PDA

View Full Version : Colonials as Europeans



Pages : [1] 2

Deary
Sunday, October 12th, 2008, 10:02 PM
What do you think of Colonials (Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc.) who identify as European? Specifically, I refer to those whose families have been in the New World for some generations, did not inherit any European traditions but who try to practice and pass down the language, culture and history of their distant ancestors and even wish to move to Europe. Europeans, do you accept these people as one of your own, and Colonials, how do they make you feel? Why and amongst who do you believe this trend occurs and is it detrimental to our country and the countries of others?

SouthernBoy
Sunday, October 12th, 2008, 10:06 PM
What do you think of Americans who identify as European? Specifically, I refer to those whose families have been here for some generations, did not inherit any European traditions but who try to practice and pass down the language, culture and history of their distant ancestors and even wish to move to Europe. They are bothersome. We have plenty of uniquely American traditions of which to be proud. By instilling "European" traditions in Americans of mixed nationality, you weaken the unity amongst Americans of European descent and strengthen the idea that multiculturalism is a healthy way of thinking.

Loyalist
Sunday, October 12th, 2008, 10:45 PM
I don't see it as particularly contradictory or injurious for an American, or other Colonial, to hold on to their Europeans roots, even if their heritage is quite distant. My most recent European ancestors, two generations back to be precise, hail from Scotland, Northern Ireland, and England, and, in my own experience, the only real culture to hold onto there is a fondness for football (the real kind) and the odd plate of fish and chips every now and then. It may be a unique case in Canada, however, as most institutions here stem from the country's British origins, but, in any case, the divide between Anglosphere nations isn't as significant as it is between us and continental Europe. I make it a point of remembering my more distant German and Dutch roots as well, and that includes learning the languages, but I don't place great emphasis on it.

Generally speaking, "ethnic" Europeans in the Colonies, such as Italians, Poles, and Portuguese retain their identities, including the cultural aspects of such, for generations, and this has allowed them to remain more mono-ethnic compared to older Colonials, who mostly forgot about the ways of their ancestors and focused on a melting-pot society. It worked, and in many ways was a good idea, before non-Northerners started turning up. However, holding on to a unique, ancestral ethnic identity is more likely to discourage inter-ethnic mixing and thus preserve Colonial identity much more effectively. That shouldn't suggest a 12th-generation German-American should stop speaking English and throw on lederhosen every day, but they should know and appreciate their ancestral identity, in addition to their American home, and keep their blood in mind when choosing a partner and a way of life for their children. As American, and wider Colonial, identity owes its origins primarily to Germanic settlers to begin with, old-stock Colonials are in a unique and difficult situation when it comes cultural practices, and for this reason I do not oppose a reasonable mix of both.

Hauke Haien
Sunday, October 12th, 2008, 10:49 PM
Ethnic identities are group identities. It is not possible to be part of an identity without being part of such a group. One of my own in a swamp of foreigners will quickly join the bog people and turn into a case for resuscitation and re-assimilation, at best. I consider those Germans as my people who form distinct enclaves and fulfill the trinity of biological, linguistic and cultural conformity. Improved communication has made it easier for individuals to try and be part of an ethnic group far away, but this is superficial and does not permeate the entire existence of that person. It is more like enjoying pieces of foreign culture within a personal life that is distinct and belongs to another culture and nation. As far as relocation to Europe is concerned, their efforts are obviously a helpful prearrangement, but assimilation has to be completed among us.

I have made the experience that those people who actually move here are highly motivated and educated as well as exceptionally loyal to their new/old nation. I consider them a boon. Conversely, their departure might be a loss for their nation of birth, but less so if they were not loyal to begin with and if dissatisfaction with their country is the very reason for their desire to leave.

Maelstrom
Sunday, October 12th, 2008, 10:58 PM
Such an issue often comes up. I'm reminded of that old saying "(insert ethnicity) by blood, American by choice".

It is my belief that there is too much 'choice' as far as that is concerned. I think one of the best ways to stem this would be to abolish dual citizenship. Some people I know in NZ even have US citizenship even though they've had basically nothing to do with the place.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Sunday, October 12th, 2008, 11:41 PM
I don't see it as particularly contradictory or injurious for an American, or other Colonial, to hold on to their Europeans roots, even if their heritage is quite distant. My most recent European ancestors, two generations back to be precise, hail from Scotland, Northern Ireland, and England, and, in my own experience, the only real culture to hold onto there is a fondness for football (the real kind) and the odd plate of fish and chips every now and then. It may be a unique case in Canada, however, as most institutions here stem from the country's British origins, but, in any case, the divide between Anglosphere nations isn't as significant as it is between us and continental Europe. I make it a point of remembering my more distant German and Dutch roots as well, and that includes learning the languages, but I don't place great emphasis on it.

Generally speaking, "ethnic" Europeans in the Colonies, such as Italians, Poles, and Portuguese retain their identities, including the cultural aspects of such, for generations, and this has allowed them to remain more mono-ethnic compared to older Colonials, who mostly forgot about the ways of their ancestors and focused on a melting-pot society. It worked, and in many ways was a good idea, before non-Northerners started turning up. However, holding on to a unique, ancestral ethnic identity is more likely to discourage inter-ethnic mixing and thus preserve Colonial identity much more effectively. That shouldn't suggest a 12th-generation German-American should stop speaking English and throw on lederhosen every day, but they should know and appreciate their ancestral identity, in addition to their American home, and keep their blood in mind when choosing a partner and a way of life for their children. As American, and wider Colonial, identity owes its origins primarily to Germanic settlers to begin with, old-stock Colonials are in a unique and difficult situation when it comes cultural practices, and for this reason I do not oppose a reasonable mix of both.I agree. There is a reason why there are such names as New England, New York, Nova Scotia, New South Wales, New Sweden, with New France, New Netherland and New Brunswick also, apart from the generally non-White colonies of New Spain and New Archangel. This is the baseline of the native people; any other Europeans without colonial founder ancestry are encouraged to follow their own heritage as underclass supplements of other Whites and tolerate colonial hegemony.

TheGreatest
Sunday, October 12th, 2008, 11:59 PM
What do you think of Colonials (Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc.) who identify as European? Specifically, I refer to those whose families have been in the New World for some generations, did not inherit any European traditions but who try to practice and pass down the language, culture and history of their distant ancestors and even wish to move to Europe. Europeans, do you accept these people as one of your own, and Colonials, how do they make you feel? Why and amongst who do you believe this trend occurs and is it detrimental to our country and the countries of others?


Americans do not identify with Europe. There are a few Australians and Canadians who identify as being ''Commonwealth Nationalists''.


They are bothersome. We have plenty of uniquely American traditions of which to be proud. By instilling "European" traditions in Americans of mixed nationality, you weaken the unity amongst Americans of European descent and strengthen the idea that multiculturalism is a healthy way of thinking.

Incorrect. Maybe in the South but there is little identity elsewhere in the United States. The only culture I see in the PNW is ''Globalized Germanic''

QuietWind
Monday, October 13th, 2008, 12:13 AM
This topic, in part, reminds me of one on hyphenated-Americanism (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=51757) a few years back.

Jagerzen
Monday, October 13th, 2008, 12:21 AM
Quote: Americans do not identify with Europe.

I beg to differ. Some of us do.

Maelstrom
Monday, October 13th, 2008, 12:27 AM
Americans do not identify with Europe. There are a few Australians and Canadians who identify as being ''Commonwealth Nationalists''.


I identify as such. I believe that Australia, Canada and NZ share a common identity and because of such immigration to my country from these countries would be less detrimental than any others (excluding the UK). Australia, Canada and NZ all share a common identity and I feel that this makes it easier for us to identify, as a nation, as being European in culture and outlook.

The US on the other hand appears to lack that European national identity (I cannot think of a more accurate term at the moment). Sure, you have the WASP, but I think that European identity in the US is mostly a family affair as opposed to a national feeling.

TheGreatest
Monday, October 13th, 2008, 12:38 AM
Quote: Americans do not identify with Europe.

I beg to differ. Some of us do.

See the Australian post. Most Americans do not identify with Europe. Americans who do are often ridiculed and mocked.



This topic, in part, reminds me of one on hyphenated-Americanism (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=51757) a few years back.

Who isn't hyphenated? All the local Chinese were all estatic with glee when the Oylmpics were held in Bejing, and not a single one of them was waving an American flag

Jute
Monday, October 13th, 2008, 03:32 AM
The US on the other hand appears to lack that European national identity (I cannot think of a more accurate term at the moment). Sure, you have the WASP, but I think that European identity in the US is mostly a family affair as opposed to a national feeling.What you wrote about it being a "family affair" and not a "national feeling" (brilliantly put) is absolutely true TODAY. There is today a quaint and very widespread American hobby of genealogy, which -- and no one would admit to this, but it is true-- which is all about them trying to grab at some straws of real identity [as opposed to empty-consumer-identities] while trying to stay afloat in the pathetic cesspool of post-1965-stock immigrants that most U.S. metropolitan areas are now.

However- three generations ago it was the opposite. It was definitely a national feeling. Witness the stunning rise of the nationalist [pro "nordish"-protestant] Ku Klux Klan...from hardly existing when WWI was ending, to dominating state politics in many states by 1924 ; with millions of members, up to one in three adult white men in some states was a member of that nationalist revival group. They got the 1923 Immigration Law passed [finalized in 1924].

The mentality of those men is gone today, with only a scattered bunch of people making a stand, usually calling for "assimilation":thumbdown. Why has that national feeling died? Many will answer this in many ways, but I think simplest is to say that too much power in the USA landed in the hands of nonmembers of that "nationality" [that the men who passed the 1924 Immigration Law were conscious of], and those "nonmembers" used their power to help strangle it. Still today they "beat the dead horse" almost daily, witness Obama. (Ethnic Jews are a large part of this, but just the same are someone like congresswoman Nancy Pelosi or Ted Kennedy. [In 2006 there was an immigration-amnesty vote, and the Senators voted based more on their ethnoreligious background than on their party, with Anglo-Germanic Protestants almost all voting No, and Catholics/Jews almost all voting Yes.]) Also today, almost 100 years after the end of major European immigration into the USA, it is several generations of potential mixing, so the likeliness of someone having a nonGermanic grandparent or so is high.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Monday, October 13th, 2008, 06:10 AM
I do not wish to be a fifth column in my own country. I identify with the founding culture, not the additives. Maybe you want to live in a bunker somewhere and let the rabble take over by doing nothing about it? You complain and point fingers, but offer nothing substantial as an operation to perform for saving this nation.

Jute
Monday, October 13th, 2008, 01:35 PM
I do not wish to be a fifth column in my own country. I identity with the founding culture, not the additives. Maybe you want to live in a bunker somewhere and let the rabble take over by doing nothing about it? You complain and point fingers, but offer nothing substantial as an operation to perform for saving this nation.Who are you addressing here?

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Monday, October 13th, 2008, 03:46 PM
Ah, so you took notice? Does the prospect of doing other than whine, sound interesting at all? I see and hear a lot of this directed at the States, supposedly the worst country in the world.

Resurgam
Monday, October 13th, 2008, 03:56 PM
I have read in books from around the turn of the 20th century, that there was a more distinct general American culture in the 1850s despite sharp regional distinctions. One author said that the process was hopelessly reversed after the waves of industrial immigrants. Other big effect was the post-WWII mobility of Americans moving across the country for jobs. You had the previous movement West in the prior century but this pattern was totally different in that it destroyed small-town America. I have heard somewhere that it was easier to get a mortgage on a house back then than in Europe starting in the 50s so if a family could move a step up they would.

I don't know what the future holds for the United States. I think the whole idea of America as the universal nation of the wretched refuse from all teeming shores might cause more identity problems for the soon minority northwestern-European population down the road. Even to me, it is hard to get my mind around the fact that I am considered simply white but of no ethnicity when people like me are about to slip into the minority. I predict something is going to change at some point because I think many will begin to be unhappy with going into the oblivion of nihilistic materialism.

The hyper-individualism in the United States and the rest of the Western World has gone way too far. Rejection of the family and kin ties are the biggest problem. I have a further comment on Jute's remarks on the widespread American hobby of genealogy. I have done extensive genealogy work for both sides of the family. I began to collect information when I began to realize that my grandparents generation was disappearing along with the information they had that could die with them. I almost feel as though young men like me have to reconstruct the complete story of my family's past due to the damn Baby Boomer generation complete ambivalence in passing this stuff on. I have talked to parents' cousins who I know have boxes of the stuff in their attics waiting for the place to be lost in a fire or something. But they have absolutely no time or interest to let a family member to have access to that stuff. After all there are more important things like trying to acquire some more possessions before you die than wasting time with that.

Nachtengel
Tuesday, October 14th, 2008, 03:34 PM
What do you think of Colonials (Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc.) who identify as European? Specifically, I refer to those whose families have been in the New World for some generations, did not inherit any European traditions but who try to practice and pass down the language, culture and history of their distant ancestors and even wish to move to Europe. Europeans, do you accept these people as one of your own, and Colonials, how do they make you feel?
No. Some of them come across as wannabes, to be honest. I've seen these German Americans who try hard to "parade" their "Germanism" by shouting Nationalsocialist slogans or integrating German slogan words into their English speech. Or posting millions of pictures of their mugs and pointing how blond their hair is. They're annoying so I try to ignore them.


Why and amongst who do you believe this trend occurs and is it detrimental to our country and the countries of others?
It is detrimental to both countries. You can't be European and American at the same time in my opinion. You are either, or. And if you are of old stock, for many generations in the colony, then you can't call yourself European anymore.

Loyalist
Tuesday, October 14th, 2008, 05:03 PM
It seems people are having trouble distinguishing between what is culturally and racially European. An old-stock Colonial may have long since left the European fold in a cultural sense, but that has no bearing on what is far more important; blood. Take an American infant of pure-bred Colonial English or German descent, bring it to England or Germany, and raise it as an Englishman or a German. Having grown up with only the applicable national identity, there would be nothing on either level that sets this individual apart from the native populace. However, a Negro whose family has been present in Europe for generations may be culturally European, some argue more so than white Colonials, but he is European neither by race nor ethnicity. His inter-marriage with native peoples is damaging to Europe, wheras mixture with Colonials of European descent isn't, but is marked only be the notion of a cultural divide.

Saying old-stock Colonials aren't European is, therefore, true from a point of view. They may have deviated culturally, but culture, while important to a certain extent, is nowhere near as significant as blood. Any individual can be naturalized, conditioned, or changed in this respect, but blood cannot. Arguing otherwise is simply an extension of European nationalism, an archaic and contradictory system that is a threat to Germanic preservation.

Nachtengel
Tuesday, October 14th, 2008, 05:13 PM
Just to clarify, I was refering to European as a geo-cultural concept. I'm not an European nationalist either, as I reject Europeanism as an ideology that preaches Europe as a homogeneous entity. I am a German nationalist and I have nothing against Americans and other Colonials in themselves, I just have something against wannabes and people who aren't satisfied with what they are. An old stock colonial of German heritage is not a German. He would do better to serve his nation which is America or whichever is it, instead of dressing in Lederhosen or waving a German flag to "celebrate" his heritage. I'm not sorry if this sounds cruel, I simply reponded how I feel. This kind of desperate "identity" is the threat to Germanic preservation, because you can't preserve what hasn't been freshly passed down to you. German culture isn't learned from a book or bought in the form of a folkdress at the shopping mall, it is lived.

Jagerzen
Tuesday, October 14th, 2008, 11:41 PM
German culture isn't learned from a book or bought in the form of a folkdress at the shopping mall, it is lived.

I hate to interrupt, but I have to point out that for many of us Colonials, the culture isn't bought or read from a book. A good deal of us have only been North Americans or Australians or whatever for a few generations. Germanic culture for us, therefore is lived and is passed down and therefore is something to be proud of.

Wave flags all you want, in my opinion. It is better than becoming absorbed into a multicultural mess and losing an identity.

Resurgam
Wednesday, October 15th, 2008, 01:44 AM
No one can predict the future of the United States over the course of the next 20 years but I believe there will be some major changes in society, whether for the better or worse. The status quo doesn't continue forever.


The Perfect Storm – Our Great Depression
by Jim Quinn

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/quinn10.html


For the 1st time in many years I saw something that shows promise for our country’s future. Despite the rhetoric from President Bush, Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, all CNBC commentators, and various ultra-rich Wall Street shills, the American public was firmly against this bailout bill. I sense that the "ME GENERATION" is finally ready to accept the consequences of their selfish lifestyle over the last 30 years. The materialistic frenzy that has been the hallmark of the Baby Boom Generation is coming to an end. It is being forced upon many, but will be the choice of many more. The worldwide deleveraging will lead to a new mantra for this generation, frugality and living beneath your means. The psychology of the whole world has changed in a fortnight. Our leaders are so consumed by their own agendas that they have not realized the implications of this psychological change. Chaos and turmoil reign in the markets today. The population of the U.S. will turn inward and seek comfort in more simple pursuits. This will ultimately be a beneficial change for our society. But, the immediate result will be wrenching for the country.

The Catch-22 of our current economic system is that if everyone in the country lives within their means, the economy will collapse. The spending of money we do not have is what has driven our "Great" country for the last three decades. We can always count on Government to not live within its means, so deficit spending will continue and most likely accelerate. But, consumers have been dependent upon the stupidity and recklessness of banks, credit card companies, retailers, and auto makers to help them live above their means. This part of the American Dream is lying in shambles. Banks will not lend, credit card companies are cancelling credit lines, retailers are closing stores, and auto makers have stopped financing cars. Part 2 of our economic crisis has just begun. Having worked for a big box retailer and a major public homebuilder, I have witnessed first hand that faulty pie-in-the-sky assumptions about growth will lead to dreadful strategic decisions that have huge negative financial consequences to those companies.



From the concluding pages of E.A. Pollard's book "The Lost Cause" from 1866


There are certain coarse advisers who tell the Southern people that the great ends of their lives now are to repair their stock of national wealth: to bring in Northern capital and labour: to build mills and factories and hotels and gilded caravansaries: and to make themselves rivals in the clattering and garish enterprise of the North. This advice has its proper place. But there are higher objects than the Yankee magna bona of money and display, and loftier aspirations than the civilization of material things. In the life of nations, as in that of the individual, there is something better than pelf, and the coarse prosperity of dollars and cents.

This quote is not to beat up on Northerners in the United States given the orginal context of the quote. I think this quote is applicable everywhere in the U.S, right now. I hope more people wake up from the so-called "American Dream."

Maelstrom
Wednesday, October 15th, 2008, 03:14 AM
This post is especially in Todesengel. Note that I'm not trying to take an opposing standpoint, but rather have some further thoughts on the matter:


The problem is that colonials are more often than not of mixed ethnicities.

Look at myself for example: I have English, Scottish and even a bit of Irish ancestry. Would it be natural for me to go back to one of these lands and live there? I understand there has been great emigration from one country to the other.

My partner, Rainraven, is half English, half Dutch. If she were to return to Europe where would her ideal country be? I have read on this forum that there is a significant amount of Dutch blood in England too.

What about other Europeans with non-colonial backgrounds that are of mixed ethnicities? Just send them beyond the Pale?

TheGreatest
Wednesday, October 15th, 2008, 04:25 AM
This post is especially in Todesengel. Note that I'm not trying to take an opposing standpoint, but rather have some further thoughts on the matter:


The problem is that colonials are more often than not of mixed ethnicities.

Look at myself for example: I have English, Scottish and even a bit of Irish ancestry. Would it be natural for me to go back to one of these lands and live there? I understand there has been great emigration from one country to the other.

My partner, Rainraven, is half English, half Dutch. If she were to return to Europe where would her ideal country be? I have read on this forum that there is a significant amount of Dutch blood in England too.

What about other Europeans with non-colonial backgrounds that are of mixed ethnicities? Just send them beyond the Pale?


I heard Antartica is nice at this time of year. :thumbup

My ancestors came to the United States too long ago. Most European countries have a requirement of a living Grandparent who was born in the country. My most recent ancestors were Great Grandparents born in the Hapsburg Empire...


I'm afraid it does not look good for us. Most Americans are too mixed and/or arrived too long ago to be considered eligible for citizenship in most countries.


And there are those who think we're mixed with Native and Negroid blood... :thumbdown



Refugee Status should not be considered. If South Africans cannot get refugee status than neither can I. Being a young male without an outstanding expertise (I.E. Doctor), I'm afraid I'll be behind the Turks and Africans on the refugee list.


During Argentina's recession, even 2nd generation Italo-Argentines were not allowed to return home. The Italian government at the time, felt that the Italo-Argentines (many of whom spoke fluent Italian) would effect the national politics. While at the same time, the Italian Government decided to bring in more Third World immigrants.... :-O



Doesn't look good for us. The samething will happen in Europe. Most European countries would balk and quickly shut down the border, when tens of millions of White Americans want in.

SwordOfTheVistula
Wednesday, October 15th, 2008, 07:36 AM
Just to clarify, I was refering to European as a geo-cultural concept. I'm not an European nationalist either, as I reject Europeanism as an ideology that preaches Europe as a homogeneous entity. I am a German nationalist and I have nothing against Americans and other Colonials in themselves, I just have something against wannabes and people who aren't satisfied with what they are. An old stock colonial of German heritage is not a German. He would do better to serve his nation which is America or whichever is it, instead of dressing in Lederhosen or waving a German flag to "celebrate" his heritage. I'm not sorry if this sounds cruel, I simply reponded how I feel. This kind of desperate "identity" is the threat to Germanic preservation, because you can't preserve what hasn't been freshly passed down to you. German culture isn't learned from a book or bought in the form of a folkdress at the shopping mall, it is lived.

Is Abe Steinberg of Jerusalem an 'Asian', Abe Steinberg of Berlin a 'German', and Abe Steinberg of New York an 'American'-or are they all of the same ethnicity?

Hauke Haien
Wednesday, October 15th, 2008, 04:55 PM
Is Abe Steinberg of Jerusalem an 'Asian', Abe Steinberg of Berlin a 'German', and Abe Steinberg of New York an 'American'-or are they all of the same ethnicity?

Abe Steinberg of Berlin does not qualify as a German. John Smith of St. Paul, grandson of Werner Schmitt, does not qualify either. The Jewish model of ethnicity is not ours and neither is the American model. There is no reason to change to either of them because ours is solid and useful for us.

Kriegersohn
Thursday, October 16th, 2008, 08:49 AM
Just to clarify, I was refering to European as a geo-cultural concept. I'm not an European nationalist either, as I reject Europeanism as an ideology that preaches Europe as a homogeneous entity. I am a German nationalist and I have nothing against Americans and other Colonials in themselves, I just have something against wannabes and people who aren't satisfied with what they are. An old stock colonial of German heritage is not a German. He would do better to serve his nation which is America or whichever is it, instead of dressing in Lederhosen or waving a German flag to "celebrate" his heritage. I'm not sorry if this sounds cruel, I simply reponded how I feel. This kind of desperate "identity" is the threat to Germanic preservation, because you can't preserve what hasn't been freshly passed down to you. German culture isn't learned from a book or bought in the form of a folkdress at the shopping mall, it is lived.

So those that want to reconnect with their roots are at fault? Granted, some attempts are a mere veneer (Folk dress and all) but German language and culture flourished here from the Colonial days until the First World War and even then it still didn't stop there. It literally took serious discrimination, anti-German laws (not revoked until 1920) and two world wars to sever ties for most...but for the children of those that did, there was a desire for reconnect those ties. But then again, I guess you'd have to be there to truly understand. For myself, I still remember the tears of joy in my Grandpa's eyes when he celebrated Weihnachten in my family's home...it brought back childhood memories, good memories from before the deluge. If I can bring that to people here (including those who have never known German culture in their lives because of the mistakes of their forefathers) I find it worth it...even if it means a sneer of contempt from people like yourself.

Also, things don't nessesarily need to be "freshly passed" on. I was invited to a local Weihnachtsfest a few years back from someone that I worked with, it was a church made up entirely of ethnic Germans that had come here from Russia between the 1860's to the 1890's. To be honest, outside of the somewhat antiquated German (and some dialect) that they spoke I don't think that you would have felt out of place. Just a couple of thoughts....

Hauke Haien
Thursday, October 16th, 2008, 02:52 PM
I was invited to a local Weihnachtsfest a few years back from someone that I worked with, it was a church made up entirely of ethnic Germans that had come here from Russia between the 1860's to the 1890's. To be honest, outside of the somewhat antiquated German (and some dialect) that they spoke I don't think that you would have felt out of place.
As described, they would probably qualify as German if this also carries over into their daily lives, i.e. if they speak German at home or use the German language when socializing with other Germans. What I object to are attempts by Americans of German ancestry to lower the bar so that they can qualify without putting any significant effort into it apart from being born. About 50 million Americans have German ancestry, barely 1.5 million are able to speak the language and even less use it on a regular basis in order to live and create culture.

btw, I found this interesting Pennsylfaanisch-Deitsch sticker ;)

Alice
Thursday, October 16th, 2008, 04:05 PM
What do you think of Colonials (Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc.) who identify as European? Specifically, I refer to those whose families have been in the New World for some generations, did not inherit any European traditions but who try to practice and pass down the language, culture and history of their distant ancestors and even wish to move to Europe. Europeans, do you accept these people as one of your own, and Colonials, how do they make you feel? Why and amongst who do you believe this trend occurs and is it detrimental to our country and the countries of others?

I don't really consider myself entirely American or entirely European. If anything, I have a stronger religious identity. What I don't like, though, is someone telling me I have to identify completely with one side or the other.

Here's my situation: I'm an American-born woman living in Europe. However, my mother is English, and I have a British passport, so my move here was very smooth, with little to no paperwork. If one only possesses an American passport, the hassles are endless, I hear.

Do the Europeans I come into contact with consider me European? Hell, no. My accent is obviously American, though I lack the outgoing, vivacious personality many think Americans have. My advice to Americans wanting to move to Europe: toughen up. I have had some downright horrible experiences with Europeans, mostly Germans and English. When these folks learned I was American, I was given some pretty caustic verbal attacks. In other cases, I was ignored (which doesn't bother me), spoken condescendidly to or laughed at. Really, I could go on all day...but it's made me a stronger person. I don't have to fall apart because of others' rudeness.

Note: In no way am I implying that all Europeans, especially people on this forum, are like the individuals I've encountered.

Kriegersohn
Thursday, October 16th, 2008, 08:00 PM
As described, they would probably qualify as German if this also carries over into their daily lives, i.e. if they speak German at home or use the German language when socializing with other Germans. What I object to are attempts by Americans of German ancestry to lower the bar so that they can qualify without putting any significant effort into it apart from being born. About 50 million Americans have German ancestry, barely 1.5 million are able to speak the language and even less use it on a regular basis in order to live and create culture.

I can agree with that (and yes, the church group that went to does speak German at home and amongst themselves). At the same time there are others that are trying to make it a part of their life again...and some do give up after catching flak from both Americans and Germans, while others take the beating and keep on going. Personally, I just don't like some of broad strokes on either side that have been given either for or against as the issue is more complex. We had a 50 year old man come to our stammtisch here, his parents never taught him, or his brothers and sisters, German even though they spoke it among themselves (usually when they didn't want the kids to know what they were talking about). He's had a hard time with learning it and he doesn't get all the nuances...it can be frustrating for him and us, but to see how far he's come I wouldn't give that up and write him off. There is no doubt that trying to correct mistakes from the past is a long and hard road though it is possible. One has to want to put in the time, with all the frustration that comes with it, and just do it.


btw, I found this interesting Pennsylfaanisch-Deitsch sticker ;)

ok, now I want a bumper sticker of my own. :D

SwordOfTheVistula
Thursday, October 16th, 2008, 11:30 PM
What I object to are attempts by Americans of German ancestry to lower the bar so that they can qualify without putting any significant effort into it apart from being born.

Wouldn't that apply also to most modern day residents of Germany-no effort other than being born? The lifestyle difference of the average resident of the US and Germany is probably less so today than 100 years or even 50 years ago, and both equally alien to a mutual ancestor who was born in Germany in the 19th century or before.

Hauke Haien
Friday, October 17th, 2008, 02:03 AM
Wouldn't that apply also to most modern day residents of Germany-no effort other than being born?
It is not about getting an A for effort, the criteria have to be fulfilled, unfair advantages or not and who doesn't is not German, full stop.


The lifestyle difference of the average resident of the US and Germany is probably less so today than 100 years or even 50 years ago, and both equally alien to a mutual ancestor who was born in Germany in the 19th century or before.
Let's all toast to Western degeneracy and how it is bringing the world together!

The idea is obviously not to simply copy the culture of Germany proper, although this would wield some influence as a national culture, it is about a local community of German speakers that unfolds a cultural dynamic and this can include cultural influences from Germany, from the people surrounding them or even their own creations, which will naturally grow as time moves on. My people were not native to East Prussia, but they created a German culture there over the course of seven centuries. Take this PA Dutch poem, for example:

Heut is 's xäctly zwanzig Johr
Dass ich bin owwe naus;
Nau bin ich widder lewig z'rück
Und steh am Schulhaus an d'r Krick
Juscht nächst ans Daddy's Haus.

Most of it is recognizable as Rhine Franconian and although a number of English loan words are present, it remains German in character. New soil, new Germans, that much is understandable, but the fact that our identity is currently being destroyed within our core lands does not release a single German from his duty, wherever he may reside.

Bridie
Friday, October 17th, 2008, 02:36 AM
What do you think of Colonials (Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc.) who identify as European?
I think it would be denying a huge part of oneself if one was to disregard their own country of birth and the country they were raised in, as well as the portion of their family's history where they ventured so far away from home to start a new life. I think we should honour our ancestors and closer family and be proud of them... Lord knows, it couldn't have been easy leaving the Old World for the New... What adventures and battles they must have had! I wonder what our ancestors would have thought if they could have known that in many generations to come their family would be so ashamed or dismissive of them and their journeys that they decided to disregard it altogether and just focus on their family history from the Old World.

We "colonials" should be proud of our own personal histories, as well as the collective histories that forged our New World countries. It's part of who we are. For the most part, old time colonists were amazing characters.... strong, innovative, resourceful, resilient.... they had to be to survive.... and their spirit lives on in us. We are their legacy.



Specifically, I refer to those whose families have been in the New World for some generations, did not inherit any European traditions but who try to practice and pass down the language, culture and history of their distant ancestorsIt's impossible for someone who has descended from European colonists, and whose ancestors never assimilated into some foreign native population, to not inherit any European traditions. As I said in this post...

(http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=863381&postcount=4)

What do people think happens within a couple of generations of a mass migration of people leaving their homelands to colonise an all but empty land?? All of a sudden, all by themselves they just snap up a new culture, new value system etc out of thin air?? Cultural evolution just isn't so instantaneous. [...] You can't erase 1000's of years of cultural and physical history along with 1000's of years of racial evolution simply by moving to a different land mass.




Europeans, do you accept these people as one of your own, and Colonials, how do they make you feel?
I feel a strong sense of kinship familiarity etc with those from the British Isles nations in the Old World... but that's it really. I don't identify myself as being "European" at all (apart from racially), and continental Europeans are no ethnic kin to me.

Bridie
Friday, October 17th, 2008, 02:44 AM
What I don't like, though, is someone telling me I have to identify completely with one side or the other.
Exactly. People really overestimate their own importance if they think that they have the right to tell someone else who they are. It's such a deeply personal issue and is a matter for one's own family... not a matter for complete strangers who know nothing of you or your family at all to come over and comment on.

Rainraven
Friday, October 17th, 2008, 02:54 AM
Here in New Zealand as colonials we have inherited somewhat British ways of life. We are yet to identify a seperate "New Zealand" culture. Even for 5th generation New Zealanders the box they will tick in the Census will proclaim them as New Zealand European. I think it depends on the nation and the individual as to wether or not they could be considered as European. New Zealand is still a young country that has not fully developed it's individuality from Britain. Is this happens more and we gain National Identity I believe moore peopole will associate themselves with it. Personally I do still identify as European. I am a 2nd generation New Zealander on my Dads sade and 4th or 5th on my Mums side. But as far as I know, all of my genes are European. A friend of mine however is a 5-6th generation New Zealander and he no longer associates himself as Eorupean but as a New Zealander. This question is really a matter of how many generations away from your homeland can you hang onto your roots for?

Bridie
Friday, October 17th, 2008, 03:19 AM
This question is really a matter of how many generations away from your homeland can you hang onto your roots for?
Do roots ever die? I think rather than us hanging onto them, they are part of us whether we like it or not.

Rainraven
Friday, October 17th, 2008, 03:24 AM
Do roots ever die? I think rather than us hanging onto them, they are part of us whether we like it or not.

This is true. I do know that I wouldn't forget about mine or give them up, ever. Perhaps it is the state of mind the colonial is in? As a preservationist I hang onto these roots, while other, less caring people simply take their culture as where the were born/grew up.

SwordOfTheVistula
Friday, October 17th, 2008, 07:51 AM
This is true. I do know that I wouldn't forget about mine or give them up, ever. Perhaps it is the state of mind the colonial is in? As a preservationist I hang onto these roots, while other, less caring people simply take their culture as where the were born/grew up.

That's the whole plan, really. If your identity is focused more around the place you live rather than ancestral lineage, then your selection of a mate will be effected as well-if you happen to live in the same area as a Maori, or a black, or whatever, then you won't think anything wrong with marrying and having children with one, since they are 'your people' and you identify with them.

Ethnic identity isn't a perfect or precise term, as evidenced by this thread and the other one with 12+ pages of posts, but generally it has served to keep people breeding within a closely related group of subraces as transportation and communications technology increased interaction between people from widely disparate areas of the globe.

So, if you replace an ethnic identity based on ancestral heritage with an identity based on physical locale, then people will be more likely to identify and breed with others of the locale who identify as 'New Zealanders', Australians', 'Americans', 'New Yorkers', 'Londoners' etc. This will be particuarly effective if you increase migration from 3rd world countries into areas previously populated by people of northern European ancestry, and use the media and educational system to emphasize local identity and de-emphasize or vilify identity based on ancestral heritage. "West Side!" "Support the local sports team!"

End result, the old racial/subracial barriers are broken down, and eventually disappear.

Allenson
Friday, October 17th, 2008, 07:18 PM
Hmm, I don't really want to be or think of myself as European. No sweat.

I like how Crystal Rose puts it: European parts, assembled in America. :thumbup

Hauke Haien
Friday, October 17th, 2008, 08:06 PM
So, if you replace an ethnic identity based on ancestral heritage with an identity based on physical locale, then people will be more likely to identify and breed with others of the locale who identify as 'New Zealanders', Australians', 'Americans', 'New Yorkers', 'Londoners' etc.
Yes, the lack of exclusive nationalism based on ius sanguinis is a problem in the Jacobin West that worships ius soli, which is why I can understand the temptation to "throw the baby out with the bath water" as the saying goes. What needs to be done is either ethnic revivalism (as I described) or the creation of new identities that can reliably include and exclude people. I don't know how inclusive the concepts of being a New Englander, Southerner, Texan, Cohee etc. are, but the situation in Bavaria is that newcomers (Zugroaste) can practically forget about "becoming Bavarian" and this specifically targets other Germans as well.

