent of admixture. Just because one has brown eyes, doesn't mean they have to try to disprove this truth in nature. How annoying is that when people try to deny the heirarchy just because they aren't perfect themselves! It reminds me of people defending circumcision just because they are cut. The blonde coloring is a eugenics ideal that can be bred in all Europeans through racial hygiene.

boudicca
Tuesday, April 19th, 2011, 04:59 AM
@ hilderinc
Thanks and I will check out the anthropology section.

Thanks to everyone who responded, your clearing things up for me. :)

@ wehrwolf jack
Shouldn't you be on a KKK forum somewhere? Explain to me how a women with a strong jaw line is in a hierarchy of nature. I would start questioning if they were of the male species. On a man, it's very attractive. On a woman not so much! So because my hair is of the Golden/strawberry blond variety you're suddenly superior to me?

You sound like you have little genital syndrome. It's people like you who ruin Germanic history. It's like it can't be talked about without someone assuming you're a racist. You remind me of the short guy who always tries to beef up and fight people, like they have something to prove; or the little chiuaua who barks excessively to try and show there a big tough dog, when really there just a tiny speck.

BTW if we descend from Neanderthals, you're theory on a blond superiority would be wrong as DNA tests proved them to be of the red headed variety. No one is superior to anyone because of their race or hair colour http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-489758/Neanderthal-man-redhead-say-scientists.html

One Love

TechFin
Tuesday, April 19th, 2011, 07:29 AM
It's not just Germanics; its whites in general. If someone has black hair, they are assumed to have non-White ancestry. This is probably the main reason many regard Italians as non-white at times.

It is probably why the Irish weren't considered white at one time, they probably showed darker hair color beside blonde.

It may sound bad, but thats how some people feel. They think of most pure whites as being blonde.

wehrwolf jack
Tuesday, April 19th, 2011, 08:08 AM
@ wehrwolf jack
Shouldn't you be on a KKK forum somewhere?

shouldn't you be getting brainwashed by MTV? Nordicism isn't the as sick of an idea as the stuff going through your head...


Explain to me how a women with a strong jaw line is in a hierarchy of nature.

I knew a Polish girl who thought German girls were ugly because they had strong jaw lines. Most female models are chosen for a stronger jawline than the pinhead girls.


So because my hair is of the Golden/strawberry blond variety you're suddenly superior to me?

no, you're missing the point. Himmler was a Nordicist and look at him. you have your place above brunettes in idealistic hair coloring, but below platinum blondes. it's one of many traits that fit the post-human angelic ideal that reflect the inner soul of a human.

Sigurd
Tuesday, April 19th, 2011, 09:46 AM
Pure Germanics could have blond hair, red hair, brown hair, etc, etc. It is true that most have medium-brown to blond hair, but dark-brown to black hair is certainly not impossible.

Indeed. Since it would be absurd to assume that our ancestors experienced full depigmentation, it would also be absurd to assume that only blonde hair could spring from such a source. In fact, it is possible for four grandparents of medium-blonde hair to have a grand-child of brown hair, such is only natural.

The whole red-hair thing is unrelated; the red/non-red scale is a question of one's level of Pheomelanine, whilst the blonde/brown scale is a question of one's level of Eumelanine. Different types of melanine, different effects; one could have intermediate levels of eumelanine and high levels of pheomelanine and come out a shining auburn.

Either way, my most self-quoted piece, yet again, including the addendum I added last time around. :P




Genetics in a nutshell.

Eye pigment is made up out of 0-6 dominant genes. The parents can pass on the sum of both of their dominant genes at maximum:

0 - light blue; 1 - grey-blue; 2 grey/blue-green; 3 - green to hazel; 4 - medium brown; 5 - dark brown; 6 - black.

Hance two parents with blue-green eyes could have children that have an eye color between light blue and medium brown.

Hair pigment is mainly made up of Melanine. There you have Eumelanine and Pheomelanine, but it is enough to concentrate on Eumelanine since it answers the question.

Assume for the sake of it, that half of the genes determining hair colour come from the mother and father and that each of them pass on 4 genes...now let's use "h" for light pigment and "H" for dark pigment.

hhhhhhhh - white blonde
HHHHHHHH - black

Now assuming that both parents are dark blonde (HHHhhhhh - HHHhhhhh) - [which could well be possible, if their parents were both middle-blonde then they have a good chance to have anything up to light brown[ - all combinations between white blonde (hhhhhhhh) and darkish medium brown (HHHHHHhh) become possible.