Deary
Friday, October 17th, 2008, 10:10 PM
I don't know how inclusive the concepts of being a New Englander, Southerner, Texan, Cohee etc. are, but the situation in Bavaria is that newcomers (Zugroaste) can practically forget about "becoming Bavarian" and this specifically targets other Germans as well.

What it means to be a Southerner has become so much more inclusive than it ever was before. We can thank a number of unfortunate events for that. Nowadays, many of the folks you see parading around as Southern, aren't really Southern. Some seem to think you don't have to have a family history in the South, be born and raised in the South, and be of any particular ancestry; people just so little as have to favor our fair way of life and they're granted the title. It's disheartening because we're losing ahold of our identity. All the snowbirds and folks from other parts of the world I've seen, as much as they appear to admire and want to be a part of our culture, there's just things they'll never truly grasp. They can't ever love the South in all its glory quite like we do. I wish more wouldn't be so afraid to reject outsiders who try to be Southern. We'll welcome folks to visit and have a nice stay and teach others about our ways (granted they don't insult us), but we are a people unto ourselves and we must do everything to preserve that.

Psychonaut
Friday, October 17th, 2008, 11:15 PM
I think that for many of us it would be disrespectful to our ancestors if we were to parade ourselves around as Europeans. Many of us in North America are of extremely old stock, with our ancestors having arrived over four hundred years ago. For us to identify as European would be a slap in the face to the accomplishments and identities of our most recent forefathers. I also, as a Southerner, strongly agree with:


Some seem to think you don't have to have a family history in the South, be born and raised in the South, and be of any particular ancestry; people just so little as have to favor our fair way of life and they're granted the title. It's disheartening because we're losing a hold of our identity.

This is so very true. In the last fifty years our grasp on our identity as Southerners has become quite tenuous. Identifying as European in the hopes of some type of pan-Atlantic whatever does nothing to strengthen our identity. Now, identifying the particular European ancestries and cultural traits that went into making the South what it is and honoring that is excellent, but to sublimate ourselves to what is now a land foreign to us is the exact opposite of 'Blut und Boden.'

DanseMacabre
Sunday, October 19th, 2008, 08:31 PM
What it means to be a Southerner has become so much more inclusive than it ever was before. We can thank a number of unfortunate events for that. Nowadays, many of the folks you see parading around as Southern, aren't really Southern. Some seem to think you don't have to have a family history in the South, be born and raised in the South, and be of any particular ancestry; people just so little as have to favor our fair way of life and they're granted the title. It's disheartening because we're losing ahold of our identity. All the snowbirds and folks from other parts of the world I've seen, as much as they appear to admire and want to be a part of our culture, there's just things they'll never truly grasp. They can't ever love the South in all its glory quite like we do. I wish more wouldn't be so afraid to reject outsiders who try to be Southern. We'll welcome folks to visit and have a nice stay and teach others about our ways (granted they don't insult us), but we are a people unto ourselves and we must do everything to preserve that.

Indeed, I feel the same about The Heartland. I also have a great affinity for The South. I think ALL the regional cultures of America should be preserved. And not only should Americans be proud of being American but be proud of their regional culture as well.

Kriegersohn
Monday, October 20th, 2008, 08:49 AM
I think that for many of us it would be disrespectful to our ancestors if we were to parade ourselves around as Europeans. Many of us in North America are of extremely old stock, with our ancestors having arrived over four hundred years ago. For us to identify as European would be a slap in the face to the accomplishments and identities of our most recent forefathers. I also, as a Southerner, strongly agree with:

I would have to disagree Psychonaut. Until the 20th century many Americans could go back and forth between here and Europe with ease. Minus the religious aspects of various sects, people still retained much of their indiviual cultures and for the most part remained within these cultural boundaries. They may have been a little rougher around the edges than their Old World cousins but they *were* very definably European (whether English, German, Dutch, French, etc).



This is so very true. In the last fifty years our grasp on our identity as Southerners has become quite tenuous. Identifying as European in the hopes of some type of pan-Atlantic whatever does nothing to strengthen our identity. Now, identifying the particular European ancestries and cultural traits that went into making the South what it is and honoring that is excellent, but to sublimate ourselves to what is now a land foreign to us is the exact opposite of 'Blut und Boden.'

It is no different than any other area of the US, the monoculture which has arisen is far different from where we were or came from...it destroys all of us, not just certain regions. As for Germany (or which ever Germanic land one's ancestors sprung up from) being a foreign land, I call it home as much as here. Granted, I am first generation on my mother's side and third on Father's (through my Grandfather's line) so the connection *is* far stronger...though I have seen US soldiers of old stock lineage (Dutch and Hessian in particular) that have felt a connection to those lands still. All it took was taking them away from post and the larger cities for a while and letting them see where their people came from, after that they went on their own. That feeling or connection, while perhaps degraded over time, doesn't go away...it isn't just "Blut und Boden" (Blood and Soil) but one of "Blood and Bone".

Psychonaut
Monday, October 20th, 2008, 10:54 AM
I would have to disagree Psychonaut. Until the 20th century many Americans could go back and forth between here and Europe with ease. Minus the religious aspects of various sects, people still retained much of their indiviual cultures and for the most part remained within these cultural boundaries. They may have been a little rougher around the edges than their Old World cousins but they *were* very definably European (whether English, German, Dutch, French, etc).

I can't speak for any of the aforementioned groups but my own, but I can tell you that your words certainly do not ring true for us. True, for the last four hundred years our marriages have been more or less endogamous; so, racially, we are pretty much identical to typical Norther French folk. However, when you look at all of the other bits that make up ethnicity we are, and have been ever since Le Grand Dérangement of 1755 quite distinct from even our Canadian cousins.

I think you also have to take the Europeans' perspective into account. After all, you cannot honestly say that you belong to a group, if the groups does not accept you as their own; and most European nations have made it quite clear for a long time that we are Americans and not Europeans. The Germans here seem to be quite clear on this point.


Granted, I am first generation on my mother's side and third on Father's (through my Grandfather's line) so the connection *is* far stronger

I would imagine that this has pretty heavily influenced your view on this matter. I know that more than a few of the Americans on this board have strong ties to the American Revolution and the colonization prior to that. It is mainly that type of American that my comments are directed towards.

Kriegersohn
Tuesday, October 21st, 2008, 07:28 AM
I can't speak for any of the aforementioned groups but my own, but I can tell you that your words certainly do not ring true for us. True, for the last four hundred years our marriages have been more or less endogamous; so, racially, we are pretty much identical to typical Norther French folk. However, when you look at all of the other bits that make up ethnicity we are, and have been ever since Le Grand Dérangement of 1755 quite distinct from even our Canadian cousins.

This is one of the primary reasons that I used the term "many" as opposed to all. :) If you read the works of DeToqueville, Henry James and other writers (especially those of French and Prussian military observers) one comes away with a distinct European feel of America...even though due to the structure (and sheer size) of society it was different. Shedding most of the aristocracy, decadence and corruption of European societies made us markedly different on a national level, but many of the people remained the same regardless of which side of the Atlantic they lived on. Europhobia was a later development from approximately the 1870's until the early to mid 20th century...and to be blunt it didn't seriously become a factor until the First World War. For Germans in this country, part of the problem is that until the unification after the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71 there was no Germany. Most that came over kept their regional/religious differences...Hessians, Palantines, Holsteiners, Bavarians, etc, etc. They lacked unity as a whole, even though certain elements cooperated with one another.


I think you also have to take the Europeans' perspective into account. After all, you cannot honestly say that you belong to a group, if the groups does not accept you as their own; and most European nations have made it quite clear for a long time that we are Americans and not Europeans. The Germans here seem to be quite clear on this point.

I do...I also take into account our history both shared and not. As for the Germans here, I respect their opinions and thoughts...even if I disagree with them on certain points. Having grown up and lived on both sides of the Atlantic, I've gotten used to hearing the arguements from each side. Some things can be dismissed as needless saber-rattling while other issues need to be addressed and/or clarified.




I would imagine that this has pretty heavily influenced your view on this matter. I know that more than a few of the Americans on this board have strong ties to the American Revolution and the colonization prior to that. It is mainly that type of American that my comments are directed towards.

It does...I never said that I was unbiased in the matter. :D As for your target audience, understood...still disagree though.:)

Psychonaut
Tuesday, October 21st, 2008, 08:12 AM
This is one of the primary reasons that I used the term "many" as opposed to all. :) If you read the works of DeToqueville, Henry James and other writers (especially those of French and Prussian military observers) one comes away with a distinct European feel of America...even though due to the structure (and sheer size) of society it was different. Shedding most of the aristocracy, decadence and corruption of European societies made us markedly different on a national level, but many of the people remained the same regardless of which side of the Atlantic they lived on. Europhobia was a later development from approximately the 1870's until the early to mid 20th century...and to be blunt it didn't seriously become a factor until the First World War. For Germans in this country, part of the problem is that until the unification after the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71 there was no Germany. Most that came over kept their regional/religious differences...Hessians, Palantines, Holsteiners, Bavarians, etc, etc. They lacked unity as a whole, even though certain elements cooperated with one another.

At the time of the Revolution, I can certainly see that we would have been nearly indistinguishable from our European cousins, however in the aftermath of the war, and with each successive war, our national identity, and separation from Europe, became more entrenched. Certainly, the different German groups retained more of a European identity due to their isolation from the British derived Americans and relatively late, in many cases, entrance into the continent.


I do...I also take into account our history both shared and not. As for the Germans here, I respect their opinions and thoughts...even if I disagree with them on certain points. Having grown up and lived on both sides of the Atlantic, I've gotten used to hearing the arguements from each side. Some things can be dismissed as needless saber-rattling while other issues need to be addressed and/or clarified.

Understood. The thing that seems to stick out most in my mind with this issue is the length of time we're talking about combined with the degree of cultural separation from said European nation. In many cases, I can see where an ethnic group's allegiance would lie a bit more towards the European side. However, the longer a particular groups stays away from its parent group, the more differentiated it becomes as both groups continue in their divergent evolution.


It does...I never said that I was unbiased in the matter. :D As for your target audience, understood...still disagree though.:)

Excellent, I suppose we'll just have to amicably disagree then. :prost

SwordOfTheVistula
Tuesday, October 21st, 2008, 11:29 AM
At the time of the Revolution, I can certainly see that we would have been nearly indistinguishable from our European cousins, however in the aftermath of the war, and with each successive war, our national identity, and separation from Europe, became more entrenched.

No more so than the East Germany vs West Germany distinction, or Prussia vs Austria. Neither the DDR nor the FRG could truthfully claim to be the 'one true Germans', although both did so. I'd argue that Germans in the western hemisphere are truer Germans because we have not been subjected to the drastic shifts in culture enforced following the loss of 2 world wars, the current residents of the FRG/DDR merger often argue that current primary language is the deciding factor of ethnicity rather than a method of communication subject to commercial and legal necessity. In truth, it's just minor bitching and posturing, and we are more alike eachother than Mohammed Kamal of Hamburg with a 'German citizenship' or the 'all-American' Raul Hernadez.

That's what 'Germanic' identity is all about. I'm not an 'American' ready to kick ass alongside Raul Hernandez against 'nazis' in Germany who refuse to go along with the smiting of Iraq/Iran. I would hope the Germanics of the eastern hemishere resist at all turns the subjugation to a latin-led 'European Union' aka Eurabia which continually preaches Germans/Anglo-Saxons to be the Satan of History who can only be redeemed by submitting their nations to the worst perversions of political correctness.

Psychonaut
Tuesday, October 21st, 2008, 12:03 PM
No more so than the East Germany vs West Germany distinction, or Prussia vs Austria. Neither the DDR nor the FRG could truthfully claim to be the 'one true Germans', although both did so. I'd argue that Germans in the western hemisphere are truer Germans because we have not been subjected to the drastic shifts in culture enforced following the loss of 2 world wars, the current residents of the FRG/DDR merger often argue that current primary language is the deciding factor of ethnicity rather than a method of communication subject to commercial and legal necessity. In truth, it's just minor bitching and posturing, and we are more alike eachother than Mohammed Kamal of Hamburg with a 'German citizenship' or the 'all-American' Raul Hernadez.

Granted, we are certainly more like our European cousins than we are Negroes or Mexicans, but the loss of language and ever increasing temporal separation seems, in my mind at least, to be continually creating a gap between us. Since this thread is about Europeans in general, I'm thinking a bit less about German-Americans than I am about those of British descent, as they are the first example of this type of relationship that we have in American history. Prior to the Revolution, British colonists were not Americans, they were simply British. However, with the winning of the war, a gap was made, and with the war of 1812, that gap widened yet again. I mean, after they burned down the White House, I don't think you'd find too many Yankees that would call themselves English.

I don't think that calling ourselves and identifying as Americans, Yankees, Southerners, etc. makes us any less Germanic. We cannot continually live in the past and only identify with the lands of our forefathers. Did Anglo-Saxons continue to sing the praises of Saxony after their conquest of England or did they revel in their new land and create something new and distinct from their German cousins? The same question could be asked of the dozens of Germanic migrations that have taken place in the past. For the first few generations I can certainly see how the identification with the old land would still be strong, but the longer a people exist in a given place, the more their blood becomes tied to the soil, the more history their kin have with the land.

I see no reason why we should not embrace and honor our descent from Europe, but to cling to the idea of actually being European after ones ancestors have lived and died on another continent for hundreds of years seems to be a bit of a stretch. After all, none of our ancestors were originally from Europe anyway. Whether the multiregional or single-origin hypothesis is correct, our folk certainly originated somewhere else other than Northern Europe. The question here seems to be at what point one can make a distinction between one identity and the identity that it is transforming into during the course of a migration. The Germanics have never been a sedentary people. We have seen the rise, fall, confederation and amalgamation of many tribes in the past, and I see no reason why we cannot interpret geographically separated groups in this light.

Hauke Haien
Tuesday, October 21st, 2008, 03:16 PM
I'd argue that Germans in the western hemisphere are truer Germans because we have not been subjected to the drastic shifts in culture enforced following the loss of 2 world wars,
...and nevertheless failed to remain Germans.


the current residents of the FRG/DDR merger often argue that current primary language is the deciding factor of ethnicity rather than a method of communication subject to commercial and legal necessity.
I see you are catching on, read this:

Der Geist eines Volkes, der die Referenz für die Abgrenzung des Eigenen vom Fremden liefert, drückt sich am reinsten in dessen Poesie aus. Und diese ist wiederum mit der heimatlichen Sprache aufs engste verwoben. Jacob Grimm kann deshalb auf die "einfache" Frage: "Was ist das Volk?" die einfache Antwort geben: "Ein Volk ist der Inbegriff von Menschen, welche dieselbe Sprache reden." Trotz dieser auf den ersten Blick kulturalistischen Bestimmung wird das Volk substantialisiert. Nicht zufällig werden die Metaphern für die Sprache, in der sich die Schöpfung des Volksgeistes artikulieren, der Naturgeschichte und Biologie entnommen.

The spirit of a folk that provides a reference for separating one's own from the foreign is most purely expressed in its poetry. This, in turn, is in closest connection with the native language. Jacob Grimm is therefore able to respond to the 'simple' question: 'What is a folk?' with a simple answer: 'A folk is the embodiment of people who speak the same language.' Despite this, at first glance, culturalistic definition, the folk is substantialized. Not coincidentally, the metaphors for language, in which the creation of a folk spirit is expressed, are taken from natural history and biology.

An opinion on being Icelandic, from this thread (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=102054):

*We are only 300,000 speaking this language which nobody else does. Its very important that we take care of our history, our background, and our language. Those are the things that make us a nation*, Mr Hafsteinsson adds.


That's what 'Germanic' identity is all about.
Possibly, but it's not what German identity is all about.


I would hope the Germanics of the eastern hemishere resist at all turns the subjugation to a latin-led 'European Union' aka Eurabia which continually preaches Germans/Anglo-Saxons to be the Satan of History who can only be redeemed by submitting their nations to the worst perversions of political correctness.
If only the US had any influence over Germany and Europe right now, you could already have saved us from ourselves and the evil EU :~(

Oswiu
Tuesday, October 21st, 2008, 04:16 PM
Did Anglo-Saxons continue to sing the praises of Saxony after their conquest of England or did they revel in their new land and create something new and distinct from their German cousins?

A minor point, BUT! Our greatest Old English epic is set in the pre Migration age. Our early missionaries like Boniface and so on saw Old Saxony as the natural place to head for, to convert those of Our Blood and Our Bone. Our Kings remained in full contact with Germanic Kings elsewhere - see Aethelberht's, Offa's and many others' marriage policies. I know less of the other side of the relationship, but Theudebert showed off to the Emperor that he ruled the Saxons in Britain, and Engelant is given prominence in the OHG poems that Carl Orff bundled into Carmina Burana.

Psychonaut
Wednesday, October 22nd, 2008, 12:26 AM
A minor point, BUT! Our greatest Old English epic is set in the pre Migration age. Our early missionaries like Boniface and so on saw Old Saxony as the natural place to head for, to convert those of Our Blood and Our Bone. Our Kings remained in full contact with Germanic Kings elsewhere - see Aethelberht's, Offa's and many others' marriage policies. I know less of the other side of the relationship, but Theudebert showed off to the Emperor that he ruled the Saxons in Britain, and Engelant is given prominence in the OHG poems that Carl Orff bundled into Carmina Burana.

Good points, BUT!, they were still English, not Saxon, and became more distinct with every passing generation. ;)

Oswiu
Wednesday, October 22nd, 2008, 12:40 AM
Good points, BUT!, they were still English, not Saxon, and became more distinct with every passing generation. ;)
But! ;):P The Saxons in Wessex, Essex and Sussex are still Saxons (May the Gods forgive them). My lot are Angles, coming from Northumbria, and have never been Saxons. East Angles and Mercians and Middle Angles share the honour.

Don't go mixing up our tribes, or thinking that the English are only Saxons that live in Britain! The Brythons* and Gaels are so clumsy, but no reason you should be too!



*Actually, the northern Briton Taliesin should be acknowledged as more discriminating, using the word 'Eingyl' for us rather than the usual 'Saes'....

Psychonaut
Wednesday, October 22nd, 2008, 12:47 AM
Don't go mixing up our tribes, or thinking that the English are only Saxons that live in Britain!


My humblest apologies your lordship! :bowlaugh

Oswiu
Wednesday, October 22nd, 2008, 05:18 PM
Interesting discussion on language acquisition being influenced by ancestry, started by Kriegersohn, moved here:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=102099
:)

SwordOfTheVistula
Thursday, October 23rd, 2008, 07:48 AM
The spirit of a folk that provides a reference for separating one's own from the foreign is most purely expressed in its poetry.

I'm going to have to disagree with that, probably we are not going to be able to agree on how an 'ethnicity' is defined.


The Germanics have never been a sedentary people. We have seen the rise, fall, confederation and amalgamation of many tribes in the past, and I see no reason why we cannot interpret geographically separated groups in this light.

The thing is, with modern technology geographic separation doesn't mean what it used to. Culture today is more delineated along lifestyle lines than geographic. I go to libertarian meetings 2 towns over, play games online with people from Sweden and Australia, go to metal concerts with friends a couple hours away; and I live next door to someone who listens to Jazz, eats organic foods, goes to PETA protests; and the person on the other side of me listens to rap, cruises bars and clubs, mods and races cars, and avidly cheers local sports teams: are we all members of the same culture by geographic proximity? Or am I more like someone from another city, region, or even country who like me listens to metal/hard rock, has long hair, plays strategy games, reads sci-fi/fantasy novels, watches military history documentaries, and regards socialism with contempt.

Psychonaut
Thursday, October 23rd, 2008, 04:06 PM
The thing is, with modern technology geographic separation doesn't mean what it used to. Culture today is more delineated along lifestyle lines than geographic. I go to libertarian meetings 2 towns over, play games online with people from Sweden and Australia, go to metal concerts with friends a couple hours away; and I live next door to someone who listens to Jazz, eats organic foods, goes to PETA protests; and the person on the other side of me listens to rap, cruises bars and clubs, mods and races cars, and avidly cheers local sports teams: are we all members of the same culture by geographic proximity? Or am I more like someone from another city, region, or even country who like me listens to metal/hard rock, has long hair, plays strategy games, reads sci-fi/fantasy novels, watches military history documentaries, and regards socialism with contempt.

I think you are correct. However, this type of non-local interaction is quite a recent phenomena and seems to have been quite absent in most areas of the country just a few decades ago. Judging from the stories I hear from my grandparents, their neighbors were pretty much all of the same ethnicity as them, which is something that is seen less and less in today's America. So, nowadays we may be more similar to those in different locations, but that is, in my mind, more of a critique of modernity than one of regionalism.

SwordOfTheVistula
Friday, October 24th, 2008, 11:25 AM
I think it's something that is inevitable though. Most of the people in my apartment building are the same ethnicity as me-German and Irish-most of them are alright to hang out with, the ones I actually do see, but I don't have nearly as much in common with them as I do with my friends from nearby towns or other places entirely (most of which are Germanic or at least have northern European ancestry). Not just modern technology, but in our grandparents' time there wasn't nearly so many different styles of music and other lifestyle elements.

Leofric
Saturday, October 25th, 2008, 09:41 PM
A good deal of us have only been North Americans or Australians or whatever for a few generations. Germanic culture for us, therefore is lived and is passed down and therefore is something to be proud of.
And some of us have been Americans since the early 1600s. And for us, Germanic culture is lived and is passed down. You don't have to be a recent immigrant to the New World to have a fully Germanic culture. Germanic culture has been here in North America continuously since Jamestown, if not longer.




As described, they would probably qualify as German if this also carries over into their daily lives, i.e. if they speak German at home or use the German language when socializing with other Germans. What I object to are attempts by Americans of German ancestry to lower the bar so that they can qualify without putting any significant effort into it apart from being born. About 50 million Americans have German ancestry, barely 1.5 million are able to speak the language and even less use it on a regular basis in order to live and create culture.
So, if the Pennsylvania Dutch are German because that's their ancestry and they still speak German as their primary language and maintain a kind of cultural island, then I'm English, right?

Don't get me wrong, here. I do think of myself as English. Not British by any means — I am completely American. I don't think a person has to be British to be English.

But you would consider me English? If you would consider the Pennsylvania Dutch German, then you'd have to consider me English, I would think.

But to relate back to the OP, is German necessarily European? Can there be people who are wholly German but wholly non-European? I imagine most of the Pennsylvania Dutch would consider themselves to be completely American — that is, this land is their homeland and no other.




Heut is 's xäctly zwanzig Johr
Dass ich bin owwe naus;
Nau bin ich widder lewig z'rück
Und steh am Schulhaus an d'r Krick
Juscht nächst ans Daddy's Haus.

Most of it is recognizable as Rhine Franconian and although a number of English loan words are present, it remains German in character.
As near as I can tell, that number is two: "'xäctly" and "Daddy's". Do you see others?




At the time of the Revolution, I can certainly see that we would have been nearly indistinguishable from our European cousins, however in the aftermath of the war, and with each successive war, our national identity, and separation from Europe, became more entrenched. Certainly, the different German groups retained more of a European identity due to their isolation from the British derived Americans and relatively late, in many cases, entrance into the continent.
Interesting ideas. I think that by the time of the Revolution, 100 to 150 years after the immigration of most of the Anglo-Saxon population at the time, Americans had become quite culturally distinct from the British. You say they weren't, and that the distinction has arisen basically through political separation.

Well, what about the Canadians? The old-stock English Canadians and the old-stock English United Statesians have mostly the same pre-Revolution ancestors. Most of the old-stock English Canadians are the descendants of people who moved north when some of their fellow colonists turned rebel. And since then, they haven't really had any wars separate from Britain's wars and relatively little political separation from Britain (compared to the U.S.). Would you then say that they are, if not nearly indistinguishable from our British cousins, then certainly far more like our British cousins than we are?

If you felt that way, then I'd have to wonder how many Canadians you know. In my experience, Canadians are nearly indistinguishable from their fellow Anglo-Americans to the south, and all of us are quite different from our British kin.

And next, what about Utahns? You may not know many Utahns, I guess, but most of their ancestors immigrated from England about 100 to 150 years ago — the same time distance from immigration as the revolutionaries had. In fact, many of the linguistic features of mid- to late-19th-century Midlands English are preserved in Utah still today.

Do old-line Utahns (like Mitt Romney, who, though not from Utah himself, is 'ethnically' Utahn) seem to be nearly indistinguishable from their British cousins? I trow not! They may be pretty different from their fellow Anglo-Americans, more different than the U.S.-Canadian difference in my opinion, but they're certainly not British!




A minor point, BUT! Our greatest Old English epic is set in the pre Migration age. Our early missionaries like Boniface and so on saw Old Saxony as the natural place to head for, to convert those of Our Blood and Our Bone. Our Kings remained in full contact with Germanic Kings elsewhere - see Aethelberht's, Offa's and many others' marriage policies. I know less of the other side of the relationship, but Theudebert showed off to the Emperor that he ruled the Saxons in Britain, and Engelant is given prominence in the OHG poems that Carl Orff bundled into Carmina Burana.


Good points, BUT!, they were still English, not Saxon, and became more distinct with every passing generation. ;)
It took a long time, though. Their dialects were mutually intelligible for 500 to 600 years after the immigration to England (during which time they still focused heavily on their continental roots, as Oswiu demonstrated), and they still maintained close trade connections with the Lowland Germans and Dutch well into the 17th century — over a thousand years after they went to Britain.

The connection with the Frisians has continued even longer among some Brits. They still maintain close fishing contacts today, I understand. And I've even heard here on Skadi of a monolingual Frisian-speaking woman who went to Britain and had no trouble communicating.

True, the English are not the same people as their cousins across the North Sea, but it has taken a very long time to get that way, and it's tough to say for certain whether the process is even complete. To use the English as an example in discussing the divide between New Worlders and their Old World co-nationals tends to argue against your point, it seems to me.

Psychonaut
Saturday, October 25th, 2008, 10:59 PM
Interesting ideas. I think that by the time of the Revolution, 100 to 150 years after the immigration of most of the Anglo-Saxon population at the time, Americans had become quite culturally distinct from the British. You say they weren't, and that the distinction has arisen basically through political separation.

I'll certainly admit that there would've been many cultural differences already in place at that time, however I would imagine (although I'm not positive on this) that since Americans at that time were subjects of the crown, and that most of their ancestors had been for centuries prior, they wouldn't have been terribly swift to identify as something other than British. What I was really trying to get at though was that the the formation of the various American ethnicities did not occur over night. I think that for many groups the Revolution did provide a benchmark, but it was by no means the sole determining factor for the differentiation. I would, however, be very interested to know if their was any immediate shift in how Americans referred to their ethnicity in the years surrounding the Revolution.

Hauke Haien
Saturday, October 25th, 2008, 11:10 PM
So, if the Pennsylvania Dutch are German because that's their ancestry and they still speak German as their primary language and maintain a kind of cultural island, then I'm English, right?
This does not follow, because we are not talking about universal concepts. The intellectuals of our national awakening were not concerned about defining any ethnicity, just the German one. If we were to apply our tradition to Americans, then yes, they would be an English group, probably including the failed Germans and other Germanics.


But to relate back to the OP, is German necessarily European? Can there be people who are wholly German but wholly non-European?
Germany is where Germans are.


I imagine most of the Pennsylvania Dutch would consider themselves to be completely American — that is, this land is their homeland and no other.
Depending on what being American means, it could be compatible with being German under the conditions expressed throughout this thread. Loyalty to any German state is no such condition. It remains the business of a folkish state to create and strengthen coherence between the groups.


As near as I can tell, that number is two: "'xäctly" and "Daddy's". Do you see others?
'Nau'/'now' is a loanword, 'juscht'/'just' and 'nächst an'/'next to' are calques.

Soten
Saturday, October 25th, 2008, 11:54 PM
I would, however, be very interested to know if their was any immediate shift in how Americans referred to their ethnicity in the years surrounding the Revolution.

Thomas Jefferson referred to his country as "Virginia" and himself as "Virginian" as opposed to British or English. I don't know for certain, but I would assume that this wasn't a sudden decision of his based on the Revolution but that he probably grew up with this idea.

Leofric
Sunday, October 26th, 2008, 07:43 AM
'Nau'/'now' is a loanword, 'juscht'/'just' and 'nächst an'/'next to' are calques.
I can accept that on juscht.

Are you sure about nau and nächst an? Do you have evidence that they're loans and not cognate usages? I don't see any reason why they have to be loans.

And by the way, the rest of your post answered my question great. Thanks for helping me understand you on that! :thumbup



I'll certainly admit that there would've been many cultural differences already in place at that time, however I would imagine (although I'm not positive on this) that since Americans at that time were subjects of the crown, and that most of their ancestors had been for centuries prior, they wouldn't have been terribly swift to identify as something other than British.


Thomas Jefferson referred to his country as "Virginia" and himself as "Virginian" as opposed to British or English. I don't know for certain, but I would assume that this wasn't a sudden decision of his based on the Revolution but that he probably grew up with this idea.

I don't think any of the Americans thought of themselves as British. When I've read their writings, they all seem to use the word British as a reference to the folks across the ocean, even the ones who were loyalists.

They also tended to use the word English to refer to themselves.

As for issues like "Virginian", I think it's important to remember that concepts like ethnicity have evolved into what they are today. Germans in Jefferson's day might have thought of themselves primarily as Saxons or Prussians or Bavarians or Hessians rather than as Germans, but that doesn't mean they didn't feel the same kind of solidarity with one another that we associate today with the idea German. Folks all over had a smaller view of community than we do today. That can make their self-identification problematic as a means of establishing their identity — it can still be helpful, but it can also lead us astray.




What I was really trying to get at though was that the the formation of the various American ethnicities did not occur over night.
And I'm questioning whether it's even occurred. If it's not instantaneous (and I agree with you that it's not), then how can we determine when it actually happens?

Surely there are differences between American Englishmen and British Englishmen and other kinds of Englishmen. But have we formed various English ethnicities? I don't think so. I think we're still a common ethnicity.


I think that for many groups the Revolution did provide a benchmark, but it was by no means the sole determining factor for the differentiation. I would, however, be very interested to know if their was any immediate shift in how Americans referred to their ethnicity in the years surrounding the Revolution.
It would be especially interesting given the fact that about 20% of the Anglo-Americans remained loyal to the Crown and moved north, so the revolution didn't affect their ties to the British government at all. And yet culturally, their descendants are far more like us today than like Brits, even though they are still subjects of the same Crown.

My point with that is that I don't think the Revolution had any effect on ethnicity. If Anglo-Americans are a different ethnicity, it's not due to anything political, because the Anglos of the U.S. and the Anglos of Canada are pretty much indistinguishable.

Hauke Haien
Sunday, October 26th, 2008, 11:53 AM
Are you sure about nau and nächst an? Do you have evidence that they're loans and not cognate usages? I don't see any reason why they have to be loans.
'Nau' is simply a phonetic spelling of 'now', the dialect variant form of 'nun' would be 'nu'. I was wrong about 'nächst an', though. It looked like a loan translation, but it isn't. There are widespread loan translations, such as "Sinn machen" (to make sense) instead of "Sinn ergeben" (to yield sense) and I might have been oversensitive in this particular instance.

Loki
Sunday, October 26th, 2008, 03:19 PM
American is an ethnicity as is English, Scottish and German. Those who have been in America for centuries can be seen as ethnically American. In the same sense, people from England are English, not Angles or Normans or Saxons or Romans.

Leofric
Sunday, October 26th, 2008, 08:06 PM
'Nau' is simply a phonetic spelling of 'now', the dialect variant form of 'nun' would be 'nu'.
I'm not convinced. I understand that 'nau' and 'now' have the same phonetic form, but that does not prove a loan in two closely related words, especially when both dialects seem to have undergone a shift from *u > au, as is seen in the pronunciation 'haus' for proto-Germanic 'hus' in both dialects. If both dialects are already sending some *u > au, then why couldn't it happen independently for 'nau' and 'now'?




American is an ethnicity as is English, Scottish and German. Those who have been in America for centuries can be seen as ethnically American. In the same sense, people from England are English, not Angles or Normans or Saxons or Romans.
Interesting idea. How do you account for the ethnic variation among those who've been in America for centuries? Some of us are Anglo-Saxons. Some are French. Some are Iberian. Some are Negroes. Some are Sioux. All these are very clearly distinct from one another and behave like different ethnicities and treat one another as ethnically distinct. Yet it sounds like you want to make them all a single ethnicity. Am I reading you right?

Or are you just saying that the Anglo-Americans are a new Anglo-Saxon ethnicity, and that they've become ethnically differentiated from the Anglo-Saxons of Britain?

And where do you stand on Canadians, by the way? They're Americans, so I assume you're counting them as part of the American ethnicity, but sometimes it can get tough to tell how people are using the word 'American'.

Loki
Sunday, October 26th, 2008, 08:24 PM
Interesting idea. How do you account for the ethnic variation among those who've been in America for centuries?

Americans have been mostly an intermixed European entity since the days of the founding fathers, mainly incorporating Dutch, English, Irish, German, Norwegian, Italian origins into a new ethnic identity -- the American. In much the same way the Afrikaners of South Africa were formed. There are no longer pure Irish or pure English Americans, except for recent immigrants. I am talking about the established families.


Some of us are Anglo-Saxons. Some are French. Some are Iberian. Some are Negroes. Some are Sioux. All these are very clearly distinct from one another and behave like different ethnicities and treat one another as ethnically distinct. Yet it sounds like you want to make them all a single ethnicity. Am I reading you right?

Nope, I am not including the negro or Native Americans into this ethnicity -- racial separation in the US have mostly been observed for centuries, whether willing (in the south) or involuntary (in the north), because of the sheer numbers of people of European origin. Several northern states, for example Maine, actually have higher percentages of white people than some European countries.

None of you are Anglo-Saxons, I'm afraid, although you would probably have some A-S ancestry. Even in England pure Anglo-Saxons are hard to find.


And where do you stand on Canadians, by the way? They're Americans, so I assume you're counting them as part of the American ethnicity, but sometimes it can get tough to tell how people are using the word 'American'.

Canadians are obviously quite close to Americans of the US, but there are important ethnic differences. Anglophone Canada is probably comparable with Australia, as it has a larger percentage of British ancestry. Likewise Quebec is totally unique ethnically.

Soten
Sunday, October 26th, 2008, 09:21 PM
Americans have been mostly an intermixed European entity since the days of the founding fathers, mainly incorporating Dutch, English, Irish, German, Norwegian, Italian origins into a new ethnic identity -- the American. In much the same way the Afrikaners of South Africa were formed. There are no longer pure Irish or pure English Americans, except for recent immigrants. I am talking about the established families.



Nope, I am not including the negro or Native Americans into this ethnicity -- racial separation in the US have mostly been observed for centuries, whether willing (in the south) or involuntary (in the north), because of the sheer numbers of people of European origin. Several northern states, for example Maine, actually have higher percentages of white people than some European countries.

None of you are Anglo-Saxons, I'm afraid, although you would probably have some A-S ancestry. Even in England pure Anglo-Saxons are hard to find.



Canadians are obviously quite close to Americans of the US, but there are important ethnic differences. Anglophone Canada is probably comparable with Australia, as it has a larger percentage of British ancestry. Likewise Quebec is totally unique ethnically.

I agree with this up to a point...
First, Italians have never figured into the equation. They didn't even show up on the scene until 1890 - 1920. Plus, we just don't see eye to eye on a lot of things, Italians are in no way "old stock".

Second, "purity" wouldn't be a part of it, in as much as you talked about "pure" English and "pure" Irish. Sometimes when I tell people that I am American ethnically they say "Oh, so you're a mutt." That's a sure way to piss somebody off...especially when it comes from people who have a similar ancestry. I think a 100% "pure" English-derived American whose family has been here for 350+ years is still ethnically American (if we are going to accept American as an ethnicity of course) just as much as the guy who's 95% English and 5% German or Dutch and just as much as the guy who is 50% English 30% German and 20% Scots-Irish.

I would/do support any attempts to raise consciousness of Old Stock American heritage. Which I do hope would lead to some sort of Afrikaner-like ethnic status for Old Stock Americans. This would not mean Americans would be denying their ancestral lineage or anything of the sort. I don't think Afrikaners say they are not Dutch. The point is that the Afrikaners/Old Stock Americans have created something a little different than their European cousins in the 400 or so years they had and, importantly, feel very attached to their new home, enough so to call it a homeland. Which isn't to say that England or Holland isn't the Ancestral Homeland.

Of course, raising an awareness of anything having to do with ethnicity or culture that pertains to Northwestern Europeans has a snowball's chance in hell of making an impact nowadays, but we can still try.

Loki
Sunday, October 26th, 2008, 09:38 PM
I would/do support any attempts to raise consciousness of Old Stock American heritage. Which I do hope would lead to some sort of Afrikaner-like ethnic status for Old Stock Americans. This would not mean Americans would be denying their ancestral lineage or anything of the sort. I don't think Afrikaners say they are not Dutch. The point is that the Afrikaners/Old Stock Americans have created something a little different than their European cousins in the 400 or so years they had and, importantly, feel very attached to their new home, enough so to call it a homeland. Which isn't to say that England or Holland isn't the Ancestral Homeland.


This is my point exactly. :) An ethnicity that people can identify with realistically, without having to conjure up images of centuries gone by. Europe is no longer the same as it used to be anyway. Put an American in Yorkshire and he'll feel just as foreign as a Yorkshireman in the Midwest.

Soten
Sunday, October 26th, 2008, 09:52 PM
I hope this question doesn't drive the thread off course, but does anyone know if "Afrikaner" is accepted world-wide as an ethnicity?

I respect the Afrikaners very much not only because they are an interesting people but also because they seem to have a lot in common with Old Stock Americans, Australians, Canadians, etc. in terms of situation and history. Yet only the Afrikaners have been able to firmly assert their uniqueness in such a way that people can even say they constitute an ethnicity without being looked at funny.

I was under the assumption that "Afrikaner" was a widely accepted ethnicity, but I recently ran into some things that seemed to challenge that notion, mostly on leftist/anti-racist grounds. Of course, this shouldn't change the fact that they are an ethnicity but I would like to know the problems and challenges that have arisen in order to better understand the possibilities for a similar ethnic initiative among Old Stock Americans/Candadians.

Loyalist
Sunday, October 26th, 2008, 11:28 PM
I hope this question doesn't drive the thread off course, but does anyone know if "Afrikaner" is accepted world-wide as an ethnicity?

I respect the Afrikaners very much not only because they are an interesting people but also because they seem to have a lot in common with Old Stock Americans, Australians, Canadians, etc. in terms of situation and history. Yet only the Afrikaners have been able to firmly assert their uniqueness in such a way that people can even say they constitute an ethnicity without being looked at funny.

I was under the assumption that "Afrikaner" was a widely accepted ethnicity, but I recently ran into some things that seemed to challenge that notion, mostly on leftist/anti-racist grounds. Of course, this shouldn't change the fact that they are an ethnicity but I would like to know the problems and challenges that have arisen in order to better understand the possibilities for a similar ethnic initiative among Old Stock Americans/Candadians.

I have nothing but respect and admiration for Afrikaners; they're a branch of the Germanic and Northern European global dispoara, who have been subjected to trials and hardships in many cases far worse than other Colonials, and continue to persevere even after being cheated by their own nation and the world as a whole.

As for whether or not they've forged a new ethnic group, it could be argued both ways. When examining this matter, we must consider that their situation is not identical to other Colonials around the globe. Afrikaners descend from a much smaller, more homogeneous mix of ethnic groups. Specifically, they are of German, Dutch, and French Huguenot blood, and have blended together seamlessly since the 17th century. Colonials in North America and Australia, on the other hand, from an old-stock point of view, hail from some combination of English, Scottish, Ulster-Scottish, Irish, Welsh, German, Dutch, and Scandinavian forbears. In turn, many of these are unfortunately inter-marrying with more recent Romance and Slavic settlers. This kills any prospect of unique North American or Australian Germanic ethnic groups ever being forged as, unlike in South Africa, the definition of what is white, Germanic, and/or European has been crushed under the weight of unrestricted immigration.

Personally, I lean towards the idea that Afrikaners do constitute an ethnic group, and believe they provide an example as to what other Colonial socieities could have achieved had we not allowed "ethnic Europeans", and non-Europeans in general, to flood into our nations.

Angelcynn Beorn
Monday, October 27th, 2008, 12:11 AM
I think geography plays a much smaller role in defining ethnicity than is generally accepted. I'm not a big one for conspiracy theories, but i do think a lot of the drive to consider simply growing up in an area to be the most important fact in defining ethnicity is politically motivated. The state, as it has evolved today, controls areas not people. So in its eyes - and this filters down into the general populace through laws, publications, official announcements, etc - it is in its interest to try and sever any feelings of loyalty that go beyond its own borders (unless it is using them as an excuse to expand). Hence why the media constantly refers to ethnic minorities as English simply for being born here, but rarely if ever refers to the huge numbers of Americans with English ancestry as being anything other than foreign.

In my personal opinion everyone who is descended from Anglo-Saxons, and still lives within an Anglo-Saxon society, is part of a single common ethnicity.

Soten
Monday, October 27th, 2008, 12:38 AM
I have nothing but respect and admiration for Afrikaners; they're a branch of the Germanic and Northern European global dispoara, who have been subjected to trials and hardships in many cases far worse than other Colonials, and continue to persevere even after being cheated by their own nation and the world as a whole.

As for whether or not they've forged a new ethnic group, it could be argued both ways. When examining this matter, we must consider that their situation is not identical to other Colonials around the globe. Afrikaners descend from a much smaller, more homogeneous mix of ethnic groups. Specifically, they are of German, Dutch, and French Huguenot blood, and have blended together seamlessly since the 17th century. Colonials in North America and Australia, on the other hand, from an old-stock point of view, hail from some combination of English, Scottish, Ulster-Scottish, Irish, Welsh, German, Dutch, and Scandinavian forbears. In turn, many of these are unfortunately inter-marrying with more recent Romance and Slavic settlers. This kills any prospect of unique North American or Australian Germanic ethnic groups ever being forged as, unlike in South Africa, the definition of what is white, Germanic, and/or European has been crushed under the weight of unrestricted immigration.

Personally, I lean towards the idea that Afrikaners do constitute an ethnic group, and believe they provide an example as to what other Colonial socieities could have achieved had we not allowed "ethnic Europeans", and non-Europeans in general, to flood into our nations.


Fair enough, but can't we try to do something to limit the effects of the immigration. If moving in the direction set by the Afrikaners were any sort of goal of ours how do we reach this goal? (big question, just throwin' it out there) Oh and I don't think the Afrikaners ancestral background is really any less complicated than our own. Many Afrikaners also have English, Scottish, even Portuguese ancestry. Also, I would think that ancestry that goes beyond one already established ethnicity would be even more reason to call a group a seperate ethnicity.

Again, maybe it's a bit fanciful but something is better than nothing.

Loyalist
Monday, October 27th, 2008, 02:03 AM
Fair enough, but can't we try to do something to limit the effects of the immigration. If moving in the direction set by the Afrikaners were any sort of goal of ours how do we reach this goal? (big question, just throwin' it out there)

Expel all those that don't descend from the ethnic groups of the original settlers, or carve out a homeland over here specifically for such a purpose. The Boerestaat that the AWB strives for is an ideal example.


Oh and I don't think the Afrikaners ancestral background is really any less complicated than our own. Many Afrikaners also have English, Scottish, even Portuguese ancestry. Also, I would think that ancestry that goes beyond one already established ethnicity would be even more reason to call a group a seperate ethnicity.

There are Portuguese in the area that are remnants of Colonial Angola, and of course many Anglo-Africans in South Africa and Zimbabwe. However, I've never heard of either being brought into the Afrikaner fold, and particularly in the case of the former, I don't think inter-marriage occurs (at least to any measurable extent). The Afrikaners I know tend to refer to Anglo-Africans as "English"; same race, different ethnic group. Perhaps our Afrikaner members could shed some light on that?

Angelcynn Beorn
Monday, October 27th, 2008, 02:52 AM
There are Portuguese in the area that are remnants of Colonial Angola, and of course many Anglo-Africans in South Africa and Zimbabwe. However, I've never heard of either being brought into the Afrikaner fold

The only attempt i've ever read that attempted to weigh the contribution of different nations to the make up of the Afrikaners had the British contribution being 7.5%.

Kriegersohn
Monday, October 27th, 2008, 09:29 AM
They also tended to use the word English to refer to themselves.

As for issues like "Virginian", I think it's important to remember that concepts like ethnicity have evolved into what they are today. Germans in Jefferson's day might have thought of themselves primarily as Saxons or Prussians or Bavarians or Hessians rather than as Germans, but that doesn't mean they didn't feel the same kind of solidarity with one another that we associate today with the idea German. Folks all over had a smaller view of community than we do today. That can make their self-identification problematic as a means of establishing their identity — it can still be helpful, but it can also lead us astray.

I've brought it up before, more though in other threads, most Germans here weren't unified. Regional differences, alliances, antagonisms, etc were carried over into the early 1900's and, while lessened over time, can still be seen today. This only qualifies though for those who know where their family came from and still carry on German tradition despite the anti-German laws and discrimination from the Anglo majority. Pommeranians, Germans from Russia, Dithmarschers, Hessians, Bavarians, Palantines, etc all identify with being German...having them sit down and talk to one another, much less agree on anything, is another story. Same would go towards the political, philosophical and religious groupings (ie: '48ers, Freidenkers, Mennonites, Hutterites, etc). Being on friendly terms doesn't equate solidarity...



My point with that is that I don't think the Revolution had any effect on ethnicity. If Anglo-Americans are a different ethnicity, it's not due to anything political, because the Anglos of the U.S. and the Anglos of Canada are pretty much indistinguishable.

DeTocqueville mentions as much in "Democracy in America" (minus the US/Canada comparision :) ).

SwordOfTheVistula
Monday, October 27th, 2008, 10:22 AM
Americans have been mostly an intermixed European entity since the days of the founding fathers, mainly incorporating Dutch, English, Irish, German, Norwegian, Italian origins into a new ethnic identity -- the American. In much the same way the Afrikaners of South Africa were formed. There are no longer pure Irish or pure English Americans, except for recent immigrants. I am talking about the established families.

They were, until the past generation or 2. The smaller ethnic groups like the Dutch tended to get absorbed into the surrounding ethnic group. Germans more or less by default as being the only ethnic group around, English more by choice, refusing to associate with the Irish well past the midpoint of the 20th century. Some tensions remain in New England, though they mostly play out in terms of working class catholic vs episcopalian/unitarian hereditary wealth.



Canadians are obviously quite close to Americans of the US, but there are important ethnic differences. Anglophone Canada is probably comparable with Australia, as it has a larger percentage of British ancestry. Likewise Quebec is totally unique ethnically.

Parts of Canada are more similar culturally than to Canadians in other parts of the country. Canadians from Alberta are similar to Americans from Montana, British Columbia is more similar to Washington&Oregon than anywhere else, Maine is more similar to the maritime provinces of Canada than the rest of the US.



Put an American in Yorkshire and he'll feel just as foreign as a Yorkshireman in the Midwest.

Which really isn't that foreign. When I was in Yorkshire, I didn't really feel out of place, compared when I was in Japan or southern Europe.

Leofric
Wednesday, October 29th, 2008, 09:33 PM
Americans have been mostly an intermixed European entity since the days of the founding fathers, mainly incorporating Dutch, English, Irish, German, Norwegian, Italian origins into a new ethnic identity -- the American. In much the same way the Afrikaners of South Africa were formed. There are no longer pure Irish or pure English Americans, except for recent immigrants. I am talking about the established families.
Your knowledge of the history of the European settlement of America seems to be lacking a bit. There really wasn't as much ethnic mixing as you suggest until the past couple of generations, after the Jewish myth of the American melting pot came into vogue. Different ethnicities tended to remain distinct, settling in different places and marrying different people.

There are many Americans who are just as 'pure English' as the average Brit in England with no immigrant ancestry from the past century or two.

You can't make a good case for a separate American ethnicity that goes back more than about 50 years based on supposed ethnic mixing, since there's not enough good evidence for it. And if you're saying the American ethnicity is only about 50 years old, then I have to wonder if it qualifies as a real ethnicity.

Soten's argument for an American ethnicity, on the other hand, is more reasonable:


I think a 100% "pure" English-derived American whose family has been here for 350+ years is still ethnically American (if we are going to accept American as an ethnicity of course)
This suggests that it's not the supposed miscegenation that has yielded an American ethnicity, but rather the prolonged separation from our fellow Anglo-Saxons. That's reasonable. I don't know that I agree, but it's still a reasonable premise for argument.




Nope, I am not including the negro or Native Americans into this ethnicity -- racial separation in the US have mostly been observed for centuries, whether willing (in the south) or involuntary (in the north), because of the sheer numbers of people of European origin. Several northern states, for example Maine, actually have higher percentages of white people than some European countries.
Well, I'm glad you recognize that Blacks and Indians aren't the same ethnicity as someone like me. That's a good place to find initial agreement.

I also asked about the French and the Spanish.

In Maine, which you've brought up, there are plenty of towns near Quebec that were settled by the French, where French is still the language spoken in the town and the people are not very distinguishable culturally from the Quebecois. Do you think they're the same ethnicity as someone like me?

In New Mexico, there are a lot of people who are descended from the original Spanish settlers of the area. All their ancestors from the year 1500 were European, and mostly Spanish (though some would probably have been Basque). They speak a rather fascinating and archaic-sounding dialect of Spanish. Do you think they're the same ethnicity as people like me?

I could also ask about the Pennsylvania Dutch.

When you go suggesting that all the Americans of European descent are a single ethnicity, the claim seems rather exaggerated. It's hard to suppose that people who seem so alien to one another could be of the same ethnicity. More specificity would help.




None of you are Anglo-Saxons, I'm afraid, although you would probably have some A-S ancestry. Even in England pure Anglo-Saxons are hard to find.
Um, okay. Assume that there exist some Americans whose ancestors all came from England 350 to 400 years ago. What term would you prefer we use to group those Americans together with those Britons whose ancestors all came from England 350 to 400 years ago? If you don't like Anglo-Saxon for it (and I can see reasons to not like that term), then what term would you suggest?

Note that proposing a term of this sort doesn't mean that you agree these two groups share a common ethnicity. It could be a term for a kind of meta-ethnicity. That would be fine. All I want is some term to make it easy to talk about this larger group without having to always repeat the phrase "people whose ancestors 400 years ago were all from England."




Canadians are obviously quite close to Americans of the US, but there are important ethnic differences. Anglophone Canada is probably comparable with Australia, as it has a larger percentage of British ancestry. Likewise Quebec is totally unique ethnically.
Important ethnic differences between Canadians and United Statesians? I tell you, it's tough to tell the difference between the average Albertan and the average Idahoan. They seem exactly alike. In contrast, the average Idahoan is worlds apart from the average New Englander, just as the average Albertan is nothing like the average person from Toronto. Any ethnic boundary that divides the Albertan from the Idahoan so it can group the Idahoan with the New Englander on the one hand and the Albertan with the guy from Toronto on the other is a boundary that's just not in touch with reality. In reality, if the the New Englander and the Idahoan share a common ethnicity, then they share it with the old stock Anglo-Canadians as well. After all, two hundred fifty years ago, all our ancestors were basically all living side by side in the 13 colonies.

I am glad you recognize the distinctness of the Quebecois. I assume that means you also recognize the distinctness of the French in the US, the Spanish in the US, and the Pennsylvania Dutch that I mentioned above. If so, then maybe we can eventually pare down the bounds of this ethnicity you call "American" to something more reasonable.

TheGreatest
Wednesday, October 29th, 2008, 09:46 PM
When you go suggesting that all the Americans of European descent are a single ethnicity, the claim seems rather exaggerated. It's hard to suppose that people who seem so alien to one another could be of the same ethnicity. More specificity would help.

Um, okay. Assume that there exist some Americans whose ancestors all came from England 350 to 400 years ago. What term would you prefer we use to group those Americans together with those Britons whose ancestors all came from England 350 to 400 years ago? If you don't like Anglo-Saxon for it (and I can see reasons to not like that term), then what term would you suggest?

Note that proposing a term of this sort doesn't mean that you agree these two groups share a common ethnicity. It could be a term for a kind of meta-ethnicity. That would be fine. All I want is some term to make it easy to talk about this larger group without having to always repeat the phrase "people whose ancestors 400 years ago were all from England."




Important ethnic differences between Canadians and United Statesians? I tell you, it's tough to tell the difference between the average Albertan and the average Idahoan. They seem exactly alike. In contrast, the average Idahoan is worlds apart from the average New Englander, just as the average Albertan is nothing like the average person from Toronto. Any ethnic boundary that divides the Albertan from the Idahoan so it can group the Idahoan with the New Englander on the one hand and the Albertan with the guy from Toronto on the other is a boundary that's just not in touch with reality. In reality, if the the New Englander and the Idahoan share a common ethnicity, then they share it with the old stock Anglo-Canadians as well. After all, two hundred fifty years ago, all our ancestors were basically all living side by side in the 13 colonies.

I am glad you recognize the distinctness of the Quebecois. I assume that means you also recognize the distinctness of the French in the US, the Spanish in the US, and the Pennsylvania Dutch that I mentioned above. If so, then maybe we can eventually pare down the bounds of this ethnicity you call "American" to something more reasonable.

My Great Grandparents were all living in rural communities that were populated by their own kin.
My paternal Grandparents and my parents were the ones who married outside their kin. But then it was never to the extreme. What's the difference between a Norwegian and a Scotsman? Compared to a Norwegian and an Italian? A lot less.

My Grandmother taught me at age 8-11, that I could never marry an Asian woman or an Italian woman, the former was not Christian and the latter was Catholic. The ironic thing being my Grandmother is a devout Catholic who attends church every sunday.
Rather she used Catholic as an excuse for me to not go out with an Italian or Spaniard. Obviously she was smart, because few teenagers understand racial theory (myself I didn't get a good idea on it till 18 and when I entered the workforce)

Soten
Wednesday, October 29th, 2008, 10:40 PM
Soten's argument for an American ethnicity, on the other hand, is more reasonable:


This suggests that it's not the supposed miscegenation that has yielded an American ethnicity, but rather the prolonged separation from our fellow Anglo-Saxons. That's reasonable. I don't know that I agree, but it's still a reasonable premise for argument.


Thank you, I try to be as reasonable as I can between fits of irrationality.

I would say it's some combination of:
1. Prolonged separation from Old England/Old World
2. Different Location/climate/terrain. I think this has had its impact too.
3. Different political mindset which was both an effect of our situation and it affects other aspects of our lives. I mean things like libertarianism, classic American liberalism, hands-off/small government. It's essentially the type of political mindset you would expect to find among pioneers and backwoodsmen who are wary and weary of government interventionism. I'm sure there could be more added here.
4. Puritan/Calvinist type Protestantisms - I'm no expert on this, but it would seem to me that America was a place that attracted more than it's fair share of ueber-Protestants. Surely then, this has had an impact as well.
5. In continuation of 2 (and also 3 in a way), we were/are settlers and pioneers in this land. This type of life in the untamed wilderness of North America has also caused our paths to diverge from those that "stayed home".

I bet other people could add more (and better) reasons.

I also agree that the old-stock Anglo-Canadians would be pretty much in the same boat with us.

Although I don't think the mixing of ethnicities in America was really the driving force of making an American ethnicity, I think it must be made clear that most Old-Stock Americans will have either (or some combination of) French Huguenots, Scots-Irish, Dutch, German, and even Irish in the family tree somewhere. The same would go for the Old-Stock Canadians (since they are so close to Old-Stock Americans I wonder if there couldn't be a better name to include both...). And thus, I personally don't know about the "Anglo" prefix that could just be attached to "American". I wouldn't want to disrespect my German, Dutch, etc ancestors.

I hope all of this fell somewhere in the realm of reason and wasn't one of my many irrational spats. :D

Psychonaut
Thursday, October 30th, 2008, 01:23 AM
I also asked about the French and the Spanish.

In Maine, which you've brought up, there are plenty of towns near Quebec that were settled by the French, where French is still the language spoken in the town and the people are not very distinguishable culturally from the Quebecois. Do you think they're the same ethnicity as someone like me?


That would be ridiculous wouldn't it? Particularly considering the historical and current animosity between many groups of French and English derived North Americans.

Leofric
Thursday, October 30th, 2008, 09:24 PM
I would say it's some combination of:
1. Prolonged separation from Old England/Old World
That might be enough to create a new ethnicity. In our case, I don't think we've had enough time to do it.


2. Different Location/climate/terrain. I think this has had its impact too.
This is definitely a huge factor. But again, it takes time. Was Rudyard Kipling not English simply because he was born and raised in India? I don't think so. India had a major impact on him, but I think he was still English. But then, I think ethnicity is more a matter of who your parents are than the land you live in.


3. Different political mindset which was both an effect of our situation and it affects other aspects of our lives. I mean things like libertarianism, classic American liberalism, hands-off/small government. It's essentially the type of political mindset you would expect to find among pioneers and backwoodsmen who are wary and weary of government interventionism. I'm sure there could be more added here.
I could agree with you easier if that political mindset weren't just as common in Australia and England as it is here in North America. A lot of that is common to all Germanics (especially those that aren't German), but we Englishmen seem to have gotten a good strong dose of it from our common Germanic ancestors.

As Edmund Burke said of Thomas Gage's role in trying to suppress the American Revolution: "An Englishman is the unfittest person on Earth to argue another Englishman into slavery."


4. Puritan/Calvinist type Protestantisms - I'm no expert on this, but it would seem to me that America was a place that attracted more than it's fair share of ueber-Protestants. Surely then, this has had an impact as well.
Again, I think that's common throughout the Anglosphere, especially the further you get from London. Though Christianity is dying out everywhere, I think Puritanism and that style of Protestantism was a major historical shaper of Australia just as much as it was of Anglo-America, and was certainly not absent from the development of modern England. And here, too, we find many commonalities with our fellow Germanics, like the Dutch and the Scandinavians.


5. In continuation of 2 (and also 3 in a way), we were/are settlers and pioneers in this land. This type of life in the untamed wilderness of North America has also caused our paths to diverge from those that "stayed home".
I tend to agree with this. But this is also what explains the strong similarities we share with the Australians. And incidentally, this is what tends to divide Western Americans from Eastern Americans (and the same could probably be said of Australia). And I've heard similar arguments used to explain the unique character of moorland Brits.




I also agree that the old-stock Anglo-Canadians would be pretty much in the same boat with us.

. . . . . . . . . .

The same would go for the Old-Stock Canadians (since they are so close to Old-Stock Americans I wonder if there couldn't be a better name to include both...).
I agree. Trying to divide the Canadians from the United Statesians along ethnic lines seems to me to be kind of silly.

Of course, the groups that have maintained a distinction from the rest, like the Quebecois or the Pennsylvania Dutch, are not part of the common ethnicity that includes all the descendants of the old colonists. Other groups, like the Scandinavian communities of the Midwest or the Knickerbockers of New York, that have assimilated in some areas but not in others might also be ethnically distinct. Other individuals who have more or less completely assimilated would essentially be part of that ethnicity that's shared by all the descendants of the early colonists.

I think that ethnicity is basically English, and I think it includes all the Englishmen all over the world. The fact that non-English blood has entered in and become assimilated doesn't seem to make the ethnicity any less English, either. If J.R.R. Tolkien was English even though his ancestors immigrated from Saxony in the 1700s, then I see no reason why Germans in America can't have become assimilated in the dominant English culture here.

Soten
Thursday, October 30th, 2008, 10:15 PM
That might be enough to create a new ethnicity. In our case, I don't think we've had enough time to do it.


This is definitely a huge factor. But again, it takes time. Was Rudyard Kipling not English simply because he was born and raised in India? I don't think so. India had a major impact on him, but I think he was still English. But then, I think ethnicity is more a matter of who your parents are than the land you live in.


I could agree with you easier if that political mindset weren't just as common in Australia and England as it is here in North America. A lot of that is common to all Germanics (especially those that aren't German), but we Englishmen seem to have gotten a good strong dose of it from our common Germanic ancestors.

As Edmund Burke said of Thomas Gage's role in trying to suppress the American Revolution: "An Englishman is the unfittest person on Earth to argue another Englishman into slavery."


Again, I think that's common throughout the Anglosphere, especially the further you get from London. Though Christianity is dying out everywhere, I think Puritanism and that style of Protestantism was a major historical shaper of Australia just as much as it was of Anglo-America, and was certainly not absent from the development of modern England. And here, too, we find many commonalities with our fellow Germanics, like the Dutch and the Scandinavians.


I tend to agree with this. But this is also what explains the strong similarities we share with the Australians. And incidentally, this is what tends to divide Western Americans from Eastern Americans (and the same could probably be said of Australia). And I've heard similar arguments used to explain the unique character of moorland Brits.




I agree. Trying to divide the Canadians from the United Statesians along ethnic lines seems to me to be kind of silly.

Of course, the groups that have maintained a distinction from the rest, like the Quebecois or the Pennsylvania Dutch, are not part of the common ethnicity that includes all the descendants of the old colonists. Other groups, like the Scandinavian communities of the Midwest or the Knickerbockers of New York, that have assimilated in some areas but not in others might also be ethnically distinct. Other individuals who have more or less completely assimilated would essentially be part of that ethnicity that's shared by all the descendants of the early colonists.

I think that ethnicity is basically English, and I think it includes all the Englishmen all over the world. The fact that non-English blood has entered in and become assimilated doesn't seem to make the ethnicity any less English, either. If J.R.R. Tolkien was English even though his ancestors immigrated from Saxony in the 1700s, then I see no reason why Germans in America can't have become assimilated in the dominant English culture here.

Rudyard Kipling's parents were born in England. What's the farthest back that one of us can say that one of our forefathers were born in America? It's been 388 years since the Mayflower landed in Plymouth and 401 years since Jamestown was established.

Religion/Political Mindset - I think we've gotten a much stronger dose than England did. Australia and other former English colonies might be closer, but not the same, because they too received a lot of dissenting Protestants and so on. But the former colonies are not England. And of course we resemble other Germanic countries, I'm not saying we are not Germanic. I bet we resemble England the closest.

Location - Yes, Australians, Canadians, and even South Africans are influenced in equal degree by their location. And inasmuch we are similar.

PA Dutch - Not many true PA Dutch survive. Most of those that say they are PA Dutch can't speak the language and are not part of the culture. Mostly, they have already been assimilated into the old stock group, although there are definitely still pockets where these people are still living together even though they are more likely to resemble the old stock than their ancestors. Amish and Mennonites are really the only hardcore PA Dutch anymore.

The main point is that divergence has happened. It's hard to put into words. For example, I wouldn't consider the Siebenburgen Saxons to be ethnically German in this sense. Yet, they are in fact Germans...but again they are really more appropriately Siebenburger Saxons. A better example, the PA Dutch. They are ethnically Pennsylvania Dutch. But still, they are German. PA Dutch and Germans usually won't even be able to understand each other in conversation. But everyone recognizes that the ancestors of the PA Dutch were in fact from Germany. I'm sure the PA Dutch feel more at home in PA, living their lifestyles, and their religion than they would in Berlin, Stuttgart, Dresden, Muenchen, Bremen, or Koeln.

So I think just for the sake of conceptualization it might be helpful (appropriate?) to say American is a sub-ethnicity. Pennsylvania Dutch is a sub-ethnicity of German. Does that seem to work better?

(Again though, I wouldn't want to identify ethnically as English because it doesn't quite get it. American makes more sense to me. Even if it may be "sub-ethnic".)

Patrioten
Thursday, October 30th, 2008, 11:16 PM
What do you think of Colonials (Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc.) who identify as European? Specifically, I refer to those whose families have been in the New World for some generations, did not inherit any European traditions but who try to practice and pass down the language, culture and history of their distant ancestors and even wish to move to Europe. Europeans, do you accept these people as one of your own

I think that once your family has lived in America for a number of generations, hasn't passed down the language and customs of the home country, your ethnic identity starts to become blurred. Language I think is key to understanding any ethnicity really, and to feel a genuine connection to it, a belonging, it needs to be taught from birth and not learnt later in life. The mother tongue truly is an important part of ones roots. Without the language there from the beginning, you will most likely find yourself observing, "looking in", alot more than participating or practising it from within.

Even dialects play a role in this, if a person moves away from his hometown let's say up in the north of Sweden where they speak distinct rural dialects (stereotyped as being redneck country, hillbilly farmers etc.), down to our capital Stockholm and lives there and adopts its (percieved) snorky up-scale dialect and gets rid of all traces of the dialect of his childhood (which is common among those who move there), if he then returns to his hometown, he may find himself feeling a bit like an outsider, and not just for the fact that he has been away for quite some time. He might be percieved differently, become somewhat of a stranger in the locals' eyes as he speaks a dialect that is foreign to them. A hundred years ago, dialects spoken inbetween villages could result in such alienation, now the boundaries are more loose due to widespread in-country migrations, but there are still boundaries.

And if even the language of ones ancestors is taught rather than inherited, it inevitably creates another wall between you and your heritage and the carriers of that heritage. That's how I feel at least, from my perspective.

If an American of predominantly Swedish ancestry whose parents didn't teach him Swedish and whose grandparents didn't use it either claims he is a Swede while speaking American English of whatever regional belonging, I would have a hard time taking him seriously. If however, I were to meet an American of Swedish ancestry who spoke perfect Swedish of a distinct regional kind and not a bland school-Swedish, I would find the claim to be alot less odd.

Kriegersohn
Friday, October 31st, 2008, 06:32 AM
I think that once your family has lived in America for a number of generations, hasn't passed down the language and customs of the home country, your ethnic identity starts to become blurred. Language I think is key to understanding any ethnicity really, and to feel a genuine connection to it, a belonging, it needs to be taught from birth and not learnt later in life. The mother tongue truly is an important part of ones roots. Without the language there from the beginning, you will most likely find yourself observing, "looking in", alot more than participating or practising it from within.

Not nessesarily, although how a person was brought makes a difference. At the local Stammtisch we do have people that were raised with German traditions and culture, but it was all done in English. Once they began to learn German it gave the other cultural aspects more meaning. One of them returned from Germany over the summer, after studying for a semester there...no issues or problems. Exposure to the parent culture and language *is* essential, especially when a person was not raised in or taught about their ethnicity from day one. For one to learn properly (at any age) he or she will need to observe and listen in the begining.


And if even the language of ones ancestors is taught rather than inherited, it inevitably creates another wall between you and your heritage and the carriers of that heritage. That's how I feel at least, from my perspective.

If an American of predominantly Swedish ancestry whose parents didn't teach him Swedish and whose grandparents didn't use it either claims he is a Swede while speaking American English of whatever regional belonging, I would have a hard time taking him seriously. If however, I were to meet an American of Swedish ancestry who spoke perfect Swedish of a distinct regional kind and not a bland school-Swedish, I would find the claim to be alot less odd.

Language varies with time and vocabulary can be different, inflections and pronounciation can also differ due to both the timeframe they came over and the distance involved. Siebenburgerin brought up different vocabulary that they had versus what was spoken in Germany. I've noticed similiar things with the various German groups here, the Germans from Russia that settled in the area...some can be small, while others are more challenging. We had one individual that was talking about the first time he was in a Luftschiff (literally airship), no problem right? Maybe he was in a blimp during a football game or at worst a balloon ride as it still is a word in Germany...given the conversation it took a bit to figure out, and ask a question, that he was talking about a 747 (in German, Flugzeug...an airplane). The Germans from Russia didn't have a seperate word for it. So if you did meet any Swedes from the US that learned Swedish at home, you might still be in for a shock.:D

Patrioten
Friday, October 31st, 2008, 02:24 PM
Language varies with time and vocabulary can be different, inflections and pronounciation can also differ due to both the timeframe they came over and the distance involved...So if you did meet any Swedes from the US that learned Swedish at home, you might still be in for a shock.:DAbsolutely. Standardized Swedish, rikssvenska, is a product of folkskolan, volkschule, where in the early 20th century and onwards, dialects were discouraged and "pure" Swedish (as imagined by professors and the intelligentia) was taught (språkhygien, language hygiene). A Swedish, of a dialect other than the ones spoken around the capital and adjacent areas, that would have survived this effort by way of emigration to America in the 19th century or early 20th century, would be very different indeed from standardized modern Swedish (and for the better I think).

Blood_Axis
Friday, October 31st, 2008, 02:30 PM
Absolutely. Standardized Swedish, rikssvenska, is a product of folkskolan, volkschule, where in the early 20th century and onwards, dialects were discouraged and "pure" Swedish (as imagined by professors and the intelligentia) was taught (språkhygien, language hygiene). A Swedish, of a dialect other than the ones spoken around the capital and adjacent areas, that would have survived this effort by way of emigration to America in the 19th century or early 20th century, would be very different indeed from standardized modern Swedish (and for the better I think).
It's funny that you mention that, I was very dissappointed to find out during my first courses in Swedish, that we are taught a crude, oversimplified, extremely 'everyday' form of Swedish.

Our teacher said than the swedish language is now dynamic and being shaped in the 'streets', and that we have to know all those abbreviations and neologisms because if we speak 'formal' swedish, either we'll seem retarded or few people will understand us :thumbdown

Resurgam
Friday, October 31st, 2008, 05:12 PM
Absolutely. Standardized Swedish, rikssvenska, is a product of folkskolan, volkschule, where in the early 20th century and onwards, dialects were discouraged and "pure" Swedish (as imagined by professors and the intelligentia) was taught (språkhygien, language hygiene). A Swedish, of a dialect other than the ones spoken around the capital and adjacent areas, that would have survived this effort by way of emigration to America in the 19th century or early 20th century, would be very different indeed from standardized modern Swedish (and for the better I think).

I guess its things like these that were one of the big negative aspects of nationalist idealogy that arose in the West in the 19th century.

Leofric
Monday, November 3rd, 2008, 01:41 AM
Rudyard Kipling's parents were born in England. What's the farthest back that one of us can say that one of our forefathers were born in America? It's been 388 years since the Mayflower landed in Plymouth and 401 years since Jamestown was established.
Exactly my point. The land difference only becomes an issue over time. So the real issue isn't the difference of the land, but the time. I don't think we've had enough time (the Anglo-Americans, at least) in just four centuries to become a different ethnicity.