In a way this could work the other way round as well. I will use a family example to highlight this, in fact that is what happened with the sister of my father: Grandmother, dark brown (HHHHHHhh) + Grandfather, light brown (HHHHhhhh) = Aunt, medium blonde (HHhhhhhh)

Hence, it becomes possible that the children of two blonde, blue-eyed parents can indeed be brown-eyed and brown-haired. Now even assuming that all of their ancestors were of pure Nordid phenotype (whose typical pigmentation is assumed to be medium blonde), so will the children be of pure Nordid phenotype (there are no other racial influences for them) - since, even though the children will have "wrong" pigment, the facial and bodily features will be manifestly Nordid.

Anything else is a simplification of genetics to push an agenda.

Since the vast majority of blond-haired people don't tend to be white-blonde but generally medium-blonde such is possible in as little as two generations even if all four grandparents were medium-blonde. With two dark-blonde parents it is possible in one generation.

The complete converse - with all four grand-parents being dark brown (HHHHHHhh) and both parents being light-brown (HHHHhhhh) actually makes it theoretically possible for the child to be absolute über-recessive white-blonde (hhhhhhhh). The chances for this to happen are fairly slim, as "in doubt" dominance prevails, but they are mathematically possible even if statistically comparedly rare. ;)

Hope that helped answer your question a little. For the sub-racial question as to why we have Neolithic (Atlantonordoid spectrum) and Cro-Magnid specimens amongst our population; that is more complex, but in essence even skull findings would dictate that since IE ethnogenesis, and already before the period in which to put Germanic ethnogenesis, both strains existed within the population that would later result in Germanics. :)

Einarr
Tuesday, April 19th, 2011, 11:17 PM
It is probably why the Irish weren't considered white at one time, they probably showed darker hair color beside blonde.

That isn't why at all... it was due to slandering/propaganda by the nation which they had long been in conflict with, right to the East. I'm sure you know which one. That same propaganda continued itself throughout the Anglo oriented world for a long time.

Hesse
Wednesday, April 20th, 2011, 06:40 AM
That only blondes can be considered pure European is way too far fetched.

However I used to think the same thing and it made me depressed as Helheim because it made me feel like not a pure white sometimes becuase of having dark hair colour.

Believe me I have been dealing with the same issue, and there is still part of me that does, but I just have to tell myself that evidence has proven that not to be true at all.

In reality though whether you're blonde or not doesn't mean jack when it comes to race and racial identity.

Take for example I have dark hair, so does most of my family, and I can prove that were very white and very Germanic. Even my ancestors who are 100% German had dark hair. We are NOT a product of racial mixing, I can guarantee.

If you can trace your ancestry to Germanic roots, you are Germanic, irregardless of what colour hair you have. Just because you don't have fair hair like most of your kinsmen doesn't mean that you are not part of that ethnicity. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

RoyBatty
Wednesday, April 20th, 2011, 08:15 AM
Why Are Only Blondes Considered Pure Germanics?

They're not and many blondes aren't Germanic.



I saw a thread on here about racial purity and a lot of people replied that a pure Germanic would have blonde hair and blue eyes.


You'll see all kinds of threads with all kinds of opinions in them. Not all opinions, news sources, claims or articles are necessarily accurate.


Which is stupid because that isn't always the case.

That's right.

As for the bickering about who wins first prize at the Genetics and Beauty Farmyard Fair, it's sooo :gay: :D

Sybren
Wednesday, April 20th, 2011, 11:20 AM
All shades of mankind have a value, however blonde mixed with the pure Nordid features (height, strong jaw, blue eyes, etc.) may be a sign of the highest evolved form of human. That, or the first humans were of this coloring and all other coloring is a sign of a percent of admixture. Just because one has brown eyes, doesn't mean they have to try to disprove this truth in nature. How annoying is that when people try to deny the heirarchy just because they aren't perfect themselves! It reminds me of people defending circumcision just because they are cut. The blonde coloring is a eugenics ideal that can be bred in all Europeans through racial hygiene.
And blonde, blue-eyed people áre in any case "perfect" and "pure"? :tired2:

My own mother could be considered a prototype "aryan" by her morphology, facial characteristics and pigmentation, being Dalofaelid/Nordid. However, she has some grandparents who were rather dark pigmented and also grandparents who were more in the Alpinid direction morphology-wise.