Religion/Political Mindset - I think we've gotten a much stronger dose than England did. Australia and other former English colonies might be closer, but not the same, because they too received a lot of dissenting Protestants and so on. But the former colonies are not England.
I don't think there's much difference here. An Albertan and an Idahoan are peas in a pod on this. A British Columbian and a Washingtonian as well. All the Australians I've talked to seem to have the same mindset. Urban Brits I've talked to definitely strike me as different on this, but from what I understand, rural Britons are just like their kin in America (i.e., the U.S. and Canada), and Australians in this respect.


PA Dutch - Not many true PA Dutch survive. . . . Amish and Mennonites are really the only hardcore PA Dutch anymore.
Yeah, they're dwindling. It's sad. But, they are still alive!


The main point is that divergence has happened.
No question. But not all divergence is enough to make new ethnicities. The question is twofold: how much divergence has really happened in the ethnicity that, 400 years ago, was called English? and how much divergence does it take in that ethnicity to create new ethnicities?


For example, I wouldn't consider the Siebenburgen Saxons to be ethnically German in this sense.
That's an opinion you could take, I guess.

I would say that if they aren't ethnically German, then neither are the people in Germany. If there's been ethnic differentiation, it's affected everyone in the old ethnicity. Just as we don't say that Spanish, French, Italian, Romanian and so forth are Latin, we would have to say that none of the daughter ethnicities of what used to be German is German today. After all, it's not just the Siebenburgen Saxons who've developed their own ways; the folks in Germany have done it, too.


So I think just for the sake of conceptualization it might be helpful (appropriate?) to say American is a sub-ethnicity. Pennsylvania Dutch is a sub-ethnicity of German. Does that seem to work better?
Maybe.


(Again though, I wouldn't want to identify ethnically as English because it doesn't quite get it. American makes more sense to me. Even if it may be "sub-ethnic".)
To me it makes no sense to say American is an ethnicity. I can see what you're saying, and if that's how you feel about it, then I can understand your viewpoint. But I could never hold that viewpoint. American just isn't an ethnicity to me.

If it were, though, it would have to include the Canadians.




I think that once your family has lived in America for a number of generations, hasn't passed down the language and customs of the home country, your ethnic identity starts to become blurred. Language I think is key to understanding any ethnicity really, and to feel a genuine connection to it, a belonging, it needs to be taught from birth and not learnt later in life. The mother tongue truly is an important part of ones roots. Without the language there from the beginning, you will most likely find yourself observing, "looking in", alot more than participating or practising it from within.
How about those of us who have kept the language and customs alive for centuries?

My ancestors have been here for 350 to 400 years. But I still speak English, just like all my ancestors have for as long as English has existed — and before then it was still an unbroken chain of parent to child language transmission back to the dawn of time.

And the customs and traditions I learned as a child were those that my own parents inherited from their parents and on back forever. We've developed new customs, of course, along the way. We customarily telephone each other now on holidays when we can't all gather together in one place — our ancestors 200 years ago didn't do that. But nevertheless, those customs have been passed down from parents to children in an unbroken chain just like the language has.

Would you consider me English, just as my ancestors from 400 years ago were English?


A Swedish, of a dialect other than the ones spoken around the capital and adjacent areas, that would have survived this effort by way of emigration to America in the 19th century or early 20th century, would be very different indeed from standardized modern Swedish (and for the better I think).
That's the kind of Swedish that Godiva's grandpa spoke. They spoke only Swedish in the home when he was a boy, and lived in a Swedish community. I think it was his grandparents who emigrated from Sweden to America, back in the mid-1800s. When he visited Sweden, everyone said he must have been Norwegian, since they found his dialect so odd.

He was bilingual, though, and his kids learned only a few phrases and swear words in Swedish. Godiva learned those from her dad, but she doesn't use them. She'll probably be the last in her line to learn any inherited Swedish. Kind of sad, I think.

Patrioten
Wednesday, November 5th, 2008, 12:18 AM
How about those of us who have kept the language and customs alive for centuries?

My ancestors have been here for 350 to 400 years. But I still speak English, just like all my ancestors have for as long as English has existed — and before then it was still an unbroken chain of parent to child language transmission back to the dawn of time.

And the customs and traditions I learned as a child were those that my own parents inherited from their parents and on back forever. We've developed new customs, of course, along the way. We customarily telephone each other now on holidays when we can't all gather together in one place — our ancestors 200 years ago didn't do that. But nevertheless, those customs have been passed down from parents to children in an unbroken chain just like the language has.

Would you consider me English, just as my ancestors from 400 years ago were English?.I was going to comment on just that in my post but chose not to. Some ethnicities in America have had a special standing in American history and in American society, they have been the dominant factor in the shaping of the nation. They have therefor existed under rather different conditions compared those of smaller, less influential ethnicities (Swedes and other scandinavians for example) as their own ancestral heritage will have made up the fabric and foundation of the new nation, of America, to a large extent. Descendants of Anglo-saxon immigrants will have inherited parts of the heritage of their native, old country (Language for one thing, something which I consider to be of great importance as I stated in my earlier post). The cultural expressions might be in part new but they are at the same time based to a degree on the old culture and can perhaps in most respects be considered a natural development of it, rather than something completely alien and entirely new.

The situation will be different for the descendants of Anglo-saxon immigrants compared to those who hail from other ethnic groups, and it will of course differ between states, towns and perhaps even families.

I made it a point in an earlier post of mine to not dictate to others who is and who isn't of a certain ethnicity and I think it is a wise position to take. I simply do not know enough about either American history or English history, let alone the respective people and cultures, for me to be making definite statements on these issues. I am not tied to either of them by any ancestral bonds which would qualify me to answer that question.

I also don't know you personally or even online, which would make my opinion based on my own imagination, filling out the blanks and envisioning a person I have never met, more or less :P. For such a serious matter as ethnicity, this simply will not do.



That's the kind of Swedish that Godiva's grandpa spoke. They spoke only Swedish in the home when he was a boy, and lived in a Swedish community. I think it was his grandparents who emigrated from Sweden to America, back in the mid-1800s. When he visited Sweden, everyone said he must have been Norwegian, since they found his dialect so odd.

He was bilingual, though, and his kids learned only a few phrases and swear words in Swedish. Godiva learned those from her dad, but she doesn't use them. She'll probably be the last in her line to learn any inherited Swedish. Kind of sad, I think.I'm guessing he was from Hälsingland or something like that? Parts of what is today Sweden has been a part of Norway historically (and ruled by Denmark), and it's no surprise if Swedes hailing from a border region and emigrating to America, thus preserving their own dialect of Swedish anno 19th century, would sound Norwegian to a more contemporary Swede (and depending on where in Sweden he went of course).

Angelcynn Beorn
Wednesday, November 5th, 2008, 01:18 AM
How about those of us who have kept the language and customs alive for centuries?

My ancestors have been here for 350 to 400 years. But I still speak English, just like all my ancestors have for as long as English has existed — and before then it was still an unbroken chain of parent to child language transmission back to the dawn of time.

And the customs and traditions I learned as a child were those that my own parents inherited from their parents and on back forever. We've developed new customs, of course, along the way. We customarily telephone each other now on holidays when we can't all gather together in one place — our ancestors 200 years ago didn't do that. But nevertheless, those customs have been passed down from parents to children in an unbroken chain just like the language has.

Would you consider me English, just as my ancestors from 400 years ago were English?

The funny thing is that the cultural and language differences between an American, an Australian, and an Englishman today are probably much smaller than the differences between an Englishman from Newcastle and one from Winchester 1,000 to 1,500 years ago. The difference in technology and increased movements over long distances have made the thousands of miles distance between Adelaide and London of less importance than perhaps 100 miles was during the early medieval period.

Although mass media and modern technology are destroying local accents slowly but surely, there's also a case to be made that they are in fact slowing the separation of the Anglo-Saxon diaspora into separate ethnicities. Which personally is something i would be sad to see.

Svalbard
Friday, November 14th, 2008, 04:55 PM
[Note: Thread split and merged from here (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=106880).]

Must be kinda confusing having no real homeland, like the case is with many americans. I find it ridicilous when people for example entitle themselfs as norwegian-americans and are mixed with many other nationalities. A norwegian grandmother doesn't make you a norwegian;) It makes you part, and thats what many americans are. Part this, and part that.

Matthieu Borg
Friday, November 14th, 2008, 06:39 PM
Must be kinda confusing having no real homeland, like the case is with many americans. I find it ridicilous when people for example entitle themselfs as norwegian-americans and are mixed with many other nationalities. A norwegian grandmother doesn't make you a norwegian;) It makes you part, and thats what many americans are. Part this, and part that.

Americans focus on nothing but race and "whiteness" because they have no real identity.

Jagerzen
Friday, November 14th, 2008, 11:38 PM
Must be kinda confusing having no real homeland, like the case is with many americans. I find it ridicilous when people for example entitle themselfs as norwegian-americans and are mixed with many other nationalities. A norwegian grandmother doesn't make you a norwegian;) It makes you part, and thats what many americans are. Part this, and part that.

For some of us; this problem isn't as difficult as you'd image.
A person like me; with mostly Norwegian and English heritage might be seen to have two homelands. But on the other hand, the English people have a good portion of their genes from Scandinavia so if you go back further - it could be claimed that there would be one homeland - though it might be in several closely related Scandinavian countries.

It's all how you view it as an American and how we identify with our cultures; whether it was taught to us as a child or something that we've had to try and pick up the pieces. We can either cry about it or move on with our lives. :)

Svalbard
Saturday, November 15th, 2008, 04:31 PM
For some of us; this problem isn't as difficult as you'd image.
A person like me; with mostly Norwegian and English heritage might be seen to have two homelands. But on the other hand, the English people have a good portion of their genes from Scandinavia so if you go back further - it could be claimed that there would be one homeland - though it might be in several closely related Scandinavian countries.

It's all how you view it as an American and how we identify with our cultures; whether it was taught to us as a child or something that we've had to try and pick up the pieces. We can either cry about it or move on with our lives. :)

- Norwegians and Brits are not the same people. There are some places in Britain where viking genes occur, but this is in places where vikings settled.

I am sorry, you are not norwegian and you would not be considered so either by many norwegians.

You americans live with it how you like, and how you handle it I don't know. I only get a bit provoked when americans entitle themselves to ethnicities to which they don't fully belong.

Hanna
Saturday, November 15th, 2008, 04:54 PM
- Norwegians and Brits are not the same people. There are some places in Britain where viking genes occur, but this is in places where vikings settled.

I am sorry, you are not norwegian and you would not be considered so either by many norwegians.

You americans live with it how you like, and how you handle it I don't know. I only get a bit provoked when americans entitle themselves to ethnicities to which they don't fully belong.

I fully agree with you, my aunt she was in Colorado and she said its amusing how Americans claims to be Norwegian and Swedish although they never been to Scandinavia, neither have any contact with their roots but still making claims to be Swedes or Norwegian. :D

Hauke Haien
Saturday, November 15th, 2008, 05:06 PM
It is a problem we discussed, e.g. in Colonials as Europeans (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=101801). It is best to keep in mind that most Americans understand ethnicity to be a euphemism for race or synonymous with ancestry. There are Americans who will pretend to be one of us without respect for our group identities and the conditions attached to them, but this is not usually meant when they claim to be German/Norwegian/Swedish. More often than not, it simply refers to ancestry.

Jagerzen
Saturday, November 15th, 2008, 08:29 PM
I am sorry, you are not norwegian and you would not be considered so either by many norwegians.


I don't need you to tell me what I am or am not. I may not be a citizen of modern-day Norway but it doesn't change my blood one bit.

And I don't think ethnicity is a euphemism for ancestry or background - it is that by definition.

Sorry if it provokes you that colonials are proud of their heritage, but I won't be battered by anyone because of it. I am proud of who I am and my heritage and I AM entitled to it.

Hauke Haien
Saturday, November 15th, 2008, 09:19 PM
No one is entitled to getting accepted by a group, especially if it involves an attempt to destroy the concepts that group is founded on and to replace them with hostile, foreign concepts. This can only result in a denatured individual identity, but I guess that is the American way, albeit in a slightly alternative version. I can't speak for Norwegians, others have done that, but I look unkindly on German-Americans so obviously drowned in Americanism that they presume to insinuate themselves into our group by mere proclamation.

You should have taken the opportunity to ask the Norwegians here under which circumstances their people would consider an American one of their own, so you can reflect on whether this is something achievable and worth pursuing.

Grimm
Saturday, November 15th, 2008, 09:39 PM
I can't speak for Norwegians, others have done that, but I look unkindly on German-Americans so obviously drowned in Americanism that they presume to insinuate themselves into our group by mere proclamation.

The German-American should be forgiven for being so bold. If he is proud enough to announce that he's "German", then Germans should take it as a compliment. Most German-Americans have stopped considering themselves German-Americans, much less Germans. So when some of us feel a little too proud and speak a little too loud, cut them some slack.

But the divisiveness on this thread started when someone pointed out specifically that Americans with only some of a particular ancestry will consider themselves fully of that particular ancestry. I find that annoying as well, although I do understand Jagerzen's view regarding Norweigans and English. However his view his rather speculative, because he cannot absolutely establish the Scandnavian ancestry of his English ancestors.

Nachtengel
Saturday, November 15th, 2008, 10:33 PM
I don't need you to tell me what I am or am not. I may not be a citizen of modern-day Norway but it doesn't change my blood one bit.

And I don't think ethnicity is a euphemism for ancestry or background - it is that by definition.

Sorry if it provokes you that colonials are proud of their heritage, but I won't be battered by anyone because of it. I am proud of who I am and my heritage and I AM entitled to it.
No, it's not that simple. If feeling part of a group was enough, then the Turks and Tunisians and other aliens who "feel German" would be part of our folk too. Any "German-American" (or any "Norwegian-American") who wants to proclaim himself part of our folk has to be accepted first. It's tribalism. Just like an animal can't just go straight into the middle of a pack and pretend to be part of it even if it isn't accepted.


The German-American should be forgiven for being so bold. If he is proud enough to announce that he's "German", then Germans should take it as a compliment. Most German-Americans have stopped considering themselves German-Americans, much less Germans. So when some of us feel a little too proud and speak a little too loud, cut them some slack.
There's nothing wrong with being proud of their ancestry, what annoys us is Americans of German ancestry who have no real German identity proclaiming to be part of our folk.

I just saw a video Hauke Haien posted about the Germans in Transylvania, Romania. These people immigrated to Transylvania before Columbus even stepped foot on the US and some of them never saw Germany in their lives. But, they speak German and the have a German culture! Some of them immigrated to our country and they rarely have a problem to integrate, because they adapt fast. And that's just one group of Volksdeutsche. What is so damn difficult about passing on language and culture to descendants? And if ancestors failed to do this, why don't these "German-Americans" make an effort to learn German language and culture? It is annoying that people who make no considerable effort to preserve their ancestors' language and culture suddenly feel entitled to be part of our folk. Some Americans are so deluded they think it's enough to have blonde hair and blue eyes to be part of our folk. Well, surprise surprise, this is Europe, not America, and here we care about culture too, no just race.

Hauke Haien
Saturday, November 15th, 2008, 10:37 PM
Most German-Americans have stopped considering themselves German-Americans, much less Germans.
And I agree with them. German communities existed in the past, but they do no longer and I am pessimistic about their return. There are, unfortunately, individuals who believe that a German is just a global citizen with some German ancestry. Others modify this with vulgar racism as if it was a revolutionary idea. It is a self-evident component, but there is more to it than that. Those are the same kind of people who insist on dismissing our identity as "superficial" even though their unwillingness and inability to conform betrays the fact that it is not.


But the divisiveness on this thread started when someone pointed out specifically that Americans with only some of a particular ancestry will consider themselves fully of that particular ancestry.
I was responding to the issues of roots, identity and acceptance that followed this. I don't really consider mixed Germanic ancestry much of a problem. A 3/4 Norwegian can be part of a German community despite minor German ancestry. Even a half-Swede/half-Dane without any German ancestry would be no big problem if he was raised among Germans from an early age.

Also consider David McAllister, who is Scots-German and leader of the Christian Democrats in Lower Saxony:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/McAllister_David_6154.jpg

http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/8254/davidmcallisterzf9.jpg

Grimm
Saturday, November 15th, 2008, 10:48 PM
There's nothing wrong with being proud of their ancestry, what annoys us is Americans of German ancestry who have no real German identity proclaiming to be part of our folk.

I just saw a video Hauke Haien posted about the Germans in Transylvania, Romania. These people immigrated to Transylvania before Columbus even stepped foot on the US and some of them never saw Germany in their lives. But, they speak German and the have a German culture! Some of them immigrated to our country and they rarely have a problem to integrate, because they adapt fast. And that's just one group of Volksdeutsche. What is so damn difficult about passing on language and culture to descendants? And if ancestors failed to do this, why don't these "German-Americans" make an effort to learn German language and culture? It is annoying that people who make no considerable effort to preserve their ancestors' language and culture suddenly feel entitled to be part of our folk. Some Americans are so deluded they think it's enough to have blonde hair and blue eyes to be part of our folk. Well, surprise surprise, this is Europe, not America, and here we care about culture too, no just race.

We're not your folk in the truest sense of the word, but many of us will support you and be on your side. This may be something as miniscule as saying "I support Germany and Germans", it may be something as large as financially supporting German interests. Either way I would think we are more important to you than people who have no affinity for Germans at all, especially considering that there is a lot of anti-German sentiment in the world (even 60-plus years removed from WWII). Maybe you can consider us auxiliary Germans.

Nachtengel
Saturday, November 15th, 2008, 10:57 PM
We're not your folk in the truest sense of the word, but many of us will support you and be on your side. This may be something as miniscule as saying "I support Germany and Germans", it may be something as large as financially supporting German interests. Either way I would think we are more important to you than people who have no affinity for Germans at all, especially considering that there is a lot of anti-German sentiment in the world (even 60-plus years removed from WWII). Maybe you can consider us auxiliary Germans.
If the US and Germany were at war again, who would you support? What about if Poland and Germany were at war?

Those "auxiliary Germans" took arms against us in two wars. They supported American interests, not German. And actually not even that, they supported US Jewish interests. I don't have many doubts they'd do it again. Where is the voice of the German-Americans, huh? They're only the second largest ethnic group in the US. Why don't they speak up against the occupation and enslavement of my country?

Jagerzen
Saturday, November 15th, 2008, 11:02 PM
You know what -you're right it ISN'T that simple. You guys don't know me - don't know how much I care about my culture or whether or not I hold on to Europeon family traditions or whether I make an interest in 'learning Germanic culture or language'; it's not all about race for me either.

I've seen a real change in the brotherhood on this forum, and I won't be returning. Goodbye and goodluck.

Hauke Haien
Saturday, November 15th, 2008, 11:27 PM
Germans have a tradition of fighting against each other, so I don't think loyalty to a particular political body would be a viable precondition on an ethnic level and it is not. Historically, it was an issue when Reich citizenship came into play, which is not the same as being German, but this was also a condition. Conversely, a pledge of allegiance as the sole foundation of a people is a thoroughly American/French concept. In our context, it does not turn outsiders into Germans, it turns them into allies.

You know what -you're right it ISN'T that simple. You guys don't know me - don't know how much I care about my culture or whether or not I hold on to Europeon family traditions or whether I make an interest in 'learning Germanic culture or language'; it's not all about race for me either.

I've seen a real change in the brotherhood on this forum, and I won't be returning. Goodbye and goodluck.
We were speaking in more general terms and if this does not apply to you, then it is fine. I fail to see how protecting one's specific identity is incompatible with a wider brotherhood. I have no problem with people who tell me that I am not Bavarian, because I am not Bavarian.

Anfang
Saturday, November 15th, 2008, 11:27 PM
And I agree with them. German communities existed in the past, but they do no longer and I am pessimistic about their return. There are, unfortunately, individuals who believe that a German is just a global citizen with some German ancestry. Others modify this with vulgar racism as if it was a revolutionary idea. It is a self-evident component, but there is more to it than that. Those are the same kind of people who insist on dismissing our identity as "superficial" even though their unwillingness and inability to conform betrays the fact that it is not.

There is some truth to this, although as a whole I do not agree with the premise that Colonials cannot be Germans. Unwillingness and Inability point to the fact that many do not really identify with their Volk. if you identify as German you should learn the language. read the history. listen to the Music. and most Important, spend time there. I spend time in Germany every year or every other year. I think Germans are a lot more inclusive than say norwegians because germany is so big and there are so many of us. That sounds funny "Germans more inclusive" but in a way it's very true.
Yet I do not think that this return can happen, unless You are in a fully German community. Which means in Germany.-Anfang



I was responding to the issues of roots, identity and acceptance that followed this. I don't really consider mixed Germanic ancestry much of a problem. A 3/4 Norwegian can be part of a German community despite minor German ancestry. Even a half-Swede/half-Dane without any German ancestry would be no big problem if he is raised among Germans from an early age.

Early age. good point.

Also consider David McAllister, who is Scots-German and leader of the Christian Democrats in Lower Saxony:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/McAllister_David_6154.jpg

http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/8254/davidmcallisterzf9.jpg

Niedersachsen ist der Spitze!.

Anfang
Sunday, November 16th, 2008, 12:38 AM
If the US and Germany were at war again, who would you support?

Todesengel, I posted Something on the history of Northeastern Iowa in the
German Enclaves section. This is an Area which is basically comprised of immigrants from the Baden-Wurtenberg and nearby Areas. This Area racially is not "Part this, Part that" as someone rudely wrote on this thread before.
NO. 95% of the names are German, from this area. Go to the links, read them.
There are almost no Protestant churches. Everyone is Catholic.

This is what happened to them, *this* is why most don't speak German today.=

=MRS. FRANZ STRACKBEIN received a letter from her sister describing the events of November 11, 1918, in Lowden, Iowa. It was Armistice Day, celebrating the end of World War I, but the scene in Lowden was anything but peaceful.

Monday we had an awful time. People acted like savages. They came in mobs from towns all around and one mob got the minister and made him march through town carrying a flag. Then they made him stand on a coffin...and kiss the flag while a band from another town played [the] Star Spangled Banner. On the coffin was written, "Kaiser now ruler of Hell.".... Then he was ordered out of town.1 1
The minister, Rev. John Reichardt, served the Zion Evangelical German Reformed Church in Lowden, a German-language congregation in a town where the majority of people were of German heritage. His crime: maintaining pride in his German cultural roots and failure to abandon the language of the enemy.2 The anti-German sentiment during World War I reached a point where "people speaking German on the street were attacked and rebuked."3 Iowa Governor William L. Harding legitimized such expressions of prejudice and war-time fanaticism when he issued "The Babel Proclamation" on May 23, 1918.4 Antagonism toward Germans and their language escalated nationwide, but Harding became the only governor in the United States to outlaw the public use of all foreign languages. Harding understood the connection between communication and assimilation. He was convinced that destroying the vital bond of language within ethnic communities would force assimilation of minorities into the dominant culture and heighten a sense of patriotism in a time of war. Harding's understanding of immigrant assimilation offers insight into subsequent efforts to superficially create unity through language legislation.

So please, please please be careful what you say because you dont really know the whole story. Did you know that they shipped most German Americans from areas like this one described to Asia to fight the Japanese
because they did not trust them to fight other Germans? That is exactly what they did.

What about if Poland and Germany were at war?

I am more concerned about getting all those liberalized young mama's boys in the Bundeswehr to fire the 120s on their panzers. If we can get them to do that and not feel badly about the poor Poles it will be a 3 day job. have you seen training Videos from the BW? Wofa!



Those "auxiliary Germans" took arms against us in two wars. They supported American interests, not German. And actually not even that, they supported US Jewish interests. I don't have many doubts they'd do it again. Where is the voice of the German-Americans, huh? They're only the second largest ethnic group in the US. Why don't they speak up against the occupation and enslavement of my country?

Because they were conquered intellectually, politically and geographically long before germany was occupied.

Instead of yelling at them, maybe we could send a digital mission to connect with these people. That would be much more useful! especially since in an area such as this There are no "Half of this half of thats" There are more 100% german descendants in the Midwest than there are Norwegians in Norway.

And by the way GERMANS are the largest ethnic group in the USA, not second largest.

Angharad
Sunday, November 16th, 2008, 03:05 AM
If the US and Germany were at war again, who would you support? What about if Poland and Germany were at war?

Those "auxiliary Germans" took arms against us in two wars. They supported American interests, not German. And actually not even that, they supported US Jewish interests. I don't have many doubts they'd do it again. Where is the voice of the German-Americans, huh? They're only the second largest ethnic group in the US. Why don't they speak up against the occupation and enslavement of my country?

Not all of them, my great-grandfather went back to Germany at the start of WWI and was never heard from again. We really have no idea what happened to him. I am assuming that he died for your country, since he didn't return to support his wife and 5 children. Is that good enough for you?

Grimm
Sunday, November 16th, 2008, 05:22 PM
If the US and Germany were at war again, who would you support? What about if Poland and Germany were at war?

Those "auxiliary Germans" took arms against us in two wars. They supported American interests, not German. And actually not even that, they supported US Jewish interests. I don't have many doubts they'd do it again. Where is the voice of the German-Americans, huh? They're only the second largest ethnic group in the US. Why don't they speak up against the occupation and enslavement of my country?

Germans are the largest ethnic group here, but my reasoning goes back to what I said. Most of those German-Americans don't consider themselves German. Some will use it among other Americans just as a by-the-way descriptive adjective. One American may say to another American "What nationality are you?" or "What's your family background?". Then a German-American would say "German". These G-A's aren't going around declaring that they're German.

G-A's like me are more vocal about it, but I'm not saying that I'm the same as a real German. I'll never know what it's like to be a German. I've grown up in a country surrounded by all kinds, and I'll always have a different frame of reference than you. You spoke earlier about how the Transylvanian Saxons kept their heritage whereas we didn't. I cannot be blamed for that. My ancestors gave it up to become more American. You can freely call them traitors to Germany, but I never had a choice in the matter.

I'm not ready to give up my American citizenship and become a German, but I would think people like you would rather have us somewhat with you than deadset against you. And if I'm not a true German for not speaking up regarding the occupation and enslavement of Germany, then 95%(?) of German Germans are not true Germans. And the war question is a loaded one. It would depend much on the circumstances (perhaps that is a very convenient answer, but it is true).

While on the surface I like your idea of Germany, it is an impossibility. Germany has regained its stature in the world by indulging in painstaking diplomacy for the past sixty years. If Germany went the way you want it to go, it would suffer. The world would turn its back on your country, and no country can make a go of it alone.

Nachtengel
Sunday, November 16th, 2008, 08:17 PM
Germans are the largest ethnic group here, but my reasoning goes back to what I said. Most of those German-Americans don't consider themselves German. Some will use it among other Americans just as a by-the-way descriptive adjective. One American may say to another American "What nationality are you?" or "What's your family background?". Then a German-American would say "German". These G-A's aren't going around declaring that they're German.

G-A's like me are more vocal about it, but I'm not saying that I'm the same as a real German. I'll never know what it's like to be a German. I've grown up in a country surrounded by all kinds, and I'll always have a different frame of reference than you. You spoke earlier about how the Transylvanian Saxons kept their heritage whereas we didn't. I cannot be blamed for that. My ancestors gave it up to become more American. You can freely call them traitors to Germany, but I never had a choice in the matter.

I'm not ready to give up my American citizenship and become a German, but I would think people like you would rather have us somewhat with you than deadset against you. And if I'm not a true German for not speaking up regarding the occupation and enslavement of Germany, then 95%(?) of German Germans are not true Germans. And the war question is a loaded one. It would depend much on the circumstances (perhaps that is a very convenient answer, but it is true).

While on the surface I like your idea of Germany, it is an impossibility. Germany has regained its stature in the world by indulging in painstaking diplomacy for the past sixty years. If Germany went the way you want it to go, it would suffer. The world would turn its back on your country, and no country can make a go of it alone.
You were the one talking about having German-Americans on our side. Anyway, there's nothing wrong with having allies, but that doesn't make them German. Of course I'd rather have German-Americans on my side. If only they supported Germany, should a WWIII take root. But I somehow doubt it. Of course, you, German-Americans can't be blamed if your ancestors gave up their heritage. I don't blame you if you integrate in the US as they do, but I am not going to accept you as Germans if you don't speak my language and practice my culture like a Volksdeutscher would. German-Americans can't be blamed for something you had no say in, but you can be blamed if you make no effort to be like us, yet pretend to be like us. You can't be part of the German nation without having the essential characteristics. Nobody cares how they're acquired, whether your ancestors passed them down to you or you learned them by yourself because your ancestors dumped them. But you need to have them if you want to call yourselves members of the German folk and nation.

Anfang
Sunday, November 16th, 2008, 09:08 PM
Not all of them, my great-grandfather went back to Germany at the start of WWI and was never heard from again. We really have no idea what happened to him. I am assuming that he died for your country, since he didn't return to support his wife and 5 children. Is that good enough for you?


Thank you Angharad.
My great uncle fough against Russia in WWII.

Grimm
Sunday, November 16th, 2008, 09:50 PM
You can't be part of the German nation without having the essential characteristics. Nobody cares how they're acquired, whether your ancestors passed them down to you or you learned them by yourself because your ancestors dumped them. But you need to have them if you want to call yourselves members of the German folk and nation.

I'll accept that. And that being said, I'll never be a German. I'm too old to change my ways and to learn another language. And this may be off-topic, but what do you and those like you get out of spending time here in the English-speaking sections when your cause is more pro-German than pro-Germanic?

Anfang
Sunday, November 16th, 2008, 10:06 PM
I'll accept that. And that being said, I'll never be a German. I'm too old to change my ways and to learn another language. And this may be off-topic, but what do you and those like you get out of spending time here in the English-speaking sections when your cause is more pro-German than pro-Germanic?


Oh no I do not agree there. German-Americans should be happy by the interest being shown towards them by Germans. We should not say "Go to your own forums" Are you kidding? For German-Americans Germanic means German. "German" is the Language. the Culture, the Volk and the Spirit within and across.

Grimm
Sunday, November 16th, 2008, 10:20 PM
Oh no I do not agree there. German-Americans should be happy by the interest being shown towards them by Germans. We should not say "Go to your own forums" Are you kidding? For German-Americans Germanic means German. "German" is the Language. the Culture, the Volk and the Spirit within and across.

I didn't say "Go to your own forums". Todesengel is a German with a very pro-German agenda. She wants a change in Germany, and that change can best be discussed with her fellow Germans. She has every right to stay in the English-speaking areas and converse with non-Germans, but we can't offer much more than moral support when it comes to Germany. I was simply curious what she gets out of the pro-Germanic movement on the whole.

Hauke Haien
Sunday, November 16th, 2008, 11:07 PM
but what do you and those like you get out of spending time here in the English-speaking sections when your cause is more pro-German than pro-Germanic?
Exchange ideas and find out how various Germanic groups relate to us, including those who are neither German nor American. The English language is as good as any Germanic language for this purpose, perhaps even especially useful. The idea of preserving branched identities does not have to contradict certain pan-Germanic ideas one might hold at the same time.

I do not wish to continue our abusive relationship with the US by putting a Germanic sticker on it and I have zero confidence in that ideologically defined nation. It is, however, an area of interest, as is evident from its inclusion on this forum.

beowulf wodenson
Monday, November 17th, 2008, 11:56 PM
I look to England personally as the source of my heritage, genetic and cultural both. She gave us our blood, institutions, culture, traditions that made America. The majority of my ancestors seem to have come from England settling the Jamestown colony as early as 1622 or before.
As far as an ethnicity goes, "White Southerner" would perhaps be as accurate a term as any.
Most of the Southern states still share a common genetic and cultural inheritance, still remarkably homogeneous in roots, culture, despite being mired in multi-cult globalism as this country is.
Despite what all you Europeans call us, we ain't "Yanks" in Dixie!;)

Nordischkelt
Monday, February 2nd, 2009, 05:20 AM
What do you think of Colonials (Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc.) who identify as European? Specifically, I refer to those whose families have been in the New World for some generations, did not inherit any European traditions but who try to practice and pass down the language, culture and history of their distant ancestors and even wish to move to Europe. Europeans, do you accept these people as one of your own, and Colonials, how do they make you feel? Why and amongst who do you believe this trend occurs and is it detrimental to our country and the countries of others?

As a Colonial, I can only feel sympathetic toward them.With all this colored multiculturalism and the psychotic need certain members of minority groups have to impose a sense of racial guilt on white Americans in general, Colonial or not, certain Colonials feel it necessary to reach back to the time their own ancestors arrived(either as soldiers, guests of the Crown-convicts-,or exiles from other lands) and to identify with the land(s) of their ancestors' origins...hence having sort of a sense of identity with more recent arrivals.
I would personally like to move myself and my family to the U.K., but we would be Virginians and we would be going for the health care and better opportunities to be employed in the fields we would actually like to be in.
The countries of others would be getting a pretty good labor supply and ten nonwhite foreign families would probably replace each American family that flees.Presumably Americans would try to assimilate into the society of the countries that they would seek to be a part of and they'd be aware of their American origins while working for a better future for their families in their host and ancestral countries.

Genfluss
Monday, February 2nd, 2009, 08:16 AM
If you were 1/2 Dutch and 1/2 Old Stock American and raised in a Dutch culture the children could eventually learn to feel and be Dutch. Genetics don't change in Old Stock Colonials and neither have they for the last 400 years, despite controversy claiming Old Stocks are "racially mixed" and rare cases like Sally Hemmings and others. Such rare cases exist in Europe as well, but on a lower level. There is a cultural component because a very Nordic 1/2 Dutch and 1/2 Spaniard couldn't assimilate and become Dutch because of the Spaniard culture. However a 1/2 Dutch and 1/2 Old Stock American could be Dutch, because the Old Stock culture is NW European as well as the ancestors that contributed to their gene pool.

I'd go as far to say they'd be much more Dutch ethnically, even though the other 1/2 is assimilable Old Stock, than a "pure native ethnic" Dutch person who acts like a whigger and wants to be black, or a Dutch person who leaves the Netherlands and lives in Kenya to become a strong Dutch Nationalist, or a pro-Dutch Nationalist in the Netherlands who has a 1/2 Greek and 1/2 Dutch wife.

MCP3
Tuesday, October 11th, 2011, 07:33 PM
As much as I hate to say this, I miss Roderic.

Despite posting hundreds of unanswered threads, and getting banned for being a Portuguese homosexual, he did contribute to the forum in his own way. He always kept a steady flow of news articles coming into Skadi, giving us new material for debates. To be sure, he was over-zealous and many threads were ''misses'', but once in a while there was a ''hit'' that set off interesting debates. Obviously Roderic is banned for a reason, but he did fill an important function on the forum.

We need another news aggregator. Maybe we could use a bot?

He posts on WNN under "White Guardian". There he is not "German", just "White". Whatever he is, i only know what he is not: German

Edie
Tuesday, October 11th, 2011, 08:35 PM
Whatever he is, i only know what he is not: German

Perhaps the next time someone claims to be German, Dutch, Norwegian, etc. but stays curiously absent from the section devoted to his purported native language, a 'fellow' German, Dutch, Norwegian, etc. Skadite should send him a PM in the language to see if he responds likewise.

If not, some alarm bells should be ringing.

Mrs vonTrep
Wednesday, October 12th, 2011, 05:18 AM
Perhaps the next time someone claims to be German, Dutch, Norwegian, etc. but stays curiously absent from the section devoted to his purported native language, a 'fellow' German, Dutch, Norwegian, etc. Skadite should send him a PM in the language to see if he responds likewise.

If not, some alarm bells should be ringing.

Most Americans would fail that test then. Most of them call themselves anything but Americans (ethnicity like German, Dutch or Norwegian), and yet they don't know much about their culture or language. I assume that guy never claimed that he spoke German either? Because apparently it's enough to have a couple of German ancestors to have the right to call yourself German.

Huginn ok Muninn
Wednesday, October 12th, 2011, 06:13 AM
Most Americans would fail that test then. Most of them call themselves anything but Americans (ethnicity like German, Dutch or Norwegian), and yet they don't know much about their culture or language. I assume that guy never claimed that he spoke German either? Because apparently it's enough to have a couple of German ancestors to have the right to call yourself German.

True, you can't test someone on language alone. I think we had someone here who was ethnic German but living in Serbia. I wouldn't expect that person to know German as well as a Swabian.. but he explained his ethnicity as German living in Serbia to be plain about it. If people are Germanic Americans or Germanic Canadians, etc, they should explain that. I have my ethnicity listed as Germanic, because, well, I don't feel any other connection, really. But if someone just says they are "German" as a ruse when they are Portuguese, that's different altogether. Usually someone who speaks a Romance language has a very different mentality and it comes through in the way they speak English.

Alfadur
Wednesday, October 12th, 2011, 06:26 AM
True, you can't test someone on language alone. I think we had someone here who was ethnic German but living in Serbia. I wouldn't expect that person to know German as well as a Swabian.. but he explained his ethnicity as German living in Serbia to be plain about it. If people are Germanic Americans or Germanic Canadians, etc, they should explain that.
Yes, I agree with that. I've confused German-Americans with actual Germans too many times on the forum. It's all too common to see Americans who put "Ethnicity: German" and only when you look at the location does it say "Location: Florida" or whatever. I definitely think you should explain that you're an American or Canadian, and not an actual citizen of the nation which your ancestry is from.


But if someone just says they are "German" as a ruse when they are Portuguese, that's different altogether.
Indeed. If you're a Portuguese person and you know this is not the forum for you, then it's a deception to claim you're German.


Usually someone who speaks a Romance language has a very different mentality and it comes through in the way they speak English.
It's got more to do with the culture and background than just the language (To use an example: I wouldn't consider the Brazilian model Gisele Bundchen to be "a German", for instance). I also speak a Romance language and that doesn't make me any less Swedish. :P

That said, I don't think Roderic actually spoke to anyone on this forum. He probably viewed it as his main duty in life to supply every race-related forum with a stream of news articles.

Huginn ok Muninn
Wednesday, October 12th, 2011, 06:51 AM
It's got more to do with the culture and background than just the language (To use an example: I wouldn't consider the Brazilian model Gisele Bundchen to be "a German", for instance). I also speak a Romance language and that doesn't make me any less Swedish. :P

I meant someone who speaks a Romance Language as a native/ first tongue language...

I think the German Brazilians were forbidden to speak German during WW2 or some such atrocity. :(

Alfadur
Wednesday, October 12th, 2011, 07:06 AM
I meant someone who speaks a Romance Language as a native/ first tongue language...
Yeah, you probably do have a point. Still, it sounds very hard to decipher someone's meta-ethnicity by how their mentality comes across when they use the English language. Especially if it's on an internet forum.

Although it's true that Europeans tend to explode into badly-spelled internet rants less than Americans. :P Obviously, there's many exceptions to that rule (as been seen on this very forum).


I think the German Brazilians were forbidden to speak German during WW2 or some such atrocity. :(
They banned German newspapers for a few years during WW2. Not that Germany was exactly innocent of repressing languages either. :P

Most of the German-Brazilians just chose to identify as "Brazilian". They basically dropped their language and assimilated, the same way as German-Americans did in the US. Germans are an easily assimilable people, I guess.

Thusnelda
Wednesday, October 12th, 2011, 12:02 PM
We actually frequently already do that if we are under the impression that a member might not be up front about their actual ethnicity.
Yes, indeed, we could already sort out some "fake Germans" by using this method - who claimed to be Germans but were unable to write one proper sentence who didn´t sound like babelfish. ;) I think Hersir did the same to some "fake Norwegians".

Sigyn
Wednesday, October 12th, 2011, 02:13 PM
I don't really get either why people try to be something they're not. I agree with Ylva and Odalman that people should be honest and not put "German" as their nationality, if they've never stepped into the country and can't speak a word of the language.

If you're, say, American from an English background, don't put "English" as your nationality, but rather "Anglo-American". Same goes for every other New World nation.

The Aesthete
Wednesday, October 12th, 2011, 02:15 PM
Raquel Zimmermann is a German Brazilian to me, even if she doesn’t speak German, she does not look like your average Brazilian and her heritage confirms it. Racial identity is far more durable than cultural identity, however both are fragile.

The Aesthete
Wednesday, October 12th, 2011, 02:58 PM
White Brazilians make up less than half of Brazil's population and most are the descendants of Southern Europeans particularly the Portuguese. Those of North Western European heritage are a small fraction and your average Brazilian is far swarthier than her even amongst white Brazilians.

I agree she is white, but considering what white is there it seems like a misnomer.

Mrs vonTrep
Wednesday, October 12th, 2011, 03:26 PM
I don't really get either why people try to be something they're not. I agree with Ylva and Odalman that people should be honest and not put "German" as their nationality, if they've never stepped into the country and can't speak a word of the language.

Even if these people would call themselves Swedes as for their ethnicity, they would not be seen as Swedes if they came here. So no matter how much they wish to call themselves Swedes (or even be Swedes?), they aren't, and wouldn't be accepted as Swedes in Sweden. Perhaps in America though, but not here.

Puh, many "Swedes" for such a short post. :P

MCP3
Wednesday, October 12th, 2011, 04:51 PM
Perhaps the next time someone claims to be German, Dutch, Norwegian, etc. but stays curiously absent from the section devoted to his purported native language, a 'fellow' German, Dutch, Norwegian, etc. Skadite should send him a PM in the language to see if he responds likewise.

If not, some alarm bells should be ringing.

It is not necessarily a matter of language but of mindset. There are, for example German-Americans or other Germans and/or of German descent who don't speak German but think/behave as such. There is something like "sixth sense" or whatever you may choose to call it, an identifier where individuals of a certain ethnic group can identify each other. Maybe because they are "bound together by common fate" as DD says it very eloquently.

For example in this very thread Huginn who i happen to know from another board long before before i registered here, is clearly a member of my own tribe despite his lack of Ge-language skills.

Loyalist
Wednesday, October 12th, 2011, 06:59 PM
I don't really get either why people try to be something they're not. I agree with Ylva and Odalman that people should be honest and not put "German" as their nationality, if they've never stepped into the country and can't speak a word of the language.

If you're, say, American from an English background, don't put "English" as your nationality, but rather "Anglo-American". Same goes for every other New World nation.

I believe that assessment is slightly harsh and unfair. Colonials who identify with their European ethnic background are usually the more ethnically-homogenous ones; if one's ancestry is wholly or overwhelmingly German, Dutch, or English, for instance, and the person is not falsely claiming to be a national of the applicable country, there is nothing wrong with labelling oneself as such. I do believe there is a burden on that person to familiarise themselves with the cultural and linguistic aspect of their ancestry, but, so long as the descent is there, blood trumps abstract cultural attributes.

As for the Anglo-American, Anglo-Canadian, Anglo-Australian issue; in a perfect world, yes, but, due to unfortunate historical immigration patterns, those terms are too inclusive and meaningless. As the Great Wave immigration brought millions of Southern and Eastern Europeans to North America and, to a lesser extent, Australia, those terms are applied to any racially European inhabitant of said lands. It is not only nonsensical, but, from a Skadi perspective, detrimental to Germanic-Colonials to throw in with a term that includes ethnic Italians, Poles, Hungarians, Portuguese, etc. I may use the term here for the sake of simplicity and because other Skadi members appropriately understand the meaning, but I certainly never identity as an Anglo-Canadian in daily life.

Ælfrun
Wednesday, October 12th, 2011, 10:07 PM
I believe that assessment is slightly harsh and unfair. Colonials who identify with their European ethnic background are usually the more ethnically-homogenous ones; if one's ancestry is wholly or overwhelmingly German, Dutch, or English, for instance, and the person is not falsely claiming to be a national of the applicable country, there is nothing wrong with labelling oneself as such. I do believe there is a burden on that person to familiarise themselves with the cultural and linguistic aspect of their ancestry, but, so long as the descent is there, blood trumps abstract cultural attributes.

As for the Anglo-American, Anglo-Canadian, Anglo-Australian issue; in a perfect world, yes, but, due to unfortunate historical immigration patterns, those terms are too inclusive and meaningless. As the Great Wave immigration brought millions of Southern and Eastern Europeans to North America and, to a lesser extent, Australia, those terms are applied to any racially European inhabitant of said lands. It is not only nonsensical, but, from a Skadi perspective, detrimental to Germanic-Colonials to throw in with a term that includes ethnic Italians, Poles, Hungarians, Portuguese, etc. I may use the term here for the sake of simplicity and because other Skadi members appropriately understand the meaning, but I certainly never identity as an Anglo-Canadian in daily life.

I agree fully with you Loyalist :) It is not our fault that our ancestors have immigrated here, and also how can Americans and Canadians relate to Canadian/ American culture when it is not Germanic? So, I should not be proud of my Germanic roots and identify with Canadian culture which is primarily French and Native? My Great Grandmother was born in Norway, and I am more Norwegian than many of the Norwegians I know for that matter. I will continue to label my ethnicity and culture as Norwegian until I find out more about my roots.

Mrs vonTrep
Thursday, October 13th, 2011, 05:29 AM
My Great Grandmother was born in Norway, and I am more Norwegian than many of the Norwegians I know for that matter

Yea, must be great to be a colonial. Then you can just randomly pick one of all your acestors' ethnicities and try to identify with it. I don't know why so many of you are complaining, you seem to have lots to chose from. Even for someone who's both grandparents are from Scotland, that person can still call herself Norwegian just because she once had a great grandmother who was born there. ;)

As an example, if you had a Swedish great grandmother, had lived your whole life in Canada and only knew about twenty words in Swedish - you would definitely not be seen as a Swede by the Swedish people. Only you would see yourself as a Swede. But if it feels good for you...

And, sure you should be proud of your heritage and your genes, you're Germanic by blood! And sure it's nice that you'd rather go for the Norwegian culture and traditions than the Canadian ones, and perhaps pass them on to other Germanic people around you. But that's not the same thing as calling yourself something you're not, tbqh.

Ælfrun
Thursday, October 13th, 2011, 06:10 AM
Actually, that is not the case with many North Americans. Sometimes we are raised in the cultures from which our Grandparents came from. Canada has many Norwegian and European settlers which many Canadians came from. Thus, making many Canadians connected with their European cultures. My identification with my roots has no bearing on language or "choosing" which ethnicity I wish to be. Having Norwegian blood makes me a part Norwegian. I have never claimed to be fully Norwegian as I was not born and raised there. I have always referred to my ancestors and identified with them which is something to be proud of. I have, however been told by many that I look Norwegian, even in Norway people mistook me for an ethnic Norwegian. My family does not speak the Norwegian language, but we still follow some customs. That does not make me a full Norwegian, but it does not make me less Norwegian now does it? I know how to folk dance, rosemal, and bake traditional food, which was taught to me by people from Norway. I did not "choose" to try and relate to this culture. I have been submerged into it.

Autosomal Viking
Thursday, October 13th, 2011, 06:37 AM
I wonder if I will be gone long enough to be mentioned in this thread anytime soon.

I see some of the too common American criticizing going on here: I am insulted yet agreeable at the time same. That's a strange feeling. :chinrub

*Considers changing ethnicity to either German or Swedish* :P

Atali
Thursday, October 13th, 2011, 07:00 AM
Like Aelf, I was also immersed into a Scandinavian upbringing. My grandmother was full blood Swedish. I was always surrounded by Dalas, my grandmother's rosemalings, or kurbits. I grew up on traditional Swedish meals, karf, bruna bönor, glögg, sprit kakor, I could go on. I grew up in a Swedish church where we also celebrate St. Lucia.
I am also Norwegian, Irish, Scottish, German, and English. However, I was not brought up knowing many traditions of these countries. I identify mostly with my Swedish heritage, since I spent a lot of time with my grandmother and she taught me a lot. I don't claim to be Swedish or know the Swedish language (although I'm trying), but it has been a stronghold for me throughout my life.
We just know what we were raised with and are celebrating it.

Sigurd
Thursday, October 13th, 2011, 09:18 AM
Personally I'm not too offended if people call themselves "German" or "Dutch" or "Norwegian" when that is simply their ancestry rather than an accurate ethnic description; I'll only become offended when they act as über-American as it gets, give no consideration to the actual culture they claim themselves as belonging to, but then claim they're virtually my twin brother.

Much of the problem that is being created is caused by the fact that some countries that were only ever intended as colonies for Germanics and their neighbours ceased to be quite that some 100 years ago: If you call yourself a Boer or Afrikaner it's pretty obvious that your ancestors will have come from the Netherlands, Germany and Huguenots for the most part; if you call yourself a New Zealander or Aussie people'll usually understand that you're of "Anglo-Celtic" heritage of some sort.

This option of "know my country, know my ancestry" has been withdrawn from Americans and Canadians over time. When the average European thinks of an American, he doesn't see: "Oh look, my fellow Swabians from 1830!" - he sees the "melting-pot" including all the lesser races that're outbreeding those of white, Germanic background; if he's a little more enlightened he'll see the "JewSA" but he will rarely see the kinsfolk in the countryside as what he is fed of "American culture" is basically Hollywood, McDonald's and annoying tourists who think Europe, Asia and Africa are actual countries the size of Vermont or Maryland, etc.

So it's kind of understandable that people may not be comfortable identifying as "hyphenated Americans" but may prefer to see themselves as "exiled Europeans". That being said, the point about how one shouldn't claim what one isn't, is valid and I wouldn't say I disagree with it fully - however I'm still less offended if some German-American called himself German because he wears the Krachlederne and drinks beer from the Maß than if some half-Filipino, half-Nigerian plays for my national football team, blabbering in deep Viennese dialect at that and the commentators passing him off as what he's empirically not. ;)

Sybren
Thursday, October 13th, 2011, 05:04 PM
I wouldn't be offended as well, when an American, Canadian, Australian or South-African with full Frisian heritage calls him/herself Frisian.

But the fact is, such people wouldn't be seen as actual Frisians. Even when such people learned the language. Because there is always something different in pronunciation and also in behaviour. Even if this difference would be small, it would be easily detected.

That however isn't intolerance. It is just natural tribal behaviour.

I would say be proud of your heritage, but also of your new identity that you share with your fellow colonials.

Méldmir
Thursday, October 13th, 2011, 05:53 PM
If a colonial has pred. ancestry from a certain country, she has the right to at least call herself "X-American", but I wouldn't have an issue with the person just saying "German", "Irish", "Norwegian", as long as it is somewhat clear the person was born an brought up in a former colony. However if a person is part Irish, part German and part Italian, then you should say "I'm part Irish", not just "I'm Irish".

To say a person has to behave in some subtle way to be accepted as a member of a tribe is just weird. 60 years of cultural marxism has had its toll on the Swedish character, and of course that is not well. A Swedish-American may behave differently, and so would a Swede from the 15th century. That doesn't make any difference. If the modern type of Swede can't accept a Swede born aborad as one of them, it really doesn't say anything, because modern Swedes have no clue.

Mrs vonTrep
Thursday, October 13th, 2011, 08:33 PM
If a colonial has pred. ancestry from a certain country, she has the right to at least call herself "X-American", but I wouldn't have an issue with the person just saying "German", "Irish", "Norwegian", as long as it is somewhat clear the person was born an brought up in a former colony. However if a person is part Irish, part German and part Italian, then you should say "I'm part Irish", not just "I'm Irish".

Yea, I saw she changed her ethnicity from just "Norwegian" to "Norwegian-Canadian", which is a step on the way. Still not correct though, since her ethnicity is Canadian, not Norwegian. ;) She doesn't have a "pred. ancestry" from Norway, obviously.

Such a person can at the most be "Canadian with some Norwegian influenses/heritage", ask any of the regular Swedes you meet in the streets or at work. I actually had a discussion about that at work today and every single co-worker of mine had a good laugh at a the fact that there are actually people calling themselves Norwegian just because they had a great grandparent who was Norwegian. Such a person isn't seen as a Norwegian by the people they think they belong to. No matter if they LOOK Norwegian or not, they're still CANADIAN with Norwegian ancestry. Not Norwegian by ethnicity.

By your way of seeing it anyone have the right to call themselves Swedish, doesn't really matter if they only have very little connection to Sweden and the Swedish society, culture and traditions.
It doesn't really matter if a person who's been brought up in a foregin country for a couple of generations still eat meat balls, that does not make them Swedish either.
If you think that such a person is Swedish then you're the only Swede who does, if you're a Swede at all of course.

They never say "I'm part German", they say "My ethnicity is German", look at most of their profiles.

A baltic person who has a Swedish grandparent and who has been brought up in Estonia with Swedish culture and traditions within the family is still not a Swede ethnically, but an Estonian with some Swedish influense/heritage. The same goes for any other person who doesn't have two true Swedish parents and who is brought up outside of the Swedish society. Germanic or not.

A Swede from the 15th century would have two Swedish parents, while colonials don't.

I once got the explaination that Americans don't want to call themselves Americans because practically anyone can be American these days. So, what happens when practically anyone can be a Swede, German or Norwegian? We're soon there, so you better start thinking about that, will you colonials still call yourself a Swede the day anyone can be a Swede? You would be a Swede along with niggers, arabs and asians, everyone would be concidered a Swede. Or German. Or Norwegian. Will it be just as cool to call yourself German then?

I don't think so. What you all are doing is mixing everything up just a little further, making the boundaries between every tribe even more blurry and invisible. Stick with your colonial germanic tribes and make something good out of it instead of calling yourself something you're not in hope that it will make a change for you on a personal level.

Méldmir
Thursday, October 13th, 2011, 08:42 PM
You're right, I'm another "fake Swede", being half-Norwegian and all. That doesn't really bother me though. I wouldn't mind calling myself Geatish, Norse or something else, I would actually prefer to do so.

I find your post somewhat contradictory. What is your defibition of Swedish culture? Would you think an ethnic Swede who grew up in an immigrant-ghetto to be Swedish, even if he had fully adopted the ghetto-culture? By your logic, he wouldn't be Swedish. And you say that being Swedish is indeed about culture, but you at the same time say that "eating meatballs" isn't enough... Could you clear these things up?

Ælfrun
Thursday, October 13th, 2011, 08:52 PM
So, what happens when practically anyone can be a Swede, German or Norwegian? We're soon there, so you better start thinking about that, will you colonials still call yourself a Swede the day anyone can be a Swede? You would be a Swede along with niggers, arabs and asians, everyone would be concidered a Swede. Or German. Or Norwegian. Will it be just as cool to call yourself German then?

I don't think so. What you all are doing is mixing everything up just a little further, making the boundaries between every tribe even more blurry and invisible. Stick with your colonial germanic tribes and make something good out of it instead of calling yourself something you're not in hope that it will make a change for you on a personal level.

We are not choosing random ethnicities because we think it is cool. I do not know how many times I must repeat myself. I grew up with Norwegian culture. I think that you are on the wrong forum if you are so Anti-North American and against north Americans preserving Germanic culture. I also have lots of connection to Norway, not a little. We are clearly not calling ourselves something that we are not. We are descendants from Europe, which can make us more European if we embrace our Germanic cultures. There is no such thing as "American or Canadian" ethnicity because we are all descendants from elsewhere. How are we mixing everything up when we are preserving Germanic culture? I would say mixing everything up would be Germanics dating Asians, Indians, etc. The whole purpose of this forum is to unite Germanics from all over the world.

Stanley
Thursday, October 13th, 2011, 09:01 PM
That most of the Americans here primarily identify as something other than American is a telltale sign that we are, frankly, screwed.

I know what it means to be American has changed over the past 100 years, but is it not also happening to Europe now, a century later? Should they give up like we have? The modern definition of American is a perversion, but it seems most of us are content with this, preferring to hold onto a hollow version of our ancestors' culture while our true culture crumbles around us. We've probably passed the point of no return, and it's no wonder why.

It's great that a lot of us feel a special connection with our ancestral nations. Indeed, many of us, especially in the Midwest and Northwest, have grandparents who trace their ancestry to a single country. But what happens a few generations from now when we become more and more ethnically "mixed"? At what point does the temporal distance between our immigrant ancestors and our future descendants become so great that the amalgamation of our individual ancestral lines approaches irrelevancy?

It might be easier for me to say all that because I am already "mixed". 120 years ago I had ancestors living in all three Northwestern European domains (Isles, Scandinavia, and continental) and in the US. I doubt there are many out there to whom that also applies, so on one level I understand how other Americans identify with another nation to which they have a deep bond. Here in Iowa, German heritage is strong, but I would laugh at a fellow Iowan who was 3/4 German claiming to have more of a connection with a German in Germany than he does with me because I'm only 1/8 German (Luxemburgian) by ancestry.

Our ancestors abandoned their old country to come here. As long as we continue to feel the ethnicity they left behind is more important to us than our true common identity (which is still one of Northwestern European design--we should never lose sight of that), we can never become something great.

SpearBrave
Thursday, October 13th, 2011, 10:09 PM
This is pretty easy if Colonials are choosing what to write in their ethnicity category in their profile, see mine.

Frostbite
Thursday, October 13th, 2011, 10:20 PM
I always considered American and Canadian to be a nationality. Just because all the people here are either descended from the colonists or immigrants.

To me, English, Norwegian etc. are your actual race/ethnicity. Because Europe is where whites/Germanics are from and it's not just your nationality it's a racial thing.

I hope this makes sense :|

Bo
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 01:17 AM
I always considered American and Canadian to be a nationality. Just because all the people here are either descended from the colonists or immigrants.

To me, English, Norwegian etc. are your actual race/ethnicity. Because Europe is where whites/Germanics are from and it's not just your nationality it's a racial thing.

I hope this makes sense :|

Makes sense to me. I'm an American. This is my nationality not my ethnicity. My ancestors were of North Western European ethnicities and at the same time they were old Colonial American stock. I really like the sound of the term "colonial" it makes me think of the grand old days of American history.

Frostbite
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 02:10 AM
Even if youre born and raised in another country, it doesn't change your ethnicity.

Thats why a turk in Germany in still a turk not a German. I might be from america but that doesn't change the fact my ancestry is English.

Look at the Jews, it doesn't matter where they live, they always consider themselves to be Jewish.

Todesritter
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 02:16 AM
That most of the Americans here primarily identify as something other than American is a telltale sign that we are, frankly, screwed.

....

Our ancestors abandoned their old country to come here. As long as we continue to feel the ethnicity they left behind is more important to us than our true common identity (which is still one of Northwestern European design--we should never lose sight of that), we can never become something great.
I'd agree "Americans" are, to use a different phrase, on the path to destruction.

From my perspective, this is a neutral to positive thing however, as American is an artificial construct for an ethnic identity, something grafted on with very shallow roots. 1776 is not so long ago, and while we may be a 'country', and a state, we don't necessarily fit the definition of a 'Nation', despite the patriotic indoctrination they give in school, that we are the oldest & best democratic nation.

Also, "America" imposed Americanism on a great nation, Germany to make it like us, and I hope one day to hear Germany is on the path to rejecting the post 1945 foreign systems and cultural expectations that came with our 'improvements' and Anglo-American 'melting pot' ideals, before Germany is as much a mess as Los Angeles or Chicago. If you want to see a great Nation-State where the people have established and maintained their right to ethnic sovereignty, to determine a homogenous indigenous standard for their people's blood, look to South Korea or Japan.

I never cared to swallow that indoctrination; the English and the Germans and even Native American 'Nations' are more true nations than America, though our *state*, our country can draw upon more resources than most others you could compare to.

I don't think abandoning our true blood heritage for a 'common identity' of being "American", whatever that means, sounds like a good idea.

Also, there were those among our ancestors who never 'abandoned their old country', who refused to assimilate, and were 'Hypenated-Americans' even before they opened the flood gates on immigration, it was only under twentieth century persecution they forced many to drop the hyphen, and choose to be "American" 'or get out', starting the slippery slope to our current McWorld multiculti paradise.

If I were faced with choosing to drop the hyphen 'or get out' (or get lynched as they did with German-American family who refused to speak English), I'd leave.

Oslaf
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 02:19 AM
My ancestors arrived in America in 1621. I guess that makes me a native. :D

SpearBrave
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 02:42 AM
If I were faced with choosing to drop the hyphen 'or get out' (or get lynched as they did with German-American family who refused to speak English), I'd leave.

Where would you go? No matter where you went you would always be known as "that American".

I have read before here and other places that America is not a nation, I say that is bull butter. There is a American identity, I know I live it and so do many other Americans everyday.

No it is not the fast food culture, walmart, and other things you may read on forums like this. The indoctrination goes both ways, the true American identity is the belief that you are your own person, a self reliant person that does not need a nanny state to tell you how to live your life.

Often times so called "nationalist" often like to downgrade America, mainly it because America is still proof that people can live and prosper without too much government interference. Most of the bad things( not all ) you see about America today are products of socialism creeping into that American idea. Often times also on boards like this people confuse nationalism with socialism. Nationalism is simply pride in ones nation and its ideas.


na·tion·al·ism   /ˈnæʃənlˌɪzəm, ˈnæʃnəˌlɪz-/ Show Spelled[nash-uh-nl-iz-uhm, nash-nuh-liz-] Show IPA
noun
1. national spirit or aspirations.
2. devotion and loyalty to one's own nation; patriotism.
3. excessive patriotism; chauvinism.
4. the desire for national advancement or independence.
5. the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nationalism


What ever you may think here is the American idea.

http://constitutionus.com/

So the United States of America is a nation, therefor there must be nationalism in the U.S.A..

Stanley
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 02:43 AM
If I were faced with choosing to drop the hyphen 'or get out' (or get lynched as they did with German-American family who refused to speak English), I'd leave.

What is the hyphen? Northwestern European-American? That sounds redundant to me, because wasn't the original conception of 'American' exactly that?

You say you don't want to "abandon our true blood heritage for a common identity of being American", but I don't see how forming that common identity necessitates the abandonment of our true blood heritage. The two aren't mutually exclusive to me.

Lastly, the point has been raised by some (most?) Europeans, and I tend to agree with them, that we are no longer genuine ethnic Europeans. With that being so, why should we be more invested in the old countries than our own homes?

I'm not asking all these questions to be argumentative, by the way. These are important questions to address, and I find this discussion really interesting.

Loyalist
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 02:58 AM
...Still not correct though, since her ethnicity is Canadian, not Norwegian. ;)

Still not correct, because "Canadian" isn't an ethnicity. ;)

Anyway, I'm predominantly English and Scottish by ancestry; I've spent a lot of time in the United Kingdom, have family there (who, strangely, accept me as English :-O) went to school in England, probably will again, etc. To say I lose all claim to my ancestral identity because I'm second generation on one side and Colonial stock on the other is laughable. It's also an unfortunate reality that a lot of native youth in the European states concerned are probably more disinterested in, and ignorant of, their native culture than Ælfrun, myself, and the others on this side of the Atlantic who truly appreciate our roots.

It's also a shame that one or two people resurrected this tired old debate and are, intentionally or otherwise, creating divisions at Skadi that had long since disappeared.

Ælfrun
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 03:21 AM
Still not correct, because "Canadian" isn't an ethnicity. ;)

Well said, couldn't have been said better. There is a major difference between nationality and ethnicity.



It's also a shame that one or two people resurrected this tired old debate and are, intentionally or otherwise, creating divisions at Skadi that had long since disappeared.

Hmmm, what is that saying 'Divide and conquer'? I am getting fed up with the European Elitism that is going on here.


It's also an unfortunate reality that a lot of native youth in the European states concerned are probably more disinterested in, and ignorant of, their native culture than Ælfrun, myself, and the others on this side of the Atlantic who truly appreciate our roots.

This is really sad, and these North Americans are the ones who are destroying Germanic Preservationism as a whole.

Todesritter
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 03:27 AM
Where would you go? No matter where you went you would always be known as "that American".

I have read before here and other places that America is not a nation, I say that is bull butter. There is a American identity, I know I live it and so do many other Americans everyday.

No it is not the fast food culture, walmart, and other things you may read on forums like this. The indoctrination goes both ways, the true American identity is the belief that you are your own person, a self reliant person that does not need a nanny state to tell you how to live your life.

Often times so called "nationalist" often like to downgrade America, mainly it because America is still proof that people can live and prosper without too much government interference. Most of the bad things( not all ) you see about America today are products of socialism creeping into that American idea. Often times also on boards like this people confuse nationalism with socialism. Nationalism is simply pride in ones nation and its ideas.


What ever you may think here is the American idea.

http://constitutionus.com/

So the United States of America is a nation, therefor there must be nationalism in the U.S.A..

You can think as you like of course, that is your right. I reject that America is a nation by definition on the technical definition of 'nation', if you want to use a different definition, again that is your choice.

I have read here and other places some asert America *is* a nation, which I won't call bull butter, but I don't agree. I'm not responsible for the education of identity you or others have received and choose to live by - if it is pleasing to you, more power to you.

I was told my refusal to believe as I was told, why America was a better "nation" than Germany or England, was spitting on the American flag and veterans when I pointed out according to the definition in the exact same schoolbook on government, America was not a nation, lacking a centuries long common common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, and/or history, etc.... When I argued with the teacher about this, I told him to look at the definition in the glossary in the back of the book. I also then told the teacher and the other classmates then, they could stick to their answer if they did not like mine. They decided to try and 'educate' me at the bus stop, to 'not be a traitor', but that did not change my mind :D

It does have some, but not all of the requisite traits to meet the technical definition, and we keep resetting the clock on moving toward meeting the definition with immigration - 'nation', state, whatever, I'd certainly not want to promote strife with people I like over semantics.

Since I don't for see anyone trying to make me leave, it is a hypothetical question, though I was asked to stay both in England and Germany when living there, however most thought I was a native - so it might have been different if I had been 'That American', and I liked those places fine, though I prefer the countryside in the US I was raised in, which is why I did not choose to stay.



What is the hyphen? Northwestern European-American? That sounds redundant to me, because wasn't the original conception of 'American' exactly that?

You say you don't want to "abandon our true blood heritage for a common identity of being American", but I don't see how forming that common identity necessitates the abandonment of our true blood heritage. The two aren't mutually exclusive to me.

Lastly, the point has been raised by some (most?) Europeans, and I tend to agree with them, that we are no longer genuine ethnic Europeans. With that being so, why should we be more invested in the old countries than our own homes?

I'm not asking all these questions to be argumentative, by the way. These are important questions to address, and I find this discussion really interesting.

I'm glad you don't see them as mutually exclusive either.

Unless we fix our immigration here and have that label mean something closer to my ethnicity, I'd prefer to use 'American' as my legal nationality, and let others far more keen to win honors from the 'American' President be the standard bearers for that term.

Gardisten
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 03:47 AM
I've been mulling over the content of this thread for some time and really haven't been able to come up with a response that wouldn't end up with me getting and an infraction--or banned outright. But I think that Loyalist has touched on several of the ideas that have come to mind, namely that residence within a country doesn't necessarily make one a true proponent or, in fact, inheritor of its culture. Yvla seems to think that by virtue of her birth in Sweden that she somehow is the archetypical "Swede", yet I question just how traditionally Swedish she really is. Like most Europeans she seems to have been so certain of her Eurocentric greatness that she needed to become fluent in English. And if I recall correctly, she seems to fancy herself a bit of a far-right extremist/national socialist--ie. an adherent of a foreign totaliterian ideology. One can only wonder what her co-workers--whom I assume have no idea that she's a right wing extremists would think about her if they found out about her membership on Skadi. Would they think that she's a true "Swede"? Most likely not. And for that matter, whilst Yvla believes that she has the right to rip on other non-European member's ancestry, I would like to ask her this--what in God's name were your "Swedish" ancestor's doing the last three century's or so sitting back being "neutral" whilst my ancestors were fighting for Germany and, in essence, saving Germanic Europe so that you now can smugly sit in your liberal democratic constitutional monarchy and pass judgment on the likes of me???? Personally I think Yvla is delusional--while she seems to think that she is "Swedish," like all Europeans she lives a life that emulates North American culture. Sure, she lives somewhere where the architecture dates back a few centuries, and some of the food that she eats is "traditional". But in essence, her lifestyle is overwhelmingly influences by (North) American "culture". Sorry, but no true Swede from a century or two--were they to be transported to our modern era--would even consider Yvla to be a real Swede. You may live in a country that according to the current laws defining what constitutes Sweden, but you've lost just about as much as your culture as ethnic Swede living outside of Sweden. That said, I think that Yvla's hostility really originates from other discussions that have taken place recently, ones that have absolutely nothing to do with the current topic. For that reason I personally find her outbursts unfortunate and much too divisive for the mandate of this forum. :thumbdown

Todesritter
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 03:55 AM
...

That's at the core of a great divide - there are those, particularly from the newer countries who feel the last few generations, or a somewhat recent government institution or tradition, the flag, or the constitution is more important, and others whose focus is increasingly on more ancient things like ancestry and original language, which they prioritize higher.

It seems these things can be complimentary, or at the very least should very rarely be implicitly in opposition.

Autosomal Viking
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 04:15 AM
To me, ancestry is the most important factor in determining ethnicity. Most of my ancestry originates from England. I like the German and Norwegian aspects of my ancestry as well, but to me, it would just not sit right to call myself German, Norwegian, or even German-American or Norwegian-American.

At the same time, I can empathize with those that feel a strong connection to one part of their ancestry. I would just hate to be in that situation and not have that connection be the majority of my ancestry. For example, I like listening to Wehrmacht marches and feel a connection to the music. But I do not need to identify as German or German-American to do this, as I consider my ancestry to be the primary determinant of my ethnicity.

Despite technically being Anglo-American, I do not really have an ethnic group to which I belong. 'Anglo-American' has been stretched to less meaning by including any American with some English ancestry or not, and for this reason I can empathize with the Europeans that do not consider just a little common blood to qualify someone for their ethnicity.

I admire especially the Third Reich and have German ancestry, but I am not German. I like the Norwegians and have Norwegian ancestry, but I am not Norwegian. I have mostly English ancestry and like the English, but I do not feel English. (Notice I said "feel.") The latter is probably due to historical circumstances: in history you were either English or you were American. Add in the fact that subraces are not limited to specific Germanic countries: I think of myself as a sort of generalized Germanic, lucking out with the best qualities of each. So really, I do not have an ethnic group to which I belong. But I would hope either of the three from which I originated would accept me, if I so chose, as 'that American that's kind of like us.'

Angus
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 04:36 AM
You may live in a country that according to the current laws defining what constitutes Sweden, but you've lost just about as much as your culture as ethnic Swede living outside of Sweden. :thumbdown

I've met and know many Americans who are actually more culturally and ethnically Scottish / German / whatever, than their counter-parts in Europe. These people actually make an effort, wanting to identify with their mother countries.