So what does it actually say? In my opinion, when a person talks about being "pure" and such, he or she just doesn't know much about genealogy, genepools, recombinations of traits, etc.

And when was this time when the Germanic population was exclusively blonde? Take for example the Frisians, they are said to be one of the blondest Germanics. When were they exclusively blonde? Certainly not 500 years ago, because f.e. Frisian folk hero Grutte Pier, who was born around 1480 is documented to had a dark complexion, a big black beard, etc. Vikings also were said to be predominantly red-haired and some brown and even black-haired. It's even in the names of some...

I know i sound like a jealous non-blonde person, but come on, we are grown people who continue to talk on and on and on about the coloration of ones hair and which is superior to the other :| Do you think our ancestors were bickering on about such things? Do you think the vikings were having deep feelings of insecurity because one had lighter hair than theirs? Come on people...

No wonder our lands are being overtaken by foreigners, our women seduced by them and our men scared by them. We've become some pansies who need to show our superiority by saying online we are more "pure" and "higher in the hierarchy" than the next man. :tired2: That is essentially what it comes down to.

Astrid Runa
Wednesday, April 20th, 2011, 07:02 PM
As I've said many a time before, hair colour doesn't matter. I have dark blonde hair (most would call it "mouse brown"). My ex has dark hair and dark eyes, yet tracing his family line, he is Germanic. My Dutch friend has dark hair and dark eyes, yet his family line is Germanic and so on.

The only thing that should matter to anyone is skin colour. If they're white, why should their hair colour or eye colour matter? It shouldn't. "Pure" Germanics don't exist, that much is freakin' obvious. So much racial mixing has gone on that there's no such thing as a "pure" anything anymore. My biological Mother had dark hair and dark eyes, yet her ancestry was Germanic too.

Don't be so damn picky. It's stupid and annoying.

Ingvaeonic
Thursday, April 21st, 2011, 05:15 AM
There are plenty brown-haired and red-haired Germanic people. For myself, in what's left of my hair, I have light brown hair mixed with sort of darkish blond hair, and blond eyebrows, and my beard when I grew it used to be a mix of blond and dark ginger, but now is mostly grey:~(, (though the moustache is still mostly blond if I grow it; my moustache is the same colour as my eyebrows.:thumbup)

Goomer
Thursday, May 26th, 2011, 07:07 AM
Yes that is stupid.

Oh, and by the way, the most beautiful hair I've ever seen was blonde with a reddish tinge. ;) And of course, the Vikings, which everyone likes to think of as exemplary Germanics, had a predominance of red hair rather than blonde.

I absolutely love strawberry blonde hair!! Particularly the lighter kind....the sort of hair that looks to be the perfect fusion of red and gold.

Oh, and Boudicca....love your screenname. It is the name I go by in another online forum!

From your description, you are pretty close to 100% Germanic. I think there is also a blurring of distinction between Germanic/Celtic culture...for the two cultures have much in common.

Frostmane
Wednesday, June 1st, 2011, 06:15 AM
People associate light hair and eyes with pure Germanics because they are (save a few exceptions) mainly a white feature. If you have two Germanic kids, one blond haired and blue eyed and one brown haired and brown eyed. It's likely, and logical that you would think the light variant to be the one with a greater chance of being near strictly of Germanic heritage.

Ofcourse as has been stated mutiple times in this thread it's obviously false and dark haired/eyed people can still easily be of pure Germanic heritage.

In the past there were a bunch of idiotic psuedo Nazi's at the school I attended who quite obviously treated people with light hair and eyes better then others, and I imagine there's tons of people like that who do so even subconciously. I was kind of an odd ball, with light hair but dark eyes. ;)

Ingvaeonic
Wednesday, June 1st, 2011, 06:43 AM
I'm a female whose 5'10 with a mix between red and blonde hair... I'm 100 percent anglo-saxon, so why am I not considered a pure Germanic because my hair isn't blonde... when my DNA and ancestry proves otherwise?

Seems kind of stupid :thumbdown

I agree. Germanic folk exhibit a variety of hair and eye colours. It is just blond hair is common among Germanic peoples, as it is among other European ethnic groups. Plenty of Germanic men have a differing hair colours and many Germanic women are brunettes and red-haired.