To say that Colonials are not culturaly / ethnically equal is laughable. They had no choice in the matter of where they were born.

Stanley
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 04:38 AM
Well, I have to say this thread has confirmed one thing for me, and that is that we colonials are an existentially lost bunch.

Ælfrun
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 04:45 AM
Well, I have to say this thread has confirmed one thing for me, and that is that we colonials are an existentially lost bunch.

I would have to say that this thread makes me feel a stronger about my Norwegian ethnicity, my culture, and my roots :D

Elessar
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 05:02 AM
The same Celtic and Germanic blood flows through my veins as it does in those who dwell on European soil. Ethnically, we are the same people. Politically, we're not, Geographically, we're not, even culturally, we're quite literally worlds apart. What calls to us is the Folk, the ethnicity if you will. How can anyone who is descended from these tribes of Europa not be referred to by their respective heritages? It's been touched upon that political markers such as "American, Canadian, Australian" etc are mere indicators of where one lives, not of who you are (i.e. the German Turk example)
In the colonial age, ethnonyms were thrown out the door for the sake of imperial monoculture (genesis of the dreaded "multi-culturalism"), thus we're left with a scattering of ethnicities trying to grasp for something tangible in a kultur dystopia that is the New World.

Can you really blame them?

Gardisten
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 05:26 AM
I'm very tired tonight and to my detriment I could go on about this topic at some length, but will try and keep it brief and measured. When I went to Germany for a year I was astounded by several things. First and foremost was the muted disdain that I experienced from some of my some of my mother's side of the family. Apparently leaving for North America was some sort of act of treason--despite the fact that the Germany of the time had little to offer. Many of the people we know left Germany during the 50s and 60s because of the lack of opportunity or advancement, in significant part due to the fact that German employers were more than willing to hire foreign workers over (ethnic) Germans. That being the case, I have little concern for Germans who are critical of my ancestry and nationality. I see my status and predicament as being a part of the German experience, even if many residing in Germany would beg to differ. The second thing that struck me was this love-hate attitude that many Germans seem to have with "Ami" culture; on the one hand so contemptuous of all that is American, yet on the other hand lapping it up with such servility that I came to the conclusion that Germans have become too pathetic for their own good. I'll admit that when my time in Germany came to an end, I was more than happy to leave, and I was more than happy to return to Canada. I thought that Germans--of my generation, at least--had totally lost touch with their culture, and I wanted nothing to do with them or what constitutes modern German culture. I guess in some respects that's what has led me to my current beliefs and presence here. My really affinity is to the East Prussia that my parents left behind (technically my mom's from West Prussia) and that is what I view as being my heritage. My place of birth or "ethnicity" is beside the point; I am where and what I am because of the events of 1945 and regardless of what some catty Swede seems to think; this will define me and (God willing) my descendants...

Alfadur
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 08:25 AM
I've already stated my opinion on this, so I'm going to keep this post short.

I have nothing against people who are proud of a certain heritage, or who stick to the traditions of a certain European nation. But still, it's up to the natives of that European nation to decide if this person is still one of them. And, as Ylva said before, the majority of "hyphenated Americans" would fail that test.
Thus, this varies from situation to situation; a German-American who speaks fluent German and is a part of the German culture will have the right to use "German" as his identity, but not an American with one German grandparent, who doesn't speak the language and isn't interested in the culture.

As for the colonials of British heritage, such as Loyalist, it's not entirely wrong to consider themselves English. After all, both nations are part of the same Anglo-Saxon continuum. So it's completely fine by me if Loyalist puts up "English" as his ethnicity, or "Anglo-Saxon" or whatever.


Iand regardless of what some catty Swede seems to think; this will define me and (God willing) my descendants...
Ylva was merely remarking on those Americans who proudly call themselves "Swedish" or "German" without even speaking a word of the language. No need to whine like a sore loser and throw around ad hominems.


How are we mixing everything up when we are preserving Germanic culture? I would say mixing everything up would be Germanics dating Asians, Indians, etc. The whole purpose of this forum is to unite Germanics from all over the world.
I think she meant cultural mongrelization, rather than racial. I know that you personally are a fan of Norwegian traditions and speak the language, but the same can't be said of most other colonials who claim to be a certain ethnicity.

I don't think anyone on Skadi wants to drop our individual ethno-cultures in favor of a multicultural "Germanic melting pot".

Todesritter
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 08:30 AM
...

My hat's off to real Prussians, of any sort - and I'm sorry if someone was pushing your buttons.

Though the present "American" state would not be able to motivate me to fight its wars of mercantile & cultural imperialism without a great deal of leverage, or unless our homeland was legitimately under attack, I would happily volunteer whatever help I could to any future effort to restore & rebuild Prussia.

The fact that the great USofA signed off on Stalin's grab of the place, and moving Poland westward, when even Churchill was willing to tell the Russians off if Washington would just stand on principle, is one of my points of frustration & embarrassment with modern American history; we should have remained neutral or joined Germany.

The original Prussian core, what came to be named "East Prussia" in modern times, became the nexus of strength around which the later Kingdom & German Empire unified and crystalized due in no small part to the melding of worthy peoples; aboriginal Baltic 'Old Prussians', ethnic German & Dutch settlers (before modern times the distinction between German & Dutch was not there), and more exotic immigrants too, any notherner who could help strengthen the kingdom and hold & better land in the form of worthy mercenaries and petty nobles from places as near as Sweden or Denmark or as far away as Scotland, from which a parallel military/mercenary branch of my Scottish ancestral family emigrated to Prussia.

I don't know the discussion of which you speak, but think it is lowly & counterproductive for anyone to detract from your worthy connection to Prussia.

Huginn ok Muninn
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 10:47 AM
I have read before here and other places that America is not a nation, I say that is bull butter. There is a American identity, I know I live it and so do many other Americans everyday.

You must admit that you are, however, a lucky man to live in a relatively homogeneous area, even to the point where most people are of German extraction. You also have a large family to bolster what you feel is an American identity.


No it is not the fast food culture, walmart, and other things you may read on forums like this. The indoctrination goes both ways, the true American identity is the belief that you are your own person, a self reliant person that does not need a nanny state to tell you how to live your life.

That is not so much an identity as it is a shared socio-economic point of view.


Often times so called "nationalist" often like to downgrade America, mainly it because America is still proof that people can live and prosper without too much government interference. Most of the bad things( not all ) you see about America today are products of socialism creeping into that American idea. Often times also on boards like this people confuse nationalism with socialism. Nationalism is simply pride in ones nation and its ideas.


What ever you may think here is the American idea.

http://constitutionus.com/

So the United States of America is a nation, therefor there must be nationalism in the U.S.A..

So is nationalism in America to you defined as civic nationalism? Would Herman Cain be fine as president of your "nation" if he conforms to these ideals with which you define the American "identity?"

Nowhere in your description of what is an "American" is there any true definition of an identity based upon common origins of birth, which, as the root of the word "nation" is its true meaning. America had a blossoming culture before the influx of Irish during the potato famine, but after that, wave after wave of immigration, the civil war, and the economically driven migration and industrial revolution combined to completely overshadow if not destroy the American cultural identity one might find in the works of Melville or Hawthorne, which was a distinctly Anglo one, infused with the spirit of which you speak. Without those individuals who wrote it remaining at the apex of real power, it becomes a document merely adopted by future generations which come here from elsewhere to take advantage of the civic and economic freedoms it bestows. A nation defined as a place of economic opportunity is not a nation, and by what you have said here, it confirms what I have said before that America is merely a civic contrivance in the name of economic convenience, not anything even approaching what I would call a "nation."

A nation is a people brought together by common birth, common history, and definitely a common ethnicity. There can be no national soul without it, and a nation without a soul is no nation at all. I don't feel the same commonality with the person of Russian descent across the street that I feel with someone of Germanic descent living in South Africa, even though that Russian is an "American." So what is America, then, if it has no common soul? It is just like an individual without a soul, a golem, and how appropriate that this is exactly how America appears now.. a soulless strongman controlled by Jews and like-minded elites, mindlessly doing their bidding upon the world stage.

SpearBrave
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 11:33 AM
You can think as you like of course, that is your right. I reject that America is a nation by definition on the technical definition of 'nation', if you want to use a different definition, again that is your choice.

I have read here and other places some asert America *is* a nation, which I won't call bull butter, but I don't agree. I'm not responsible for the education of identity you or others have received and choose to live by - if it is pleasing to you, more power to you.


I would like to see this definition that you are talking about and the souces this diffinition came from ? By every term I have read America is a nation. I don't think there is a different definition, unless it has been changed within a very short period of time.

Nor I am responsible for your education, however don't go calling people indocronated until we decide who has been indocrated and who has not. I am stating this because as I said earlier I often read one thing then go back and check what I have read only to find out that people use different diffinitions to skew or twist a point.


You must admit that you are, however, a lucky man to live in a relatively homogeneous area, even to the point where most people are of German extraction. You also have a large family to bolster what you feel is an American identity.


Well not just me but every other rural American as well.;)


That is not so much an identity as it is a shared socio-economic point of view.


No really it is a shared identity. I share that idea with many other Americans across the nation. I don't think you are getting what I said. It is a common beleif that we have rights above the government.


So is nationalism in America to you defined as civic nationalism? Would Herman Cain be fine as president of your "nation" if he conforms to these ideals with which you define the American "identity?"


Nowhere did I mention civic nationalism, In America we have something called rule of law, these laws define us as a nation. At the time these laws were written people like Herman Cain were not included into the those laws. So no Herman Cain would not be fine as president and no really I have not yet heard him even speak about the true American idea.


Nowhere in your description of what is an "American" is there any true definition of an identity based upon common origins of birth, which, as the root of the word "nation" is its true meaning. America had a blossoming culture before the influx of Irish during the potato famine, but after that, wave after wave of immigration, the civil war, and the economically driven migration and industrial revolution combined to completely overshadow if not destroy the American cultural identity one might find in the works of Melville or Hawthorne, which was a distinctly Anglo one, infused with the spirit of which you speak. Without those individuals who wrote it remaining at the apex of real power, it becomes a document merely adopted by future generations which come here from elsewhere to take advantage of the civic and economic freedoms it bestows. A nation defined as a place of economic opportunity is not a nation, and by what you have said here, it confirms what I have said before that America is merely a civic contrivance in the name of economic convenience, not anything even approaching what I would call a "nation."


Well whether you like it or not America is a nation under most accurate definitions of the word. We all( citizens ) have the same language, we abide by the same laws, these laws are written in the same language, those of us born here are American, by this as we travel abroad we are known as American Nationals. It does not have anything to do with economic opportunity is has everything to do with believing that citizens have rights above the government a common belief also across the nation.



A nation is a people brought together by common birth, common history, and definitely a common ethnicity. There can be no national soul without it, and a nation without a soul is no nation at all. I don't feel the same commonality with the person of Russian descent across the street that I feel with someone of Germanic descent living in South Africa, even though that Russian is an "American." So what is America, then, if it has no common soul? It is just like an individual without a soul, a golem, and how appropriate that this is exactly how America appears now.. a soulless strongman controlled by Jews, mindlessly doing their bidding upon the world stage.

You are from Texas and I'm from Indiana yet we both share a common language and some common heritage/ethnicity and common history. We both live in the same country most of America has these things in common. The rest of the paragraph makes no sense because America does have common soul and identity, I just pointed that out to you. While I do not like how our current politicians are running things it does not change that we are citizens of Americans a nation where the rights of the citizen are held above those of the government.

Who knows what will happen in twenty years our government may not support jews so much, these things come and go and right now there is slowly growing anti-semitism in America. Albeit it is very slowly growing but it is growing. The self hate some Americans have is a product of indoctrination put on us by those very jews that wish to control us. No I am not for America supporting this country or that country most of the problems we are in right now are because of this.

This is getting off topic, if you would like to start a thread about what it means to be a American then I guess we could.;)

Huginn ok Muninn
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 12:16 PM
nation
c.1300, from O.Fr. nacion, from L. nationem (nom. natio) "nation, stock, race," lit. "that which has been born," from natus, pp. of nasci "be born" (Old L. gnasci; see genus). Political sense has gradually taken over from racial meaning "large group of people with common ancestry." Older sense preserved in application to N.Amer. Indian peoples (1640s). Nation-building first attested 1907 (implied in nation-builder).

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=nation

Another element that makes a nation a nation is a shared religion. For example, Vladimir I of the Kievan Rus adopted Orthodox Christianity as the state religion in 988, feeling the need to bring his people together by adopting an official religion. Thus, several neighboring Slavic peoples with a Germanic ruling class congealed over time into a nation, centered on this common touchstone of the Church.

In this way, America fails again to have made itself a nation, as it has freedom of religion written into the constitution, precluding yet another element of a common national soul.

I agree wholeheartedly that socialism would be impossible in the United States, for the expressed fact that it is not a nation! The only possible way for this country to exist is if someone utterly alien to you in every way, yet who calls himself your countryman, is not sitting in Washington dictating how you will live your life. Socialism does not work in multicultural societies, as Europe is beginning to find out.


No really it is a shared identity. I share that idea with many other Americans across the nation. I don't think you are getting what I said. It is a common belief that we have rights above the government.

I understand exactly what you said, but this is not identity. Ask any European here, and he will probably agree with me. Ideas and "isms" are not the same as people. Your brother might disagree with you, but as long as he is not a traitor to his blood, he is still your brother. I will NEVER do what Americans were manipulated into doing during WWI.. kill my kinsmen because some Jew told me he deserved to die because he lived under a different system of government from that hallowed in our constitution.


Nowhere did I mention civic nationalism, In America we have something called rule of law, these laws define us as a nation. At the time these laws were written people like Herman Cain were not included into the those laws. So no Herman Cain would not be fine as president and no really I have not yet heard him even speak about the true American idea.

What you are talking about is civic nationalism whether you realize it or not. Herman Cain is a businessman who seems to believe in all the things you are talking about.. so why isn't he a member of your nation, when he seems to fit the definition?


Well whether you like it or not America is a nation under most accurate definitions of the word. We all( citizens ) have the same language, we abide by the same laws, these laws are written in the same language, those of us born here are American, by this as we travel abroad we are known as American Nationals. It does not have anything to do with economic opportunity is has everything to do with believing that citizens have rights above the government a common belief also across the nation.

Language is not blood, and laws are not soul. While you and I might belong to the same nation, the Russian across the street doesn't, and the millions of Hispanics in my state most certainly do not, even though most have American citizenship and might share most of the ideas we are talking about. Until you start talking about a common heritage/ethnicity for all citizens, you are not talking about a nation.

The Aesthete
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 01:50 PM
There is no such thing as ethnic Canadian!!

However she may be a Canadian national

By the way someone who is born in America to two true Swedish parents is an ethnic Swede, but that does not make them Swedish I agree with you there.

Ylva in another post you said you have Danish in your family and even said you felt closer to them, so would you be ethnic Swedish?

Personally I am proud to be an Aussie and wouldn’t want to be considered English, or Swedish, or German etc


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeG-hNXXy6I

BritishLad
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 01:56 PM
Personally I am proud to be an Aussie and wouldn’t want to be considered English, or Swedish, or German etc

Why? Is there a problem about bein European?

The Aesthete
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 02:39 PM
There is none however I don’t live in Europe

My cultural and racial identity is European, but we Aussies have developed our own culture here different from the motherland.

Autosomal Viking
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 03:06 PM
I don't think anyone on Skadi wants to drop our individual ethno-cultures in favor of a multicultural "Germanic melting pot".

It's my dream for my country to become that once again. It would certainly be an improvement, I'm sure many would agree. But you meant non-colonial ethno-cultures. I want ethnogenesis of an American people, Germanic of course.

Ælfrun
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 04:23 PM
I've already stated my opinion on this, so I'm going to keep this post short.

I have nothing against people who are proud of a certain heritage, or who stick to the traditions of a certain European nation. But still, it's up to the natives of that European nation to decide if this person is still one of them. And, as Ylva said before, the majority of "hyphenated Americans" would fail that test.

Thus, this varies from situation to situation; a German-American who speaks fluent German and is a part of the German culture will have the right to use "German" as his identity, but not an American with one German grandparent, who doesn't speak the language and isn't interested in the culture.

Ylva was merely remarking on those Americans who proudly call themselves "Swedish" or "German" without even speaking a word of the language. No need to whine like a sore loser and throw around ad hominems.


I think she meant cultural mongrelization, rather than racial. I know that you personally are a fan of Norwegian traditions and speak the language, but the same can't be said of most other colonials who claim to be a certain ethnicity.

I don't think anyone on Skadi wants to drop our individual ethno-cultures in favor of a multicultural "Germanic melting pot".


If it is up to the native Norwegians, then I am most certainly Norwegian It was not made to seem like "it varies" from situation to situation if you recall:


Yea, I saw she changed her ethnicity from just "Norwegian" to "Norwegian-Canadian", which is a step on the way. Still not correct though, since her ethnicity is Canadian, not Norwegian. ;) She doesn't have a "pred. ancestry" from Norway, obviously.


I understand the basic situation that mostly every North American calls themselves anything but North American What does she claim to be then? as she is not pure Swedish. She should apply this to herself also. I am not just a fan Odalman, it is my heritage, so for someone to say that I cannot claim it as my Ethnicity is offensive. Like stated earlier, even the native Norwegians consider myself Norwegian. I understand this, but I must admit that Germanic mixing is better than Germanic to non Germanic mixing.

Heinrich Harrer
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 05:25 PM
I agree with some points that Ylva made, although she perhaps comes across as a bit too hostile. It doesn't bother me when Americans who just had some german ancestors, who don't speak the language and who only have a superficial familiarity with german culture identify as 'German' as it shows the affection they have for Germany and the german people. But personally I don't really consider them to be german. There are more aspects to being german than just the common descent (and many of the 'german-Americans' are only part german to begin with). The culture and mindset are quite important as well. I find the approach of SpearBrave and AV to be more honest referring to themselves as 'Americans of (part) german descent' and not just as 'Germans'.

But that's no reason to feel rejected, it's just the way it is. The german Americans can still migrate back to the land of their ancestors if they feel like rejoining the tribe. They might stick out a little for the rest of their life, but their children could be proper germans again matching all the criteria. I would actually endorse it and everyone who is still of mainly german descent should consider it as our ancestral homelands are in danger.


I'm very tired tonight and to my detriment I could go on about this topic at some length, but will try and keep it brief and measured. When I went to Germany for a year I was astounded by several things. First and foremost was the muted disdain that I experienced from some of my some of my mother's side of the family. Apparently leaving for North America was some sort of act of treason--despite the fact that the Germany of the time had little to offer. Many of the people we know left Germany during the 50s and 60s because of the lack of opportunity or advancement, in significant part due to the fact that German employers were more than willing to hire foreign workers over (ethnic) Germans.


To be honest, I don't find it surprising if it evoked negative emotions when the war was still more present in the minds of the people. Back in the 50s Germany had just been utterly devastated and destroyed, and while all other germans went ahead to reconstruct the country, or what was left of it, they packed their coffers and emigrated to one of the countries responsible for this destruction for their own personal economic gains.

Many argue that those immigrants from the third world should rather rebuild their own nations than move to our countries for economic opportunities. German emigrants who leave their country for economic reasons are not that different.

For that reason I'm not too fond of emigrants myself. I judge descendants of emigrants differently as they didn't have this choice. But the emigrants themselves did, and they have chosen to turn their back on their folk community, their nation, their fatherland. In the past it was a bit more understandable when we still had a good population growth in Europe and only limited resources (although it's still nothing I would applaud to). But especially in our modern times when we suffer from demographic decline and our fatherland is threatened by a massive foreign invasion it's a shame that many germans still opt to turn their backs on their ancestral homeland when they would be needed more than ever to protect it (the emigration rates in the recent years have been some of the highest since the end of the war).


That being the case, I have little concern for Germans who are critical of my ancestry and nationality. I see my status and predicament as being a part of the German experience, even if many residing in Germany would beg to differ. The second thing that struck me was this love-hate attitude that many Germans seem to have with "Ami" culture; on the one hand so contemptuous of all that is American, yet on the other hand lapping it up with such servility that I came to the conclusion that Germans have become too pathetic for their own good. I'll admit that when my time in Germany came to an end, I was more than happy to leave, and I was more than happy to return to Canada. I thought that Germans--of my generation, at least--had totally lost touch with their culture, and I wanted nothing to do with them or what constitutes modern German culture. I guess in some respects that's what has led me to my current beliefs and presence here. My really affinity is to the East Prussia that my parents left behind (technically my mom's from West Prussia) and that is what I view as being my heritage. My place of birth or "ethnicity" is beside the point; I am where and what I am because of the events of 1945 and regardless of what some catty Swede seems to think; this will define me and (God willing) my descendants...

You find modern germans pathetic and detest the way that they're lapping up "Ami" culture and your reaction was to move to Canada? :chinrub

You could have fought to preserve the old german culture in Germany, but instead you opted to resign and leave. The german ethnicity will not be preserved in an environment where german blood is in the minority, your descendants will be completely intermixed eventually. If you don't care for your german ethnicity and favor a germanic Canadian ethnogenesis that would be somewhat consistent. But if you want to preserve it, I think you made the wrong choice. Long term ethnic and cultural preservation requires spatial separation, thus germans who want to preserve their german ethnicity should remain in or move to Germany. Otherwise it's just a question of time until it dissipates over the generations and becomes part of something else.

Stanley
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 06:22 PM
Otherwise it's just a question of time until it dissipates over the generations and becomes part of something else.

I asked this question in one of my earlier posts (quoted below), and I wish it had been addressed. Right now the debate seems shortsighted, with colonials talking about how they feel like they belong to an old world ethnicity with no regard for what it means for our descendants who will be even further isolated from the culture and homeland of said ethnicity. As a preservationist, it's these future descendants that I care about.


At what point does the temporal distance between our immigrant ancestors and our future descendants become so great that the amalgamation of our individual ancestral lines approaches irrelevancy?

Ælfrun
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 06:37 PM
I asked this question in one of my earlier posts (quoted below), and I wish it had been addressed. Right now the debate seems shortsighted, with colonials talking about how they feel like they belong to an old world ethnicity with no regard for what it means for our descendants who will be even further isolated from the culture and homeland of said ethnicity. As a preservationist, it's these future descendants that I care about.

Colonials are part of the future that is key in keeping Germanic Preservation strong. We are not isolating ourselves, it seems like the Europeans, our ancestors are isolating us by not considering descendants to be a valid part of their heritage.

Stanley
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 06:51 PM
Colonials are part of the future that is key in keeping Germanic Preservation strong.

I fully agree.


We are not isolating ourselves, it seems like the Europeans, our ancestors are isolating us by not considering descendants to be a valid part of their heritage.

I didn't mean to say we should isolate ourselves from our European roots. I hope that will never happen. But saying that we are European is a different thing entirely. I do agree though that there are some Europeans who act rather nastily towards us and will always find ways to distance themselves from us, but I have to say, such behavior isn't proper European. :)

I have a couple of questions, if you don't mind answering them: Do you plan on living in Canada for the rest of your life? If so, will you raise your children as Norwegians? What about your grandchildren? Their grandchildren? And so on.

Ælfrun
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 07:00 PM
I didn't mean to say we should isolate ourselves from our European roots. I hope that will never happen. But saying that we are European is a different thing entirely. I do agree though that there are some Europeans who act rather nastily towards us and will always find ways to distance themselves from us, but I have to say, such behavior isn't proper European. :)

I have a couple of questions, if you don't mind answering them: Do you plan on living in Canada for the rest of your life? If so, will you raise your children as Norwegians? What about your grandchildren? Their grandchildren? And so on.

Oh I know, it is not you :) I will continue to state my Ethnicity as Norwegian until I find different information about my roots. I am learning about Scottish roots that just came up....

I would give almost anything to live in Norway. My dream is to marry a Norwegian and have a family there of course :) If I meet a Norwegian in Canada, then that is great also. We can then keep the culture in the family.

Hamar Fox
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 07:23 PM
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=128575

I think the above thread shows us some potential pitfalls of colonial ethnic self-identification. On the grounds of appearance and character (I'm sure some must remember him :D ) I'd question his right to call himself even English-American, much less plain English. Very, very few Americans are of full or even predominantly English descent, so I'm naturally suspicious of anyone who claims to belong to that category. Standards for being of 'English descent' in the US are so lax that I regularly see Americans call themselves 'Anglo-American' when they haven't even a drop of English blood in them. Of course, this is counterbalanced by the sheer force of Americans who don't bother to report English (and to a lesser extent any British Isles ethnicity but Irish) ancestry because it's not 'spicy' enough, and I don't doubt the high quanitity of English blood in America, but pure English descendents are few.

I'd really prefer people just to be honest about their heritage. It annoys me in general when people try to 'self-interpret' their heritage, and talk about being 'Viking' this and 'Jutish' that. You're probably wrong, so just tell us the facts and let us work things out for ourselves. But I don't think it matters all that much how Americans see themselves in America. As long as they don't relocate themselves to their imagined fatherland against the interests of the purity of that nation's blood (and I'm talking of Bradford here, obviously not Aelfrun -- although, it's true, she looks much more Isles than Scandinavian), I don't see a problem -- certainly not a problem enough to generate the level of hostility in here.

And, anyway, the last six or so pages really have nothing to do with the comment that spawned this debate, with which I agree -- a lot of discreet members are non-Germanic interlopers with fake profiles. It's always funny when a 'Dane' gets banned here and then shows up on some other site as a Slovakian or something :D

Primus
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 07:27 PM
I consider myself to be an American of English descent. I've largely decided that the U.S. has its own native, national legacy and has little or no need to identify overly much with the European nations.

http://www.usvetdsp.com/dec07/gifs/usa_confed_flag.jpg

I think that only Americans can see these two flags and really know what they represent and feel emotionally about them. I'm a Yankee but to say that I've got no sympathy for the Rebs isn't at all true; tragically I know exactly why the southern states withdrew in the first place and it wasn't about the slaves (despite the historicizing of this supposed fact). The U.S. Civil War is still being fought and you'll find alot of Yankees like me preferring to side with the Rebs this time around (i.e. states' rights vs. rampaign federal tyranny, limited government, politicians being held to account for misconduct, native protectionism and tariffs on foreign products, etc.).

Gardisten
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 07:31 PM
And this is to Germany's detriment and, ultimately, loss.


I agree with some points that Ylva made, although she perhaps comes across as a bit too hostile. It doesn't bother me when Americans who just had some german ancestors, who don't speak the language and who only have a superficial familiarity with german culture identify as 'German' as it shows the affection they have for Germany and the german people. But personally I don't really consider them to be german. There are more aspects to being german than just the common descent (and many of the 'german-Americans' are only part german to begin with). The culture and mindset are quite important as well. I find the approach of SpearBrave and AV to be more honest referring to themselves as 'Americans of (part) german descent' and not just as 'Germans'.

But that's no reason to feel rejected, it's just the way it is. The german Americans can still migrate back to the land of their ancestors if they feel like rejoining the tribe. They might stick out a little for the rest of their life, but their children could be proper germans again matching all the criteria. I would actually endorse it and everyone who is still of mainly german descent should consider it as our ancestral homelands are in danger.

Ummm... both sides of my family came from the east. They lost almost everything. When they arrived in Germany proper they were viewed as a burden and treated as outsiders. They all worked some form of menial labour in order to help rebuild Germany (not to mention just to subsist). And yeah, my dad eventually found work with the Bahnpolizei in a major city, and from the little I know about his service it doesn't seem to me that his fellow Germans were all that united in their resolve to rebuild Germany...


To be honest, I don't find it surprising if it evoked negative emotions when the war was still more present in the minds of the people. Back in the 50s Germany had just been utterly devastated and destroyed, and while all other germans went ahead to reconstruct the country, or what was left of it, they packed their coffers and emigrated to one of the countries responsible for this destruction for their own personal economic gains.

Um, no.


Many argue that those immigrants from the third world should rather rebuild their own nations than move to our countries for economic opportunities. German emigrants who leave their country for economic reasons are not that different.

No, I would say that Germany failed them by putting foreign workers before their own people. The people we know can't be faulted for being driven out of work because German employers would prefer to hire some Italian or Greek and pay them low wages, rather than pay them a livable wage.


For that reason I'm not too fond of emigrants myself. I judge descendants of emigrants differently as they didn't have this choice. But the emigrants themselves did, and they have chosen to turn their back on their folk community, their nation, their fatherland. In the past it was a bit more understandable when we still had a good population growth in Europe and only limited resources (although it's still nothing I would applaud to). But especially in our modern times when we suffer from demographic decline and our fatherland is threatened by a massive foreign invasion it's a shame that many germans still opt to turn their backs on their ancestral homeland when they would be needed more than ever to protect it (the emigration rates in the recent years have been some of the highest since the end of the war).

I returned to Canada, as I was only supposed to be in Germany for a year.


You find modern germans pathetic and detest the way that they're lapping up "Ami" culture and your reaction was to move to Canada? :chinrub

Well I guess what I'm saying is that after having spent time in Germany I came to realize that Germans had become so Americanized and were so intent on pursuing a (North) American-like lifestyle, that it really didn't matter whether or not I remained in Germany. I can just as well maintain German ethnicity right here where I am now to be quite honest. Of course I would prefer to be in a fully German-speaking region, but since I don't I make due as best I can.


You could have fought to preserve the old german culture in Germany, but instead you opted to resign and leave. The german ethnicity will not be preserved in an environment where german blood is in the minority, your descendants will be completely intermixed eventually. If you don't care for your german ethnicity and favor a germanic Canadian ethnogenesis that would be somewhat consistent. But if you want to preserve it, I think you made the wrong choice. Long term ethnic and cultural preservation requires spatial separation, thus germans who want to preserve their german ethnicity should remain in or move to Germany. Otherwise it's just a question of time until it dissipates over the generations and becomes part of something else.

Vindefense
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 07:44 PM
I have read before here and other places that America is not a nation, I say that is bull butter. There is a American identity, I know I live it and so do many other Americans everyday.

I would say that there are many identities, some are localized and others regional but all are diverse.



What ever you may think here is the American idea.

http://constitutionus.com/

So the United States of America is a nation, therefor there must be nationalism in the U.S.A..


So, where do you see the word Nation in that document? I see union, the United States, the people.. but not the word nation. In fact every attempt that was made by Hamilton to define the US as a nation was repeatedly struck down. Now, this is not to say that nationalists have not been steadily trying to nationalize the US, for surly they have, only to point out that the US constitution was in fact a document that discouraged nationhood.

What does this mean? It means that you have freedom of movement, that you may emigrate to wherever you like to associate and contract with those you wish to, that no laws can be passed by congress or any state legislature limiting you or barring you from vacating your state.

For more about the subject, read this (http://www.archive.org/details/acatechismconst00overgoog)

Loyalist
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 07:53 PM
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=128575

I think the above thread shows us some potential pitfalls of colonial ethnic self-identification. On the grounds of appearance and character (I'm sure some must remember him :D ) I'd question his right to call himself even English-American, much less plain English. Very, very few Americans are of full or even predominantly English descent, so I'm naturally suspicious of anyone who claims to belong to that category. Standards for being of 'English descent' in the US are so lax that I regularly see Americans call themselves 'Anglo-American' when they haven't even a drop of English blood in them. Of course, this is counterbalanced by the sheer force of Americans who don't bother to report English (and to a lesser extent any British Isles ethnicity but Irish) ancestry because it's not 'spicy' enough, and I don't doubt the high quanitity of English blood in America, but pure English descendents are few.

I'd really prefer people just to be honest about their heritage. It annoys me in general when people try to 'self-interpret' their heritage, and talk about being 'Viking' this and 'Jutish' that. You're probably wrong, so just tell us the facts and let us work things out for ourselves. But I don't think it matters all that much how Americans see themselves in America. As long as they don't relocate themselves to their imagined fatherland against the interests of the purity of that nation's blood (and I'm talking of Bradford here, obviously not Aelfrun -- although, it's true, she looks much more Isles than Scandinavian), I don't see a problem -- certainly not a problem enough to generate the level of hostility in here.

And, anyway, the last six or so pages really have nothing to do with the comment that spawned this debate, with which I agree -- a lot of discreet members are non-Germanic interlopers with fake profiles. It's always funny when a 'Dane' gets banned here and then shows up on some other site as a Slovakian or something :D

I don't think the above thread tells us much of anything for a few reasons. First, that poster hadn't done any actual genealogical research; in his own words, he was making assumptions about his ancestral origins through family surnames a relative provided him with. Second, he was at no point a legitimate member of Skadi, but instead ignored opinions about his obviously alien appearance and started dishing out insults which ended in him being banned. For example, he responded to a post I made listing my German ancestors' surnames and said they were obviously Jews. Such an individual doesn't reflect either the appearance or character of any English or other Germanic-American I've ever met. ;)

Physical appearance is too ambiguous to base assumptions about one's ancestry on. Ælfrun would fit right in in Norway and Scotland. I've seen very few people, either on Skadi or on the street, who I could definitively place into one nation, with the exception of the invariably boring, swarthy peoples of the Mediterranean nations. Given that the British Isles were subject to Scandinavian settlement for much of the Early to High Middle Ages, we have a possible explanation for Ælfrun's pan-Northern appearance. :thumbup

Contrary to your other point, there are plenty of Americans of wholly or predominantly English descent. As the oldest settling group in the United States, most Americans of English descent tend to ignore or be unaware of their ancestral origins, self-reporting as Americans on the census, for example. However, with those lost colonists factored in, the English are the largest ethnic group in the United States, beating out even the two largest "official" groups (Irish and Germans). One mustn't forget that those tens of thousands of English colonists who arrived in the 17th century have tens of millions of living descendants today, and those of New England WASP descent usually aren't mixed with other groups. Those who did mix tended to do so with other racially compatible peoples (Welsh, Ulster-Scots, Germans, Dutch, etc.). On a related note, most of the English I've met at Skadi and other such fora have had some ancestry, even if miniscule, from other nations, be it the Celtic nations, Germany, the Low Countries, France, and even Afrikaner blood. Yet, I've never seen anyone disputing their claim to Englishness. ;)

Sigyn
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 08:08 PM
It's my dream for my country to become that once again. It would certainly be an improvement, I'm sure many would agree. But you meant non-colonial ethno-cultures.
I'm pretty sure that's what he meant. :P

I agree that North America could be a Germanic melting pot, although I wouldn't want to see the same happen to Sweden or Norway.

Ælfrun
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 08:16 PM
I'm pretty sure that's what he meant. :P

I agree that North America could be a Germanic melting pot, although I wouldn't want to see the same happen to Sweden or Norway.

North America has no other choice, than to be a Germanic melting pot as that is all we have. I agree with you that Sweden should stay swedish, and Norway, should stay Norwegian. That is also a touchy subject because what happens when I move to Norway? Also, that is how people become inbred :P

Hamar Fox
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 08:18 PM
I don't think the above thread tells us much of anything for a few reasons. First, that poster hadn't done any actual genealogical research; in his own words, he was making assumptions about his ancestral origins through family surnames a relative provided him with. Second, he was at no point a legitimate member of Skadi, but instead ignored opinions about his obviously alien appearance and started dishing out insults which ended in him being banned. For example, he responded to a post I made listing my German ancestors' surnames and said they were obviously Jews. Such an individual doesn't reflect either the appearance or character of any English or other Germanic-American I've ever met. ;)

Right. Obviously his choice of ethnicity was based on guesswork, which is why he managed to get so far off base. But most Americans ground their heritage on guesswork and casual 'rounding up' based on subjective judgements of how important or unimportant a given ancestral nation is. Guesswork is even more the case with English ancestry, since English immigration happened by and large much earlier than that of most other nationalities.



Contrary to your other point, there are plenty of Americans of wholly or predominantly English descent. As the oldest settling group in the United States, most Americans of English descent tend to ignore or be unaware of their ancestral origins, self-reporting as Americans on the census, for example.

And that's why purity is rare. You can't survive for generations among a million other ethnicities and remain pure, especially when there's no particular imperative to remain pure. What percentage of Americans do you believe have no ancestors pass through Ellis Isles in the 19th century?


On a related note, most of the English I've met at Skadi and other such fora have had some ancestry, even if miniscule, from other nations, be it the Celtic nations, Germany, the Low Countries, France, and even Afrikaner blood. Yet, I've never seen anyone disputing their claim to Englishness. ;)

Which is a problem in itself. I don't generally care about other NW European admixture, but Afrikaners may have Capoid or Indonesian ancestry, which would be a point of concern for me. Anyone with Eastern or Southern European roots, whether from Britain or America, would be instantly excluded from Englishness, IMO.

Edit:

But also keep in mind that a lot of the 'foreign' ancestry reported by Britons is fanciful. A lot of people nowadays fall victim to the American fad of having a trillion different ethnicities, so when you see 'French' or 'Scandinavian' reported in an Englishman's ancestry slot, it could well simply mean that he found a Norman surname in his family tree or has ancestry from the Danelaw, respectively. It could also mean he combed his heritage for centuries, uncovered details about hundreds of his forebears, and found one little Dutchman in 1576; and then decides to report himself as 'English and Dutch', as though his ancestry belonged in equal measure to each, in much the same way as Americans invent or exaggerate Amerindian blood.

Loyalist
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 08:39 PM
Right. Obviously his choice of ethnicity was based on guesswork, which is why he managed to get so far off base. But most Americans ground their heritage on guesswork and casual 'rounding up' based on subjective judgements of how important or unimportant a given ancestral nation is. Guesswork is even more the case with English ancestry, since English immigration happened by and large much earlier than that of most other nationalities.

The important distinction which hasn't been made is that most English-Americans who embrace their heritage do a little more than guesswork, and the advent of online genealogical resources has made that much more accessible and realistic. Those who aren't interested in their ancestral origins are usually the ones who don't identify as English or other European-American.


And that's why purity is rare. You can't survive for generations among a million other ethnicities and remain pure, especially when there's no particular imperative to remain pure. What percentage of Americans do you believe have no ancestors pass through Ellis Isles in the 19th century?

Purity among those of colonial stock in America isn't rare. On the contrary, old-stock New Englanders, and those with roots in the Thirteen Colonies who later spread out across the US, most often didn't have a single non-English (or at least non British Isles) ancestor until the latter part of the 20th century, if at all. As aforementioned, those that do are almost always with racially assimiable groups, like Dutch and Huguenots from the former New Netherland colony, Germans from Pennsylvania and the surrounding area, and Scots and Scots-Irish from the Carolinas.

As for Ellis Island, virtually all Americans of Italian, Polish, Jewish, and other European "ethnic" descent have ancestors who passed through Ellis Island. For Germanic Americans, the percentage is somewhere around zero. Perhaps you're not familiar with the racial and cultural situation in North America during the 19th and 20th centuries. Southern and Eastern European ethnics, the Ellis Island crowd if you will, didn't mix with people outside of their own communities. Religion played a key role in that; most of the newcomers, with the exception of the Jews, were Catholics, and the indigenous Germanic-Americans, mostly Protestants, wouldn't (and couldn't) marry into those populations. Then there was the language barrier, and the stigma about marrying immigrants, especially Mediterraneans and Slavs, who were regarded as non-whites.


Which is a problem in itself. I don't generally care about other NW European admixture, but Afrikaners may have Capoid or Indonesian ancestry, which would be a point of concern for me. Anyone with Eastern or Southern European roots, whether from Britain or America, would be instantly excluded from Englishness, IMO.

Now who's delving into guesswork... I have a feeling some of Skadi's Afrikaner members might take issue with that assessment. ;)

Sybren
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 08:39 PM
Our unique Germanic homogeneous ethnicities living in their original countries, are one of our most valuable possessions.

To deliberately go there, have children and thereby bring down that homogeneity, is not supporting/helping the country/ethnicity that you hold dear, it is just supporting/helping yourself.

Call me extreme, but that is how i see it. What if 25% of Germanics did this. Our unique cultures/identities would vanish in a few generations.

I have always seen Germanic preservation as supporting preserving eachother's heritages as brothers and sisters. Not becoming one big Germanic mix. If you don't support mixture/disappearance of the separate Germanic groups on a large scale, you shouldn't practice it on a small scale.

Hamar Fox
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 09:00 PM
The important distinction which hasn't been made is that most English-Americans who embrace their heritage do a little more than guesswork, and the advent of online genealogical resources has made that much more accessible and realistic. Those who aren't interested in their ancestral origins are usually the ones who don't identify as English or other European-American.

I've seen ethnic maps of the states, and pretty much the only areas where English ancestry is predominant are New England (obviously) and, as I remember, Utah. Interestingly, the genetic studies I've seen on European Americans were of native Utahans, and the results were relatively -- though not perfectly -- consistent with the English (as well as with the Irish and Dutch). I accept a large portion of Americans from those areas (and a large proportion of non-Quebecois Canadians) are predominantly English, although what else they have in them I couldn't say. Canadians and Australians are much more likely to be fully British or even fully English, because we've been the dominant immigrant group to those places almost until current times.


Purity among those of colonial stock in America isn't rare. On the contrary, old-stock New Englanders, and those with roots in the Thirteen Colonies who later spread out across the US, most often didn't have a single non-English (or at least non British Isles) ancestor until the latter part of the 20th century, if at all. As aforementioned, those that do are almost always with racially assimiable groups, like Dutch and Huguenots from the former New Netherland colony, Germans from Pennsylvania and the surrounding area, and Scots and Scots-Irish from the Carolinas.

I'm not doubting most European-Americans are of racially assimilable stock with the English. I just dispute they can be considered of overwhelmingly English stock (unless they're from New England or the mid-West).


As for Ellis Island, virtually all Americans of Italian, Polish, Jewish, and other European "ethnic" descent have ancestors who passed through Ellis Island. For Germanic Americans, the percentage is somewhere around zero. Perhaps you're not familiar with the racial and cultural situation in North America during the 19th and 20th centuries. Southern and Eastern European ethnics, the Ellis Island crowd if you will, didn't mix with people outside of their own communities. Religion played a key role in that; most of the newcomers, with the exception of the Jews, were Catholics, and the indigenous Germanic-Americans, mostly Protestants, wouldn't (and couldn't) marry into those populations. Then there was the language barrier, and the stigma about marrying immigrants, especially Mediterraneans and Slavs, who were regarded as non-whites.

As a general rule, but their sheer numbers swamped the Old Stock Americans. It's near inevitable that an Americanised descendant of 19th century immigration is going to appear in an Old Stocker's family tree.


Now who's delving into guesswork... I have a feeling some of Skadi's Afrikaner members might take issue with that assessment. ;)

Obviously, but mixing occurred, only the extent is debatable. I don't remember his name, but I know a founding Afrikaner was half Indonesian. I've never actually seen a genetic study on Afrikaners, so I'm open to possibilites, but I think my use of the word 'might' was justified. Mixing with natives is an issue with all colonial settlement.

Mrs vonTrep
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 09:07 PM
Ylva in another post you said you have Danish in your family and even said you felt closer to them, so would you be ethnic Swedish?

Absolutely, I have a lot of Danish ancestors, very close in time actually. And yet there is no way I can call myself a Dane since Danish is not my native language, I haven't been brought up in a Danish society and thereby I haven't been brought up with the Danish culture and traditions that can only be experienced and learned in a Danish society, among true Danes (I'm not a colonial, and definitely not one who calls herself something she's not). I feel more kinship with the Danes than with the Swedes, no dobut - but I'm neither a Swede nor a Dane. I was born in Scania and I grew up in the Scanian society where I've experienced and learned the Scanian culture, history, traditions and language - something I could never have outside of the Scanian society.

It seems as if many people here think that you can still be a part of the true culture and traditions of a certain people and their society even if you've been a part of a completely different society and people for x generations. You're wrong. A person who has been born and raised by non-Swedish parents in a non-Swedish society away from the Swedish people can NOT be a Swede, no matter how much you wish for it, want it, strive for it, try to live for it and so on. No way. Keep making all your efforts in trying to fit in with a people, their culture, history and language as much as you like - you will still not be a part of it for real. The truth might hurt, but it seems like some people here have the wrong priorities and need to hear it.


Personally I am proud to be an Aussie and wouldn’t want to be considered English, or Swedish, or German etc

That's great to hear! Most colonials at Skadi seems to be ashamed of who they are, no wonder why they seem to be so confused about their own identity sometimes. Too bad that they let the multiculti society keep them from being the proud Americans/Canadians/Australians they once were.

And Sybren, I somewhat I agree with you, but not completely. Good post still.

Loyalist
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 09:24 PM
I've seen ethnic maps of the states, and pretty much the only areas where English ancestry is predominant are New England (obviously) and, as I remember, Utah. Interestingly, the genetic studies I've seen on European Americans were of native Utahans, and the results were relatively -- though not perfectly -- consistent with the English (as well as with the Irish and Dutch). I accept a large portion of Americans from those areas (and a large proportion of non-Quebecois Canadians) are predominantly English, although what else they have in them I couldn't say. Canadians and Australians are much more likely to be fully British or even fully English, because we've been the dominant immigrant group to those places almost until current times.

Ethnic maps are not an accurate depiction of numbers of specific populations, as they do not take into account population density and factor in only the largest self-reporting ethnic groups. Take this map, for example...

http://i52.tinypic.com/333d6ww.png

It looks like there are more Germans in the United States than in Germany itself, right? In reality, most respondants are identifying as non-hyphenated Americans (more of whom are the lost English), automatically excluding what is likely the largest ethnic group, and many of the sub-divisions are sparsely-populated rural farming communities which were popular with German settlers before the 20th century. That huge population of "Americans" in the South are most likely entirely English.


I'm not doubting most European-Americans are of racially assimilable stock with the English. I just dispute they can be considered of overwhelmingly English stock (unless they're from New England or the mid-West).

As I said, New Englanders spread out across the US as the country expanded in its later years, usually marrying amongst eachother. The expanded progeny today is immensely disproportionate to the numbers of original settlers.


As a general rule, but their sheer numbers swamped the Old Stock Americans. It's near inevitable that an Americanised descendant of 19th century immigration is going to appear in an Old Stocker's family tree.

Wrong on both counts. At no time did the number of Eastern and Southern European ethnics, either immediately after the flood or with their consolidated population today, exceed the Germanic population. As for the latter point, a 19th century Slav or Mediterranean in an old-stock Anglo-American's family tree is virtually unheard of. In fact, I have never seen a single case of this, and I challenge anyone to show me any such evidence.

I'm simply astonished at that last comment, which is perhaps the most ignorant and blatantly false statement I've ever heard about such matters.

Hamar Fox
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 09:34 PM
Wrong on both counts. At no time did the number of Eastern and Southern European ethnics, either immediately after the flood or with their consolidated population today, exceed the Germanic population. As for the latter point, a 19th century Slav or Mediterranean in an old-stock Anglo-American's family tree is virtually unheard of. In fact, I have never seen a single case of this, and I challenge anyone to show me any such evidence.

I didn't say Southern and Eastern Europeans outnumbered Germanics. I said descendants of 19th century immigration (including Irish and Germans, as well as South and Eastern Europeans) came to outnumber English descended Old Stock Americans.


I'm simply astonished at that last comment, which is perhaps the most ignorant and blatantly false statement I've ever heard about such matters.

Which last comment? The Afrikaner thing? The man I had in mind was possibly half Malaysian, not Indonesian, now I come to think of it. There's not really any question that some Americans and Canadians have Amerinidian ancestry; some New Zealanders, Maori; some Australians, Aborigine; and some South Africans, Capoid and SE Asian.

Loyalist
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 09:42 PM
I didn't say Southern and Eastern Europeans outnumbered Germanics. I said descendants of 19th century immigration (including Irish and Germans, as well as South and Eastern Europeans) came to outnumber English descended Old Stock Americans.

You were talking about Ellis Island - synonymous with Italians and other non-Nordish European ethnics - and actually asserted that most, if not all, old-stock Americans have some of those in their family tree. You weren't just talking about settlement, you insisted mixing also occured. That couldn't be further from the truth and you know it.

I can't see how 19th century Germans are any less desirable than their countrymen who came to Pennsylvania and surrounding states in the previous century.

As for the Irish, their issue is not a racial level, but rather that, due to their Catholicism and dislike of Anglo-Saxon society, they've proven socially poisonous since their arrival. Like the Italians and Slavs, they stayed within their own community when it came to marriage.


Which last comment? The Afrikaner thing? The man I had in mind was possibly half Malaysian, not Indonesian, now I come to think of it. There's not really any question that some Americans and Canadians have Amerinidian ancestry; some New Zealanders, Maori; some Australians, Aborigine; and some South Africans, Capoid and SE Asian.

The Ellis Island, "all old-stock Americans are part Great Wave immigrant" remark. That was classic.

Hamar Fox
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 09:55 PM
You were talking about Ellis Island - synonymous with Italians and other non-Nordish European ethnics - and actually asserted that most, if not all, old-stock Americans have some of those in their family tree. You weren't just talking about settlement, you insisted mixing also occured. That couldn't be further from the truth and you know it.

Nope. It's synonymous with all non-Old Stock blood in America (save for Native Americans and Mexicans). When you ask an American to document his heritage, he rarely if ever lists just early settlers. If you go to a forum and ask, you'll see all kinds of nationalities in the mix of almost every person that weren't present pre-1800 -- Irish, Hungarian, Jewish, Polish, Italian, Russian, Czech etc. -- mixed in with a few Old Stock nationalities. However, when it's inconvenient to list a thousand places, they whittle it down to just one or two -- incorrectly so.


I can't see how 19th century Germans are any less desirable than their countrymen who came to Pennsylvania and surrounding states in the previous century.

Remind yourself of the debate we were having. We weren't talking about desirability: we were talking about the proportion of Americans who are purely English. My original point was that there are very few. English blood exists in America, but almost always mixed in with something else, and usually not just some other British Isles nation (as is the case 95% of the time foreign admixture is present in English-born English).


The Ellis Island, "all old-stock Americans are part Great Wave immigrant" remark. That was classic.

Absolutely, since just by the map you posted, I can see the descendants of these immigrants dominate the vast majority of even rural America.

Loyalist
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 10:09 PM
Nope. It's synonymous with all non-Old Stock blood in America (save for Native Americans and Mexicans). When you ask an American to document his heritage, he rarely if ever lists just early settlers. If you go to a forum and ask, you'll see all kinds of nationalities in the mix of almost every person that weren't present pre-1800: Irish, Hungarian, Jewish, Polish, Italian, Russian, Czech etc., mixed in with a few Old Stock nationalities. However, when it's inconvenient to list a thousand places, they whittle it down to just one or two -- incorrectly so.

Unfortunately you're relying on evidence that is wholly anecdotal, and you don't even have that, whereas historical evidence, social conditions, and migration patterns demonstrate that your assertion is entirely false. Those Eastern and Southern Europeans you specified didn't even start inter-marrying with eachother until the early to mid-20th century, and only then because of a common Catholicism. Your point has actually become so incoherent that I'm finding it difficult to grasp onto anything to refute.


Remind yourself of the debate we were having. We weren't talking about desirability: we were talking about the proportion of Americans who are purely English.

Of course, and I've said that it's much higher than you're suggesting.


My original point was that there are very few. English blood exists in America, but almost always mixed in with something else, and usually not just some other British Isles nation (as is the case 95% of the time foreign admixture is present in English-born English).

Usually with some other British Isles nation, or, as I've already stated (and you've already acknowledged) with a compatible Germanic group, which is often found in England itself. I've seen English posters at Skadi and other communities like English Shield Wall claiming Dutch, German, French, Scandinavian, and other descent. Since these people no longer fit into your purely English model, then they should be thrown under the bus like those mixed Anglo-Americans, right?


Absolutely, since just by the map you posted, I can see the descendants of these immigrants dominate the vast majority of even rural America.

What are you on about now? Let's start with the Ellis Island type; only in New York are the Italians the largest reported group. No Slavic group even makes it onto the map. As for the other parts, rural areas (the word also denoting a small population) are dominated by Germans. Where did those Anglo-Saxon benefit-scroungers who took all the jobs away from the Brythons come from again... :chinrub

Hamar Fox
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 10:38 PM
Unfortunately you're relying on evidence that is wholly anecdotal, and you don't even have that

I could easily have that evidence if I could be bothered looking for it. But I suppose you could just read the ancestry segments of American Skadians for yourself.


whereas historical evidence, social conditions, and migration patterns demonstrate that your assertion is entirely false. Those Eastern and Southern Europeans you specified didn't even start inter-marrying with eachother until the early to mid-20th century, and only then because of a common Catholicism. Your point has actually become so incoherent that I'm finding it difficult to grasp onto anything to refute.

:D

Trying to act superior to me isn't going to work, I'm afraid. You're the one who specified Eastern and Southern Europeans, not I. The vast majority of Americans have more than simply English ancestry. This was always my point. You know it was always my point. Because you know that my point is correct, especially now you realise you can't pass off Germans and Irish as 'English', you're playing dumb and acting as though only Southern or Eastern European admixture could negate English heritage. Again, at no point did I say most Americans aren't racially acceptable or not predominantly Germanic. I didn't even say they weren't substantially English. I said only that almost none are fully or even overwhelmingly English, and this is a correct statement.


Usually with some other British Isles nation, or, as I've already stated (and you've already acknowledged) with a compatible Germanic group, which is often found in England itself. I've seen English posters at Skadi and other communities like English Shield Wall claiming Dutch, German, French, Scandinavian, and other descent. Since these people no longer fit into your purely English model, then they should be thrown under the bus like those mixed Anglo-Americans, right?

I don't particularly approve of non-British Isles admixture, no. I edited my second post to this thread, so it's possible you missed this:


But also keep in mind that a lot of the 'foreign' ancestry reported by Britons is fanciful. A lot of people nowadays fall victim to the American fad of having a trillion different ethnicities, so when you see 'French' or 'Scandinavian' reported in an Englishman's ancestry slot, it could well simply mean that he found a Norman surname in his family tree or has ancestry from the Danelaw, respectively. It could also mean he combed his heritage for centuries, uncovered details about hundreds of his forebears, and found one little Dutchman in 1576; and then decides to report himself as 'English and Dutch', as though his ancestry belonged in equal measure to each, in much the same way as Americans invent or exaggerate Amerindian blood.

If they have substantial (i.e. a quarter or more) non-English blood, then I don't consider them truly English. I myself am only 7/8ths English (the other 1/8th being Irish) and if someone more English than I wished to consider me not truly English, then that too would be his right. He would, however, have to consider me fully British Isles.


What are you on about now? Let's start with the Ellis Island type; only in New York are the Italians the largest reported group. No Slavic group even makes it onto the map. As for the other parts, rural areas (the word also denoting a small population) are dominated by Germans. Where did those Anglo-Saxon benefit-scroungers who took all the jobs away from the Brythons come from again... :chinrub

A ridiculous but anticipated point. Germans aren't English. A German-American isn't an English-American; he's a German-American. Again, at no point was I talking about racial compatibility (I only used Bradford as an unquestionable example of how someone could be wrong about his own ancestry), only of national descent.

Autosomal Viking
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 10:55 PM
Very, very few Americans are of full or even predominantly English descent, so I'm naturally suspicious of anyone who claims to belong to that category.

Well then, I'm one of the few, the proud, and the strong. Actually, I don't feel a whole lot of connection to my English heritage, but I'm hoping to make it to England one day, so maybe that will change. I don't claim to be fully English by descent, as my blood has been adulterated with Germans, Norwegians, and even the odd Dutchman and Dane, way back. ;) But I dare to say that you would have a hard time picking me out of a crowd of English. I don't mean to be combative. I'm genuinely interested to know what you think.


And that's why purity is rare. You can't survive for generations among a million other ethnicities and remain pure, especially when there's no particular imperative to remain pure. What percentage of Americans do you believe have no ancestors pass through Ellis Isles in the 19th century?

There were social imperatives to remain pure, up until about the time we lost WW2. Mixing did occur, but the following quote would apply. I would need to inact a similar model to be pragmatic in the case I ever became leader of USA, in the process of creating a new Germanic superstate. ;)


Humans only have 44 chromosomes (autosomes) not including 2 sex chromosomes. A 1/44 non-white or 1/46 non-white (which never really happens in these proportions) would on average have one non-white autosome or one non-white chromosome, respectively. Because chromosomes are inherited as packets of information, inheriting undesired DNA in small amounts on this scale often turns into an all or nothing situation. As we know, on average, half of the undesired DNA is passed onto the next generation. But because genes are located on chromosomes, for that particular DNA segment, you either get the undesired DNA or you don't, which is a 50/50 chance.

'Crossing over' sometimes allows homologous chromosomes to exchange DNA with each other, allowing undesired DNA to be spliced into previously desired chromosomes, thus contaminating them. But this doesn't always happen.

Not including crossing over, because humans have only 46 packets of information, a '1/64 non-white person' (which never really happens in genetic terms) would on average, have zero non-white chromosomes and would be genetically 100% white.

Of course in reality, we have to consider crossing over. Crossing over regularly happens in a very small scale. So not only do we need to consider non-white chromosomes, but chromosomes that are only partially non-white as well. But crossing over accounts for next to nothing in DNA contribution compared to the entirety of the chromosomes. These 'vastly white but partially non-white chromosomes' would in theory be totally eliminated from future generations just as the non-white chromosomes were on average in the '1/64th' generation. Again, their non-white contribution is extremely small compared to the actual non-white chromosomes, meaning on average, all the non-white chromosomes and virtually all non-white DNA was eliminated on this '1/64th' generation. Therefore, I would consider a '1/64 non-white' to on average, be virtually 100% white with an almost non-existent negligible non-white DNA contribution due to crossing over, with any remaining amount undergoing half-life after half-life until it actually is zero, assuming breeding with 100% white mates.

This hypothesis goes against the one drop rule somewhat, but the one drop rule is based on intuition and not modern genetics. At some point, the one drop is no longer there.

What it means in BL terms: You're not really related to all of your ancestors, just the more recent ones. It would be possible to breed a virtually fully Englishman from a German and an Englishman, generations later.


Our unique Germanic homogeneous ethnicities living in their original countries, are one of our most valuable possessions.

To deliberately go there, have children and thereby bring down that homogeneity, is not supporting/helping the country/ethnicity that you hold dear, it is just supporting/helping yourself.

Call me extreme, but that is how i see it. What if 25% of Germanics did this. Our unique cultures/identities would vanish in a few generations.

I have always seen Germanic preservation as supporting preserving eachother's heritages as brothers and sisters. Not becoming one big Germanic mix. If you don't support mixture/disappearance of the separate Germanic groups on a large scale, you shouldn't practice it on a small scale.

True, an influx of foreign Germanics on a large scale would be detrimental to the specific host culture. But as we know in pharmacy, one amount of a drug can be therapeutic, while a different amount of the same drug a poison.

I would still like to be hypothetically accepted back into the gene pool if I so chose, specifically into the ones from which I originated. Culture aside, I'm going to be a little conceited: my genes would be an improvement to any gene pool I chose.

To play devil's advocate: I know you have thousands of your ancestors mapped. I'm sure they didn't all come from Frisia. Yet, you're still 100% Frisian. Right?

SpearBrave
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 11:46 PM
c.1300, from O.Fr. nacion, from L. nationem (nom. natio) "nation, stock, race," lit. "that which has been born," from natus, pp. of nasci "be born" (Old L. gnasci; see genus). Political sense has gradually taken over from racial meaning "large group of people with common ancestry." Older sense preserved in application to N.Amer. Indian peoples (1640s). Nation-building first attested 1907 (implied in nation-builder).


http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=nation

You do realize that under that definition you and I are both born here, more or less born of the same Germanic stock that founded this nation. It was not until much later that racial others were even considered American, even now many people here do not consider blacks as genuine Americans even some blacks do not consider themselves to be.

In the political sense than this does very much define America as most Americans identify with our governing laws.



I agree wholeheartedly that socialism would be impossible in the United States, for the expressed fact that it is not a nation! The only possible way for this country to exist is if someone utterly alien to you in every way, yet who calls himself your countryman, is not sitting in Washington dictating how you will live your life. Socialism does not work in multicultural societies, as Europe is beginning to find out.


Socialism does not work period, it has yet to work unless it becomes a dictatorship like cuba than it is no longer socialism. That though is another topic.



I understand exactly what you said, but this is not identity. Ask any European here, and he will probably agree with me. Ideas and "isms" are not the same as people. Your brother might disagree with you, but as long as he is not a traitor to his blood, he is still your brother. I will NEVER do what Americans were manipulated into doing during WWI.. kill my kinsmen because some Jew told me he deserved to die because he lived under a different system of government from that hallowed in our constitution.


Well I don't tend to ask what Europeans think about America, nor do I care really what they think about Americans or the American idea. ( no offense to Europeans ).

But yes there is still is a American identity. I identify with it and so do millions of other Americans. I do not call myself anything but a American despite coming from very recent German ancestry. As my profile says I'm a American of German decent, meaning I'm a American first. btw I stated that in my profile long ago.

Nobody is telling you to fight in war that happened almost 100 years ago. In fact nobody is telling you that you have to fight in any war right now either. I am not for all these little wars America is currently in, I also think our troups should be home just defending our own borders that is also another topic besides this one.



What you are talking about is civic nationalism whether you realize it or not. Herman Cain is a businessman who seems to believe in all the things you are talking about.. so why isn't he a member of your nation, when he seems to fit the definition?


I will not deny that Herman Cain says some good things, but he is not of Germanic stock that founded this country. He is only a citizen because of the 14Th amendment that should not have been passed in the first place as it goes against states rights.



Language is not blood, and laws are not soul. While you and I might belong to the same nation, the Russian across the street doesn't, and the millions of Hispanics in my state most certainly do not, even though most have American citizenship and might share most of the ideas we are talking about. Until you start talking about a common heritage/ethnicity for all citizens, you are not talking about a nation.

I am talking about common heritage/ethnicity, the same ethnicity that founded this country. The same ethnicity that made it a great nation ( although in decline at the moment ). The russian across the street from you does not share common ancestry like you and I both do, neither do those mexicans. We are both Germanics, Germanics founded this nation.

English for all extensive purposes is the language of America our laws are written in English, they are based mostly on English common law. English is a Germanic language. It is a common bond that we share, even to some great extent the blacks in America are forming their own language( ebonics ). Language is one of the common bonds that connects people as a ethnic group.

Laws are the soul of any nation, they are what holds nations together along with shared languages, culture and race. There would not be any nation around today if there were no laws.

Sybren
Friday, October 14th, 2011, 11:55 PM
True, an influx of foreign Germanics on a large scale would be detrimental to the specific host culture. But as we know in pharmacy, one amount of a drug can be therapeutic, while a different amount of the same drug a poison.
On a smaller scale though, it is detrimental to children who instead of having one solid ethnicity (the same as their fellow countrymen), now have multiple ethnicities. Of course, small scale intermixture between Germanics isn't nearly as detrimental as large scale. It is always going to happen on a small scale, but that is even more reason to not do it yourself. We ought to know better, to keep the preserved homogeneous ethnicities as much intact as possible.


I would still like to be hypothetically accepted back into the gene pool if I so chose, specifically into the ones from which I originated. Culture aside, I'm going to be a little conceited: my genes would be an improvement to any gene pool I chose.
Good example of the difference in cultures/way of thinking. We would never say such a thing and mean it here :|:P


To play devil's advocate: I know you have thousands of your ancestors mapped. I'm sure they didn't all come from Frisia. Yet, you're still 100% Frisian. Right?
Not 100% indeed. Of the around 1650 mapped persons, more than 90% comes from Frisia (in it's current geographical area). The rest were Saxons from either north-east Netherlands (Groningen, Drenthe) and north-west Germany (Lower Saxony). That however is all territory that in the past belonged to old Frisia ;) And the first non-Frisian born (a German Saxon) only comes up in the family tree after going 6 generations back (ironically, i bear his surname :P). That far back the tree is almost complete (except 4 people, but their children have Frisian names as well ;) ).

Of course no one is 100% this or that. And records could also be incorrect. My point is to preserve as much as possible. I want my people to still have a strong identity (let alone exist...) over 500 years. And the same for all other Germanic groups.

Hilderinc
Saturday, October 15th, 2011, 12:10 AM
Actually, I don't feel a whole lot of connection to my English heritage,

:-O What language do you speak? Who founded your country? You may feel more of a connection to your English heritage than you know...

Autosomal Viking
Saturday, October 15th, 2011, 12:26 AM
On a smaller scale though, it is detrimental to children who instead of having one solid ethnicity (the same as their fellow countrymen), now have multiple ethnicities. Of course, small scale intermixture between Germanics isn't nearly as detrimental as large scale. It is always going to happen on a small scale, but that is even more reason to not do it yourself. We ought to know better, to keep the preserved homogeneous ethnicities as much intact as possible.

I disagree with your premise that it is detrimental, unless you mean that the children would have more than one identity while their peers would have only one and suffer ostracizing because of it. If for some reason I chose to live the rest of my days in Frisia and take Frisian wife, it is my opinion that the kids would be Frisian. 'Oh yeah, my dad's American' would be an afterthought. They would look Frisian and be a part of the Frisian culture. Now I've never had the opportunity to travel to the European continent, which might have the miraculous effect of opening my eyes and changing my mind in certain opinions, but unless that happens or you present me with a better reason, your opinion alone has me far from convinced.


Good example of the difference in cultures/way of thinking. We would never say such a thing and mean it here :|:P

I never claimed to be a part of Frisian culture. But it is my slightly conceited opinion that with my claimed intelligence, health, not bad looks, and pure Germanicness, that there would be many-a-Frisian women willing to give me a chance as their potential husband. I'm sure they could find someone worse within Frisia itself. Culture is a different issue. I would need to like Frisian culture and want to assimilate into it. I would still be 'that American that's kind of like us' and that's fine by me, but my kids would be Frisian and would just have an American father.



Not 100% indeed. Of the around 1650 mapped persons, more than 90% comes from Frisia (in it's current geographical area). The rest were Saxons from either north-east Netherlands (Groningen, Drenthe) and north-west Germany (Lower Saxony). That however is all territory that in the past belonged to old Frisia ;) And the first non-Frisian born (a German Saxon) only comes up in the family tree after going 6 generations back (ironically, i bear his surname :P). That far back the tree is almost complete (except 4 people, but their children have Frisian names as well ;) ).

That's interesting and something for which to be proud, but is the story the same with most Frisians? For after all, we are concerned with the Frisian people and culture as a whole.


Of course no one is 100% this or that. And records could also be incorrect. My point is to preserve as much as possible. I want my people to still have a strong identity (let alone exist...) over 500 years. And the same for all other Germanic groups.


Of course. We both want to preserve Frisian culture. We're just of differing opinions as to what harms or is otherwise innocuous to the idea.

Autosomal Viking
Saturday, October 15th, 2011, 12:36 AM
:-O What language do you speak? Who founded your country? You may feel more of a connection to your English heritage than you know...

American English. Americans. The ones that wanted to remain English stayed in England. The Americans did not think of themselves as English or English-American, but Americans. The latter term is redundant and the very definition of the word, later to accept Germans and other Germanics. To say that the modern English founded my country (that's no longer my country) is ridiculous, as the English that helped found it became known as Americans and have been separated from the modern English since. American ethnogenesis started but never finished, and has run amok since.

Although you could argue that since ethnogenesis did not complete, we are still English. But we are far removed from the English culture. It would be nice to have an ethnic group to which I feel I belong. I'll have to make it to England to find out. But the catch is that since there is no exact English racial type, I could just as easily do that for any other Germanic country. Learning the language is a given.

Sybren
Saturday, October 15th, 2011, 01:29 AM
I disagree with your premise that it is detrimental, unless you mean that the children will have more than one identity while their peers would have only one and suffer ostracizing because of it. If for some reason I chose to live the rest of my days in Frisia and take Frisian wife, it is my opinion that the kids would be Frisian. 'Oh yeah, my dad's American' would be an afterthought. They would look Frisian and be a part of the Frisian culture. Now I've never had the opportunity to travel to the European continent, which might have the miraculous effect of opening my eyes and changing my mind in certain opinions, but unless that happens or you present me with a better reason, your opinion alone has me far from convinced.
I mean that homogeneous peoples (like for example Frisians) have a strong sense of a uniform identity because of a common heritage. We have been here for over 2000 years. Having recent (as in 1 generation back) ancestry from 2 or more different groups (even if both are Germanic), breaks this whole chain of ancestry. I myself feel i am deeply connected with our people and land. Although i am aware these might be unconvincing reasons for someone else, i believe that the connection to the land and forefathers is of major importance. The more heterogeneous, the less stronger the bond gets.

You can have the opinion that your children would be Frisian then. The fact would be that they're only half.


I never claimed to be a part of Frisian culture. But it is my slightly conceited opinion that with my claimed intelligence, health, not bad looks, and pure Germanicness, that there would be many-a-Frisian women willing to give me a chance as their potential husband. I'm sure they could find someone worse within Frisia itself. Culture is a different issue. I would need to like Frisian culture and want to assimilate into it. I would still be 'that American that's kind of like us' and that's fine by me, but my kids would be Frisian and would just have an American father.
I wasn't saying you were claiming that. I just referred to earlier on in this thread, where the differences in attitude/way of thinking between Americans/Europeans were discussed.

And again, your kids would be half Frisian ;)


That's interesting and something for which to be proud, but is the story the same with most Frisians? For after all, we are concerned with the Frisian people and culture as a whole.
Yes it is for most, which is the reason why my ancestry is like this.


Of course. We both want to preserve Frisian culture. We're just of differing opinions as to what harms or is otherwise innocuous to the idea.
I not only want to preserve Frisian culture. I want to preserve the blood and bond as well. Those last will not stand like the way they have been for ages, if people from elsewhere intermix. And again, some intermixture has and always will happen. That shouldn't mean that we cannot have the goal to retain a high level of homogeneity.

Autosomal Viking
Saturday, October 15th, 2011, 03:07 AM
You can have the opinion that your children would be Frisian then. The fact would be that they're only half.

Perhaps, but only in the minds of you and maybe others. Culturally, they would be Frisian. Genetically, they might as well be Frisian. How much genetic difference do you think there is between you and me?

It's going to be impossible for me to find a wife with exactly the same amount of English, German, and Norwegian ancestry. But then, is there really such thing as being x%/y%/z% English, German, and Norwegian? If not, then what is the genetic difference between you and me, and why would my hypothetical children with a Frisian wife only be half Frisian? Answers other than mystical relationships with land, please.