Autosomal Viking
Wednesday, June 1st, 2011, 08:21 AM
Genetics in a nutshell.

Eye pigment is made up out of 0-6 dominant genes. The parents can pass on the sum of both of their dominant genes at maximum:

0 - light blue; 1 - grey-blue; 2 grey/blue-green; 3 - green to hazel; 4 - medium brown; 5 - dark brown; 6 - black.

Hance two parents with blue-green eyes could have children that have an eye color between light blue and medium brown.

Hair pigment is mainly made up of Melanine. There you have Eumelanine and Pheomelanine, but it is enough to concentrate on Eumelanine since it answers the question.

Assume for the sake of it, that half of the genes determining hair colour come from the mother and father and that each of them pass on 4 genes...now let's use "h" for light pigment and "H" for dark pigment.

hhhhhhhh - white blonde
HHHHHHHH - black

Now assuming that both parents are dark blonde (HHHhhhhh - HHHhhhhh) - [which could well be possible, if their parents were both middle-blonde then they have a good chance to have anything up to light brown[ - all combinations between white blonde (hhhhhhhh) and darkish medium brown (HHHHHHhh) become possible.

In a way this could work the other way round as well. I will use a family example to highlight this, in fact that is what happened with the sister of my father: Grandmother, dark brown (HHHHHHhh) + Grandfather, light brown (HHHHhhhh) = Aunt, medium blonde (HHhhhhhh)

Hence, it becomes possible that the children of two blonde, blue-eyed parents can indeed be brown-eyed and brown-haired. Now even assuming that all of their ancestors were of pure Nordid phenotype (whose typical pigmentation is assumed to be medium blonde), so will the children be of pure Nordid phenotype (there are no other racial influences for them) - since, even though the children will have "wrong" pigment, the facial and bodily features will be manifestly Nordid.

Anything else is a simplification of genetics to push an agenda.

This doesn't seem correct. My grandparents who have blue eyes had six children. All six have blue eyes. Are you going to tell me that this was just chance that one of my aunts or uncles doesn't have brown eyes? Likewise my grandmother had strawberry blonde hair and my grandfather is homozygous for brown hair, meaning every one of my aunts and uncles received a blond allele and a brown allele for brown hair. Simple Mendelian genetics explains their inheritance pattern better than the one you provided. The one you provided is how skin color is inherited.

hyidi
Wednesday, June 1st, 2011, 09:18 AM
The only thing that should matter to anyone is skin colour. If they're white, why should their hair colour or eye colour matter? It shouldn't. "Pure" Germanics don't exist, that much is freakin' obvious. So much racial mixing has gone on that there's no such thing as a "pure" anything anymore. My biological Mother had dark hair and dark eyes, yet her ancestry was Germanic too.

Don't be so damn picky. It's stupid and annoying. Excatly! no such thing as pure Germanics! The next best thing is to declare all Europeans with Germanic traits as Germanics.

Responding to the OP lass-

Red/blondish hair is a Germanic trait,so,who ever told you that you were not Germanic enough?

It's like how the Germans are more considered Germanic than the English, Swiss,Noweians,swedish ect...but really,all these nations are just as Germanic as the Germans are.

Sigurd
Wednesday, June 1st, 2011, 01:07 PM
This doesn't seem correct. My grandparents who have blue eyes had six children. All six have blue eyes. Are you going to tell me that this was just chance that one of my aunts or uncles doesn't have brown eyes?

I didn't say it was the rule, I said it was possible, considering the post originated in a thread where someone claimed that four blonde/blue folks could not have brown/brown children, to which I mentioned it would be possible under given circumstances, which was explained in the quote above.


Likewise my grandmother had strawberry blonde hair and my grandfather is homozygous for brown hair, meaning every one of my aunts and uncles received a blond allele and a brown allele for brown hair.

Which would statistically make at least 50% of children they'd have with a homozygously blonde also blonde and only 50% brown-haired; whilst it'd make 100% of children they'd have with a homozygous brown brown-haired and 75% of children with another heterozygote.

Cases like these wouldn't explain incidences like happened with a girl who went into my class at an early school: Where all four grandparents were brown-haired, both parents and all uncles were brown-haired, all siblings were brown-haired but she was quite a light blonde. And would not explain my auntie either.

Hence my proposition of a model where one inherits two allele pairs from each parent. Which would also explain why strong blondism in the great-grandparental situation can render the old rule of "one grandparent at least must be blonde" somewhat void. ;)


Simple Mendelian genetics explains their inheritance pattern better than the one you provided. The one you provided is how skin color is inherited.

I adapted mine from the information off a geneticist's page, using the same H/h notation. In either instance, a single allele pair inherited from each parent does not account for the variation in blonde resp. brown shading, two allele pairs from either parent on the other hand (making inheritance patterns from hhhh-hhhh to HHHH-HHHH possible) explain it much better.

Meaning that a person can also be heterozygously blonde (which leads to the possibility of brown-haired children even with other heterozygously blonde folks); I consider the possibility of blondism to be rather stable but the probability ("in dubio, foscatus") to be rather unstable.

That being said, as concerns me personally, I wouldn't fuss with your model, as it would highly increase my own chances (by the red hint a dominant/recessive pair; by my mother's blonde hair a dominant/recessive pair) to have blonde and red-haired children quite a bit (to at least 25% each even with a woman of the same genetic background).

Your model says: Possibility for blondism is unstable, but probability where genetically give is stable; mine says the contrary, which IMHO makes a better empirical test when projected onto trends in the overall population regarding the occurence of blondism.

My model also explains how said auntie, under the preposition of existence of a "heterozygously blonde", ended up having three brown/brown children with a man who was merely a heterozygote brown-haired and light eyes. :)

Autosomal Viking
Wednesday, June 1st, 2011, 07:37 PM
Which would statistically make at least 50% of children they'd have with a homozygously blonde also blonde and only 50% brown-haired; whilst it'd make 100% of children they'd have with a homozygous brown brown-haired and 75% of children with another heterozygote.

Cases like these wouldn't explain incidences like happened with a girl who went into my class at an early school: Where all four grandparents were brown-haired, both parents and all uncles were brown-haired, all siblings were brown-haired but she was quite a light blonde. And would not explain my auntie either.

Hence my proposition of a model where one inherits two allele pairs from each parent. Which would also explain why strong blondism in the great-grandparental situation can render the old rule of "one grandparent at least must be blonde" somewhat void.

Sigurd, I'm glad you responded, but you are basing your model on the case of the exception. Your percentages are correct, but the simple Mendelian model does indeed both explain your blonde friend with four brown grandparents. The "one grandparent at least must be blonde" rule is foreign to me and does not make sense under simple Mendelian genetics. The simplest scenario of your blonde friend is that two grandparents were heterozygous blond and brown haired. Two of their kids (her parents) were also heterozygous blond and brown haired. Then their blond alleles finally got together and made her blonde.


I adapted mine from the information off a geneticist's page, using the same H/h notation. In either instance, a single allele pair inherited from each parent does not account for the variation in blonde resp. brown shading, two allele pairs from either parent on the other hand (making inheritance patterns from hhhh-hhhh to HHHH-HHHH possible) explain it much better.

True, simple Mendelian genetics has a harder time explaining the many shades of hair colors, unless of course you allow for more than one gene locus. But for broad generalized color: blond versus brown, it seems the best model. Mendel's model supposes stable blondism, as in you either carry the gene, have two of the gene and are blond, or you don't.

Two blonds having a brown haired child seems really out of the norm, that is why I consider using Mendel's model the best unless you are trying to account for the exception specifically.


Your model says: Possibility for blondism is unstable, but probability where genetically give is stable; mine says the contrary, which IMHO makes a better empirical test when projected onto trends in the overall population regarding the occurence of blondism.

I'm not sure what you mean by stable versus unstable.


My model also explains how said auntie, under the preposition of existence of a "heterozygously blonde", ended up having three brown/brown children with a man who was merely a heterozygote brown-haired and light eyes.

Mendel's model would work for your relatives. Two heterozygous blonds can definitely have three brown haired children. What were all their eye colors?

Wittmann
Saturday, June 4th, 2011, 11:35 AM
I agree with most people on here, although the "traditional image" of Germanics is a tall individual with blond hair and blue eyes, that's not the only appearance we have. My father has dark brown hair and brown eyes, my mother has a blonde-brown color and green eyes, both my sisters have brown hair and brown eyes, I have light blond hair and blue eyes, one of the things that separates us from say, Asians, as an example, is the differences within our own ethnicity, although not to say that Japanese, for an example, don't have variations among them, some have a redish-brown color oddly enough, while others have a jet black color.

Unregistered
Thursday, August 18th, 2011, 01:36 AM
The blonde hair, blue eyes stereotype comes from the "Germania" by a Roman Senator named Tacitus. He described Germans as having "wild blue eyes, blonde hair and huge frames". Although generally accepted as a credible source, whether he ever actually witnessed these things himself is debated.

Hevneren
Friday, August 19th, 2011, 03:07 PM
I'm actually tired of the blond/blue eyed obsession. I read questions and commentaries online about "blond Scandinavian women", and frankly it's disrespectful because they're talked about like pieces of meat with no personality. I love my Nordic "sisters" and many of them are highly educated, smart, funny, talented, strong-willed and healthy. Yet, they're supposed to be stick-thin, bleached blond airheads? Most of the depictions of us Scandinavians aren't really of Scandinavians at all ("Swedish" Bikini Team anyone?).

Frankly, blondness is of little or no concern to me with regard to physical attractiveness or what I value about myself or others, which is part of why the blondness hysteria annoys me. I actually have ash/honey coloured blond hair myself, as well as dark blue/grayish blue eyes, and I would hate to be reduced to my hair colour and eye colour by some Nordicist or blondness fetishist.

Another reason why I don't like this blondness obsession is that many women bleach their hair and in 9 out of 10 cases (I might be exaggerating, but it's close to the truth), it simply looks fake, cheap and not very attractive. The girl might be very attractive in general, but the washed out bleached hair actually makes her less attractive to me, because it looks fake.

I don't discriminate in terms of hair or eye colour when I'm attracted to a girl, and I think all shades have a unique quality, and I don't think there's any rule that says you need to be super blond/blue eyed to be a "real Germanic".

Leonhardt
Saturday, August 20th, 2011, 11:18 PM
Nordic features (I) are centered in the northern countries, whereas Celtic features (R1b) are found through all of western Europe in many non-Germanic countries, so Nordic features are a stronger indicator. Nordic Celtic mixes are common.

However, I, R1b, and R1a were found in western Europe already many thousands of years ago in the pre-tribal days.

Most white children are born with blue eyes, but a percent of them change to brown eyes after a few days. It is simply a darker color. Blue is a variation of brown eyes.

Catterick
Monday, December 12th, 2016, 10:24 AM
Germanic is an ethno-linguistic grouping. It has Alpinoid, Nordic and Mediterranean strains plus combinations you see as ie. Dinaric, Noric, mixed alpine. Even in Scandinavia most Germanics are not blond or blue eyed, Norway is teeming with darker inhabitants. Historically the Norwegians were aware the "strails" of Norway came from a different origin than the elites reflected in Finn- toponyms but there is no question they have been Germanics since before the Viking Age unlike mixture further north where Lapponid strains are clearly discernible.

In England most Anglo-Saxons were of what Coon called the Anglo-Saxon type from the mainland. As they moved inwards through Britain they absorbed Celtic/Romanised inhabitants often darker; they were later joined by Danes in E Britain. NW England and SW Scotland have little to do with English blood deriving from the Britons. Historic SE Scotland (the Lothians) are as Germanic as (the rest of) Northumbria.

Everywhere there were substrates in many places there was a temporary superstrate. The Slavic snowfall reached very far west; the Huns introduced a true Mongoloid strain into Germanic Italy and Hungary but like the local German languages they did not last.

http://babaev.tripod.com/tree/norteur.gif

http://www.the-savoisien.com/blog/public/img8/.Coon_Carleton_Stevens_The_Races_of_Euro pe_m.jpg

Germaniathane
Tuesday, December 13th, 2016, 02:13 AM
The blonde hair, blue eyes stereotype comes from the "Germania" by a Roman Senator named Tacitus. He described Germans as having "wild blue eyes, blonde hair and huge frames". Although generally accepted as a credible source, whether he ever actually witnessed these things himself is debated.

No. Actually Tacitus describes the people of Germania as people with reddish hair, bluish-gray eyes, huge body frames, not blond. The original Proto-German is a red-head, like some of the people, we see in England.