Sybren
Saturday, October 15th, 2011, 10:30 AM
Perhaps, but only in the minds of you and maybe others. Culturally, they would be Frisian. Genetically, they might as well be Frisian. How much genetic difference do you think there is between you and me?
I don't know how much genetic difference there is between Germanics. What is in the mind of people however is not something to declare as worthless/having less meaning than more concrete matters. A lot of important and valuable things only exist in the minds of people.


It's going to be impossible for me to find a wife with exactly the same amount of English, German, and Norwegian ancestry.
I understand. But you're American and there are many women with similar ancestries around, aren't there? I see it like this:

I am very fond of Norway. I won't lie about it: i am a bit jealous of people who are born there and who get to live in such a fantastic environment. However i also have great admiration for their homogeneity in many rural areas. As much as i would like to live in such an environment, i think their strong connection to their forefathers and the land is much more important than me being happy to live in such an environment and in the proces leave my mark in their identity. It doesn't matter to me that Frisians supposed to originally come from Scandinavia thousands of years ago and basically are quite similar genetically. That is the distant past and we as a people have gotten our own identity in the meanwhile.


But then, is there really such thing as being x%/y%/z% English, German, and Norwegian? If not, then what is the genetic difference between you and me, and why would my hypothetical children with a Frisian wife only be half Frisian? Answers other than mystical relationships with land, please.
I think only someone who doesn't have a strong feeling of uniform identity him/herself with his/her folk would say something like that. Yes, there exists something like being English, German, Norwegian, etc. This just shows that even intermixture between Germanics can make one think less of such things.

I don't believe in there only being measurable (to an extent) things like race. I have a spiritual connection to my ancestors and land as well.

Autosomal Viking
Saturday, October 15th, 2011, 02:33 PM
I understand. But you're American and there are many women with similar ancestries around, aren't there?

Not where I live. There used to be a lot of English and German descent people in Florida, but they have since gotten old and died without replacing themselves in the same form or been replaced by newcomers. At least it seems that way in my bubble of academic life. I'm surprised whenever I come across what looks like an unadulterated Germanic, and finding one that is female and compatible for a relationship with me is even more of a challenge. I've said it before: I do not feel like I belong to an ethnic group. I'm an American that has time traveled to an America when it is laughable what passes as an American.


I think only someone who doesn't have a strong feeling of uniform identity him/herself with his/her folk would say something like that. Yes, there exists something like being English, German, Norwegian, etc. This just shows that even intermixture between Germanics can make one think less of such things.

I do not have a people, or have not found them yet. The Americans that were my people are dead and gone. They still exist, for which I am evidence, but it seems like we are few and far between with hordes of foreigners between us.

But you misunderstood me: I would be happy to be American and call every American my brother/sister if my country was basically an assimilatory American version of NS Germany. I would not care at all if someone's ancestors originated from England or Germany. They would be within the Germanic spectrum, speak the common language and culture, and be American.

Of course there exists something as being English, German, Norwegian, etc. But I was asking in my case, is there such thing as being part this and part that? Do the chromosomes in my cells read, 'made in X country?'


I don't believe in there only being measurable (to an extent) things like race. I have a spiritual connection to my ancestors and land as well.

That's interesting, coming from an agnostic. But again, I think this is only in your mind and not a universal truth. It's nice to think: 'my ancestors came from here.' But for at least me, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference if it was a lot or a little. It's very subjective.

Ward
Saturday, October 15th, 2011, 10:31 PM
Yea, must be great to be a colonial. Then you can just randomly pick one of all your acestors' ethnicities and try to identify with it. I don't know why so many of you are complaining, you seem to have lots to chose from.

I've also noticed that some of my fellow colonials have a habit of taking liberties with their ancestral and ethnic profiles. Sometimes certain ancestral lines, like Irish or French, will disappear from their profiles, or they'll suddenly receive qualifiers such as "Norman-Irish" or "Norman-French" or whatever. It's all pretty lame if you ask me.

Anyway, these days there is a good deal of ambiguity surrounding the term "ethnicity." On the one hand it can be used to describe one's ethnic/tribal origins regardless of that person's nationality or cultural practices; on the other hand it is often used to indicate one's ancestral origins, nationality, and native culture (which rather limits the use of the term to Germans in Germany, or Swedes in Sweden, etc). Yet in either case it is fundamentally wrong and dishonest for colonials of mixed ancestry to whittle down their ethnic profile to reflect only that part of their heritage to which they are most favorable. To do so is to make a complete mockery of the term.

An example of an American who could have, technically speaking, had some justification in stating his ethnicity in mono-ethnic terms would have been my father, as all four of his grandparents were born and raised in Germany before emigrating to the U.S. Nevertheless, he would have never have said he was simply "German" because he wouldn't have wanted mislead people into thinking he was something that he was not (i.e. a German from Germany).

As a colonial of mixed heritage myself, I can say that by nationality I am American and by culture I am Anglo-American, but since my ancestral roots here don't go very deep (all of my great-grandparents were born and raised in Europe and I have no old stock Anglo-American ancestors), I felt it was most honest and accurate for me to state my ethnicity in generalized meta-ethnic terms, hence "Celto-Germanic."


As an example, if you had a Swedish great grandmother, had lived your whole life in Canada and only knew about twenty words in Swedish - you would definitely not be seen as a Swede by the Swedish people. Only you would see yourself as a Swede. But if it feels good for you...

Maybe they would better understand your point if the shoe was put on the other foot. Would normal Americans consider a non-English-speaking Swede living in Sweden, who happened to have an American grandparent, to be American? I think not, and no amount of "Jag är amerikan!" would convince them otherwise. :P


Perhaps, but only in the minds of you and maybe others. Culturally, they would be Frisian. Genetically, they might as well be Frisian. How much genetic difference do you think there is between you and me?

Well, put it this way, if Frisians look anything like the Dutch that I saw when I was in the Netherlands, then I don't think it would be too hard to pick you out of a crowd over there.

Autosomal Viking
Sunday, October 16th, 2011, 02:47 AM
Well, put it this way, if Frisians look anything like the Dutch that I saw when I was in the Netherlands, then I don't think it would be too hard to pick you out of a crowd over there.

Doubtful. If you could, it would be for the the reason that the Nordid-Bruenn phenotype is rare in Holland, so I would look immediately out of place. Not that you could easily tell the difference between me and a Nordid-Bruenn Dutchman. My good Skadi friend, Donar Eijck, even once told me that I look like a typical Dutchman. :chinrub

Loyalist
Sunday, October 16th, 2011, 03:02 AM
Doubtful. If you could, it would be for the the reason that the Nordid-Bruenn phenotype is rare in Holland, so I would look immediately out of place. Not that you could easily tell the difference between me and a Nordid-Bruenn Dutchman. My good Skadi friend, Donar Eijck, even once told me that I look like a typical Dutchman. :chinrub

You could pass for Dutch; there is remarkable phenotypical diversity in the Netherlands. Consider footballers Dirk Kuyt and Robin van Persie:

http://i56.tinypic.com/25ewxac.jpg http://i52.tinypic.com/id6drq.jpg

Ward
Sunday, October 16th, 2011, 04:17 AM
Doubtful. If you could, it would be for the the reason that the Nordid-Bruenn phenotype is rare in Holland, so I would look immediately out of place. Not that you could easily tell the difference between me and a Nordid-Bruenn Dutchman. My good Skadi friend, Donar Eijck, even once told me that I look like a typical Dutchman. :chinrub

Well, my experience with Dutch people is rather limited to Hollanders from the Amsterdam area, but from what I saw I can tell you that, in general, the natives there definitely have far more of a northern Germanic look than you do. I mean no offense to you, but they tend to be a race of big blond giants, and I think you might be overestimating the amount of Nordid qualities you possess. Quite honestly, I would say you look more Irish or British than anything else. :shrug

That said, I’m certainly no expert in either physical anthropology or the Dutch ethnic group, so perhaps there is a segment of the greater Dutch population that bears some resemblance to you. I’m just telling you my opinion, which is based on what I observed during my travels.



You could pass for Dutch; there is remarkable phenotypical diversity in the Netherlands. Consider footballers Dirk Kuyt and Robin van Persie:

Well, it's one thing to be able to pass for a Dutchman, it's another thing to actually have the look of a Dutchman.

Autosomal Viking
Sunday, October 16th, 2011, 02:23 PM
Well, my experience with Dutch people is rather limited to Hollanders from the Amsterdam area, but from what I saw I can tell you that, in general, the natives there definitely have far more of a northern Germanic look than you do. I mean no offense to you, but they tend to be a race of big blond giants, and I think you might be overestimating the amount of Nordid qualities you possess. Quite honestly, I would say you look more Irish or British than anything else. :shrug

That said, I’m certainly no expert in either physical anthropology or the Dutch ethnic group, so perhaps there is a segment of the greater Dutch population that bears some resemblance to you. I’m just telling you my opinion, which is based on what I observed during my travels.

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=141304&highlight=autosomal

If you want to dispute the opinion of everyone else, feel free to revive my classification thread. The consensus was some type of Nordid with a bit of some type of Cromagnoid. Rassenhygiener managed to narrow it down, in his trusted judgement, to Nordid-Bruenn, much like this Tronder from Norway:

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/4355/r125r125.jpg

The Dutch being tall is somewhat of an environmental thing. At the beginning of the last century, they were comparatively very short. And I didn't know that one needed to be homozygous blond to be Dutch. Some brown-haired Dutch might have a problem with that.

If you say I cannot look Dutch for not having significant Dutch ancestry, then I surely cannot look Irish either for the same reason. Most people are of the opinion that different subraces look most contrasted to different subraces, then the differences within the same subrace from different countries creates a specific ethnic look for that subrace. You would need to compare me to a Dutch Nordid-Bruenn, not just some subjective impression you have of what a proper Dutchman looks like.

Schooneveld
Sunday, October 16th, 2011, 04:06 PM
What about historic Dutch, like admiral De Ruyter?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Bol%2C_Michiel_de_Ruyter.jpg

This fellow is of full Dutch origin, and one of the greatest admirals in history. ;)

Hamar Fox
Sunday, October 16th, 2011, 09:31 PM
I hope my earlier comments weren't perceived as overzealous anti-Colonialism. I honestly don't believe there's any inherent barrier to a colonial being considered almost native -- close enough, at least, to be accepted into the fold. I just think it's exceedingly unlikely, and moreso with Americans than those of other colonies. Even on a site like Skadi, which draws together what few people across the globe are essentially on the same page in regard to preservationism, there are still quite significant cultural differences -- insurmountable ones in most cases, I believe -- between us. This is true to an extent with every other nationality than my own on this site. But only in the case of colonials do I find people of roughly the same stock as I who are quite so alien.

This alienness is something that resonates throughout every element of their personality, even the simplest details. It's well known that Americans and Britons don't understand, or at least appreciate, each other's humour. That in itself, to me, tells me we're completely disconnected on an existential level. To share humour is to share perspective, to look at the world from the same point of view, with the same attitudes, assumptions, values etc.. If you lack common humour, you lack common soul, if you will.

So often do I read comments by Americans about various situations in Britain which completely miss the mark, and completely misread the psychology of the Britons in question. I know implicitly how Britons think and feel about things. I 'get' where every Briton on Skadi is coming from. Whether I like or agree with them or not is irrelevant. With Americans, I have to stop and think, and then project myself into the perspective of someone with this and that assumption from some distant and familiar-only-through-online-experience-and-a-lot-of-TV world. It's far from intuitive.

Learning the lingo, eating Yorkshire puddings etc. is only going to seal the void superficially. Most will never 'get' Britons (or Germans, or Swedes etc.) on that instinctive level. Unless a colonial has British parents, or has had substantial contact with the motherland in his formative years, the disconnect is, I believe, irrevocable. Some members have had that contact with their ancestral homelands, however, so knee-jerkingly rejecting them is folly and seems designed more to put people down than to propagate ethnic survival. I can only comment on colonials of British descent, but I have to say there's nothing in Loyalist's posts or appearance that I consider alien -- not in the least. I can't say that's true of all Canadians, but it's true of him. He seems to have retained a British character, probably because of the recency of his British descent and continued contact.

But I also think that if you have simply an intellectual rather than emotional, and more importantly existential, connection with the European nation from which you descend, then it'll hurt you more than them. You'll feel unhappy and alienated from your own people. Despite your and their best intentions, you won't gel, and you may not even be able to identify the reason. Americans of your own background are your true ethnicity, in such a case, and to that extent I agree with the people who insist on hyphenating your stated ethnicity. But I don't think you should have to do that if you know there's no void (bar a strange accent) between you or anyone else who identifies as 'English', 'German' etc.

Austin
Sunday, October 16th, 2011, 10:33 PM
What do you think of Colonials (Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc.) who identify as European? Specifically, I refer to those whose families have been in the New World for some generations, did not inherit any European traditions but who try to practice and pass down the language, culture and history of their distant ancestors and even wish to move to Europe. Europeans, do you accept these people as one of your own, and Colonials, how do they make you feel? Why and amongst who do you believe this trend occurs and is it detrimental to our country and the countries of others?

One cannot undo the fact that Germans spread all over the Americas and elsewhere. There are still many groups in the Americas that are very German still in many ways just not in uniform politically with modern Germany. America and numerous other countries have tons of German founded townships and cities. Texas has many.


All respect to modern Germany afforded, have you naysayers ever pondered the notion that those Germans who immigrated Germany might have actually preserved what it meant to be German in their foreign German enclaves better than Germans in Germany preserved actually themselves and their culture? Sometimes I more than somewhat begin to believe this might be the case. Germany is an occupied nation and has been ever since the fall of Berlin in WW2. Not just physically with the U.S. and previously Russia, but also ideologically. Germany was undeniably reforged and perhaps not necessarily to the tenements of a true historical German perspective.

When I see the German Green Party I am sickened. It is a joke. The nuclear power plants are still running at maximum capacity. All of them. What an absolute political hilarity. Germany is clearly occupied ideologically and culturally by non-German interests. The U.S. is occupying it. Let's be honest about that. And to the East Russia manipulates it via natural resources economic incentive deals. Germany is asleep. The Pirate Party victory? That is pathetic. The youth are all indoctrinated and disenfranchised. Germans don't even have a free press compared to the U.S.. Their nationalists are butchered by paid and succored interests who sell out Germany. Ironically it is American and Russian Germans who most aid German nationalists these days.

The very people sitting here telling us that Germans outside of Germany aren't German are the very people who are going to Pseudo-U.S.-sponsored 'Green-Party' movements that are patented anti-German created entities sponsored by the U.S. and Israel.

What a deep and sad irony. Just look at this undermining PC-Green-Industry-bullshit peddled to Germans. It makes me want to vomit my guts out. http://www.gruene-bundestag.de/cms/english/rubrik/12/12034.english.html
Here are our positions to the topics
A

Agricultural
Animal Welfare

B

Biodiversity and Nature Conservation
Bioethics
Budget
Building

C

Climate
Consumer
Culture

D

Data Protection
Demographic
Development
Drugs and Addiction

E

Eastern Germany
Economic
Education
Energy
Environment
Europe

F

Family
Financial Markets
Food
Forest

G

Genetic Engineering
Globalisation

H

Health
Higher Education
Home Affairs
Human Rights

I

Integration and Migration, Refugees and Asylum
International
Internet

L

Labour Market
Legal
Lesbian and Gay
Local
Long-Term Care

M

Media

N

Nuclear Power

P

Peace and Security
Pension
Policies for the Disabled
Prevention

R

Religion
Research
Right-Wing Extremism
Rural

S

Social
Sport

T

Tax
Tourism
Transport

W

Women

Look at this. The Anti-German American NPR promotes the Pirate Party. (DID YOU SUPPOSED GERMAN NATIVIST OBSESSIVES GET THAT??? THEY (NPR/PBS-Super-Jewish-Sponsored-American-Public-Media) HATE YOU AND THEY'RE PEDDLING THIS TO YOU INTERNALLY VIA POLITICAL-SHELL GREEN PARTIES)

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/09/19/140604853/pirate-party-wins-seats-in-berlin-elections

They even get upset when they realize the pirate party, an actual grass-roots neo-progressive German/Swedish movement, had NPD members in it.http://www.thelocal.de/politics/20111012-38153.html Even that is not okay with the Green-shell-Party-Molesters of Germany. They even have to cleanse that of actual proud Germans and I suspect they now have sadly.

velvet
Tuesday, October 18th, 2011, 02:47 PM
All respect to modern Germany afforded, have you naysayers ever pondered the notion that those Germans who immigrated Germany might have actually preserved what it meant to be German in their foreign German enclaves better than Germans in Germany preserved actually themselves and their culture?

Like every emigrate, the emigrates pick out their most beloved ones and keep them up. It's not German culture, it's a selected set of then exaggerated "values", often made up from nostalgia.

Another thing to consider in that is that many of the emigrates emigrated because they were religiously persecuted. We kicked out the Mormons, the Jesuits, radically backward people like the oh so hailed Amish and what not. So in one way or another, specially America due to its religious freedom (which we have in Europe too written in all constitutions, reality looked different though) got all the extremists and fundamentalists. Then there are the waves of Germans and other Europeans who hoped for a better life, for land, to flee their poverty, often the lower classes who lost in the industrial revolution. Post WWII America became more smart and abducted the scientists and specialists. However, what you today call German values is a selected set of exaggerated and sometimes made-up values, and then you're "disgusted" that the real Germans dont fit your fantasy product.



When I see the German Green Party I am sickened. It is a joke. The nuclear power plants are still running at maximum capacity. All of them. What an absolute political hilarity. Germany is clearly occupied ideologically and culturally by non-German interests. The U.S. is occupying it. Let's be honest about that. And to the East Russia manipulates it via natural resources economic incentive deals. Germany is asleep. The Pirate Party victory? That is pathetic. The youth are all indoctrinated and disenfranchised. Germans don't even have a free press compared to the U.S.. Their nationalists are butchered by paid and succored interests who sell out Germany. Ironically it is American and Russian Germans who most aid German nationalists these days.

Half of what you state is not true, but you make judgements based on this American political propaganda about Germans. But we're used to American arrogance and ignorance already...


The very people sitting here telling us that Germans outside of Germany aren't German are the very people who are going to Pseudo-U.S.-sponsored 'Green-Party' movements that are patented anti-German created entities sponsored by the U.S. and Israel.

Maybe you can take care of that the more than 1000 JewSA military bases vanish with which America excerts control over the political landscape in Germany.

But of course, you wont. You hate Germany as much as you love the Jews who made you rich.

Oh, btw, Germans protested NPPs long before there was a Green Party. In fact, the Green Party is a product of those protests. Yes, it was hijacked then quickly and turned into just another American-style McDonalds Disneyland party infiltrated by American Corporations selling Gene-Food and what not. Still, Green politics is a German heart topic, environment protection is the last resort for Blut und Boden, for which still many long even if they dont know it.

But since the American style politics corrupted all policies, parties doesnt matter. And people engage in single-topics more than they would subscribe to a party line, because politics is entirely disconnected from people's everyday reality. And not all people who protest a NPP or the Castor transports vote Green, and not all Green voters protest NPPs. Same for many other subjects. There is no direct or inherent mutuality there that you want to construct.

beowulf wodenson
Tuesday, October 18th, 2011, 06:43 PM
Particularly pertinent to Americans like myself descended from the original English/British Isles settler stock of America, I recently read a book (Albion's Seed) describing interesting continuities of folkways and culture carried over from different regions of England and the Scottish borderlands and perpetuated in different States well beyond the colonial period in America, some that are still extant and identifiable even in modern times.
I.E. the Puritan settlers of New England were primarily from eastern England, particularly East Anglia, and many cultural folkways of New England as such closely resembled and developed from those of East Anglia in the 17th century.
The "Scotch-Irish" border folk of Lowland Scotland and northern England brought over folkways that became the "Upper South" culture in America with many identifiable parallels to the ways of the border folk in Britain and North Ireland in the 18th century.
I found it very interesting to see how well some regional distinctions in America resembled and evolved from those in the various regions of Britain from which the original settlers mostly came from.

Thorbrand
Tuesday, October 18th, 2011, 08:58 PM
Particularly pertinent to Americans like myself descended from the original English/British Isles settler stock of America, I recently read a book (Albion's Seed) describing interesting continuities of folkways and culture carried over from different regions of England and the Scottish borderlands and perpetuated in different States well beyond the colonial period in America, some that are still extant and identifiable even in modern times.
I.E. the Puritan settlers of New England were primarily from eastern England, particularly East Anglia, and many cultural folkways of New England as such closely resembled and developed from those of East Anglia in the 17th century.
The "Scotch-Irish" border folk of Lowland Scotland and northern England brought over folkways that became the "Upper South" culture in America with many identifiable parallels to the ways of the border folk in Britain and North Ireland in the 18th century.
I found it very interesting to see how well some regional distinctions in America resembled and evolved from those in the various regions of Britain from which the original settlers mostly came from.

I've read that in terms of east coast backwoods accents for example, some are actually closer to the original English Elizabethan settlers accents than anything in modern English? I am not sure how this can be authenticated or indeed whether this is still the case in this 'mobile' era we live in but it certainly sounds feasible. Perhaps there is a correlation in French cajun dialects?

Gardisten
Wednesday, October 19th, 2011, 12:57 AM
So what is German culture to you, then? Living a materialist and consumerist American-style life with all of the modern amenities and only a superficial acknowledgment of one's "German" culture from time to time in terms of what you eat and drink or attending certain festivals? The argument that you non-Colonial Germans keep making about the exclusivity "German culture" raises many troubling questions and ultimately seems self-defeating.


Like every emigrate, the emigrates pick out their most beloved ones and keep them up. It's not German culture, it's a selected set of then exaggerated "values", often made up from nostalgia.

I'm fairly certain that "religious persecution" was a factor in very few cases. Most Germans emigrated looking for land, others for better economic opportunities, some for political reasons. In terms of religious persecution, Prussia, for example, had a habit of admitting persecuted minorities. I would think that the overall net loss of "extremists and fundamentalists" would have been negligible.

In regards to the Amish, it seems to me that you're simply not all that familiar with them. The Amish are an offshoot of the Mennonites, and by the late 19th century only numbered about 5000 souls. They were not a significant threat to the American state at that time, nor were they back when they were in the Old World. Their Mennonite brethren, on the other had, never entirely left Germany, although many did emigrate to North and South America and to Russia. In the early years of the Mennonite movement, they were hardly "backward"--they were skilled craftsmen, and were also known for their ability to make poor farmland much more productive. Their "backwardness" as is displayed in certain parts of the United States came somewhat later, and it emerged due to a realization that modernization and industrialization was having a negative impact on preserving their culture. Since this forum is all about Germanic preservation, I'm having a bit of difficulty accepting the fact that some here seem to think that one of the better examples of Germanic preservationism needs to be maligned.


Another thing to consider in that is that many of the emigrates emigrated because they were religiously persecuted. We kicked out the Mormons, the Jesuits, radically backward people like the oh so hailed Amish and what not. So in one way or another, specially America due to its religious freedom (which we have in Europe too written in all constitutions, reality looked different though) got all the extremists and fundamentalists.

From what I can gather, ideologically you (and a number of others here) have "selected set of exaggerated and sometimes made-up values" from the past, and my guess is that you're often "disgusted" that 97% of the rest of your fellow German citizens don't subscribe to your "fantasy product". You wouldn't be so active on this forum if that wasn't the case. :)


However, what you today call German values is a selected set of exaggerated and sometimes made-up values, and then you're "disgusted" that the real Germans dont fit your fantasy product.

beowulf wodenson
Wednesday, October 19th, 2011, 09:36 AM
I've read that in terms of east coast backwoods accents for example, some are actually closer to the original English Elizabethan settlers accents than anything in modern English? I am not sure how this can be authenticated or indeed whether this is still the case in this 'mobile' era we live in but it certainly sounds feasible. Perhaps there is a correlation in French cajun dialects?

As to the Cajuns, I know very little.
But, supposedly, American regional dialects and accents do resemble, and have evolved from 17th and 18th century regional dialects and accents of England.
English visitors to various States of America in the 18th and 19th centuries noted the "archaic" nature of accent and vocabulary of Americans often resembling regional dialects in England that had or were in the process of disappearing, according to the author of Albion's Seed.
As to the likely erosive effect of "American" (semitic) mass media and consumerist anti-culture on these distinctive folkways derived from Britain, they haven't yet managed to erase the yankees' 'nasal twang' nor our 'Southern drawl' accents at any rate :D

Friedrich
Wednesday, October 19th, 2011, 11:36 AM
What do you think of Colonials (Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc.) who identify as European? Specifically, I refer to those whose families have been in the New World for some generations, did not inherit any European traditions but who try to practice and pass down the language, culture and history of their distant ancestors and even wish to move to Europe. Europeans, do you accept these people as one of your own, and Colonials, how do they make you feel? Why and amongst who do you believe this trend occurs and is it detrimental to our country and the countries of others?

I don't see any point in going into petty differences too deeply.
I see one global nation of white people who are fighting for survival.
The former colonies are falling; the US claims that whites will soon be a minority, and Europe is under a virtual Islamic siege.

In fact, just as many of us are wondering where to go in SA, I read that after the blatant black-on-white racism in England during the riots, a large percentage of the British want to emigrate elsewhere.
Conversely, Pauline Hanson is tired of liberal Australia, and said she wants to live in the UK!

I think you can run - but you cannot hide.
In some cases, where direct genocide may be an issue, I would urge all white-majority countries to help.

As a people we've been sold-out.
As a white South African I am sometimes bitter against countries that led the anti-apartheid movements in the 1980s (ranging from New Zealand to Sweden).
They labelled us all racists and fit for the slaughterhouse.

But ultimately we must forget provincialism, and forgive old colonial wars.
We must think globally as a race.
Our enemies sure do think in terms of a diaspora.

We must use the whole body, before they cut off the fingers and toes and other extremities, because believe me, essentially what happens to us here will happen to you too - it is just a matter of time.

Autosomal Viking
Wednesday, October 19th, 2011, 03:21 PM
Yet this principle works both ways, so it annoys me to see Americans changing around their ancestral profiles to whatever the hell they most fancy and arrogantly demanding they automatically be accepted as German, Swedish, or whatever. Then you've got AV swaggering through this thread, basically telling Europeans that he'll bag their women and that it will be for their own good. Talk about chutzpah. In order for the old European identities to survive, they need to be more scientific and selective about who they let back into the fold.

I hope you aren't referring to me in the first part. Months ago, I listed 'Ireland' as an ancestral region because I had been told that my great grandfather was 'Irish.' I always thought it was strange that he had an English last name. He was 'Irish' in that his ancestors were English from Ireland, and he had red hair. :P I did online research to verify this: all his ancestors (Americans) for generations back had English surnames with the exception of one Norman name. I also recently simplified my ancestry to make it easier to understand at a quick glance.

Now, lol :) to the second part. I simply believe, from an entirely eugenics standpoint, that it would be a good thing for me to show up on a family tree. If we were to be scientific about this, I'm sure we would find confirmation. ;) If I were to hypothetically take an Old World wife and live there, I would of course learn the language (assuming it's not English), like the culture, and be a civil member of society. The children being accepted fully as countrymen in the minds of the locals and not 'half American' or something is an entirely different issue.

Huginn ok Muninn
Sunday, October 23rd, 2011, 06:26 AM
Moderator's note: Discussion of Robin van Persie has been moved here:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=145214

Please redirect your discussion there...

Bo
Sunday, October 23rd, 2011, 02:50 PM
I don't see any point in going into petty differences too deeply.
I see one global nation of white people who are fighting for survival.
The former colonies are falling; the US claims that whites will soon be a minority, and Europe is under a virtual Islamic siege.

In fact, just as many of us are wondering where to go in SA, I read that after the blatant black-on-white racism in England during the riots, a large percentage of the British want to emigrate elsewhere.
Conversely, Pauline Hanson is tired of liberal Australia, and said she wants to live in the UK!

I think you can run - but you cannot hide.
In some cases, where direct genocide may be an issue, I would urge all white-majority countries to help.

As a people we've been sold-out.
As a white South African I am sometimes bitter against countries that led the anti-apartheid movements in the 1980s (ranging from New Zealand to Sweden).
They labelled us all racists and fit for the slaughterhouse.

But ultimately we must forget provincialism, and forgive old colonial wars.
We must think globally as a race.
Our enemies sure do think in terms of a diaspora.

We must use the whole body, before they cut off the fingers and toes and other extremities, because believe me, essentially what happens to us here will happen to you too - it is just a matter of time.

Many good points have been made in this thread, but this one by Friedrich really cuts through the fat and boils it down; There is a NW European diaspora across the globe where each has it's set of unique cultures/ethnicities. Some here on this forum are very fatherland or motherland nationalistic and that is understandable, but ultimately we are kindred folk and we need to be united, not divided.

KveldulfR
Saturday, December 17th, 2011, 03:31 PM
How do the Scottish feel about Americans claiming (legitimate) Scottish ancestry and being proud of it. To the point of owning tartan and kilt? And what of those who are descended from royal Scottish lines?



Thanks,

Rob

Nachtengel
Saturday, December 17th, 2011, 04:11 PM
I think that you are on the wrong forum if you are so Anti-North American and against north Americans preserving Germanic culture.
How is it Anti-North American to acknowledge a fact, that you aren't the same as Europeans.


There is no such thing as "American or Canadian" ethnicity because we are all descendants from elsewhere.
Originally North Americans descended from Germanic Europe, it wasn't that multicultural as it is today. Rejecting the American and Canadian identities paves the way for diversity supporters who want to bring aliens and xenophilia into your countries by claiming you were always diverse and you have no identity.

The point is Germanic Americans created a new language and culture and it shouldn't be ditched for the sake of European nostalgia.

Most Americans who claim to have strong connections with Europe also keep their American mentality and loyalties. Someone born and raised in America can be part of our nation and tribe if he is a German. Halfbaked concepts like German-American shouldn't exist. It's either or. If it's German then sacrifices and effort have to be made to reintegrate into our nation. Mental, financial, all that there is to it. Concepts like German-America aren't productive for either Germany or America.

Wulfram
Saturday, December 17th, 2011, 04:21 PM
I posted the following in an earlier thread but thought it could work here as well:

Immigration from Germany to America was intended to spread German culture, a way to bring Germany to the world. The first wave that immigrated to Texas considered themselves to be Germans. Just because they set foot on American soil does that mean they automatically stopped being so. I have no doubt that they were still considered to be fellow Germans by the friends and relatives they left behind. The first group of children born of these immigrants were just as German as their parents and also considered Germans by friends and family back in the Fatherland. In fact Texas Germans married only other Texas Germans well into the twentieth century. They spoke the German language, ate traditional German food, and proudly celebrated their German heritage.
At what point do you suppose Texas-Germans stopped being actual Germans and irreversibly became Americans?

I feel that a German-American has every right to call themselves German if:

1. They’re blood is mostly German with no exotic admixture.
2. They learn to speak German fluently.
3. They celebrate their German heritage, and not just on specific dates, but every day.
4. They proudly proclaim their ancestry from Germany without a hint of shame.

If a German-American meets these requirements then they don’t have to be born, raised, or even live in Germany to qualify.

Autosomal Viking
Saturday, December 17th, 2011, 04:33 PM
Concepts like German-America aren't productive for either Germany or America.

I'm not sure. I think of 'German-American' as just a way to denote an American with a remnant of German identity, be it ancestry, a few remaining traditions or a little bit of the language. It's a marker to remember where one came from, and really isn't in conflict with itself since the functional loyalty is effectively to America. I think it's too easy to immediately dismiss this concept from an indigenous perspective.

I think it becomes unhealthy when an American of German ancestry identifies as German more than American. But that is more understandable now because 'American' has been reduced to meaningless by expanding it to include anyone with American citizenship. But for example, my great grandfather identified as American, while simultaneously acknowledging his German ancestry.

Autosomal Viking
Saturday, December 17th, 2011, 05:11 PM
I feel that a German-American has every right to call themselves German if:

1. They’re blood is mostly German with no exotic admixture.
2. They learn to speak German fluently.
3. They celebrate their German heritage, and not just on specific dates, but every day.
4. They proudly proclaim their ancestry from Germany without a hint of shame.

If a German-American meets these requirements then they don’t have to be born, raised, or even live in Germany to qualify.

Yes, they would certainly have a right to call themselves overwhelming German by culture and ancestry, but not nationality. They would not be the same as the Germans in Germany. If for example, they left Germany 100 years ago, they have diverged and are celebrating that part of their identity and culture that has split from the parent identity in time to find their own path. The Germany of 100 years ago is not the same as the Germany of today. If the Germans in Texas were able to hold onto their German identity for that long, they would be similar to the Germans in Germany, but not the same. They would have forged the beginnings of their own divergent identity, although could be absorbed back into Germany with ease if they wished. This is how ethnogenesis and emergence of new ethnicities, languages, and even entire species happens: physical separation, isolation, and divergence.

Vectis
Saturday, December 17th, 2011, 05:44 PM
England is arguably a colonial type nation in itself with mixed european ancestry. The first popualtion was basque types, then there were the Celts, the Romans, Jutes, Vikings, Saxons, and Normans then immigration from Flanders, Hugenots,Poles, Irish and so on.
All left cultural and physical legacies. That is why we don't have a typical national look or personality. The colonies are just extentions of the mixing that made the English race.

If different european races want to interbreed in a colony like New Zealand its not really a problem. But if colonials come to somewhere very racially pure with a small population like Norway and start interbreeding they would rapidy change the appearance and mentality of the native race.

Juthunge
Saturday, December 17th, 2011, 05:53 PM
At what point do you suppose Texas-Germans stopped being actual Germans and irreversibly became Americans?

I feel that a German-American has every right to call themselves German if:

1. They’re blood is mostly German with no exotic admixture.
2. They learn to speak German fluently.
3. They celebrate their German heritage, and not just on specific dates, but every day.
4. They proudly proclaim their ancestry from Germany without a hint of shame.

If a German-American meets these requirements then they don’t have to be born, raised, or even live in Germany to qualify.

First generation immigrants were indeed still German. Likewise were their children if they had next to no contact to the other (related)ethnicities surrounding them.

But one day they inevitably acquired an (we could call it Anglo-)American mentality and the usage of German language and culture gradually decreased. That's when they stopped being Germans and became Americans of German heritage instead.

Time didn’t stand still in Germany either and culture is constantly undergoing certain changes, however minor they may appear.
The same holds true for further German history after the future German-Americans left for the new world. Germans at home lived through times of need and struggle their relatives in overseas simply didn’t experience and share with Germans in the fatherland.

It’s therefore as impossible for a German-American who grew up in the USA to become truly German again, as it was for their first-generation immigrant ancestors to become American.
Either of their descendants can become and indeed became part of the people in whose nation they live in however, provided they grew up in the respective nation, acquired their mentality and culture and spoke the language.

On the other hand we have a similar yet at the same time different situation with the Volksdeutsche in eastern and southeastern Europe. They likewise left Germany for whatever reasons and after a while, stopped being Germans in the strictest sense of the word.
But the populations surrounding them were so different in every possible aspect, that little mixing occurred and cultural influences were likewise occurring on a very low level.
It could even be said that they retained original German customs and traditions better than many actual Germans in Germany did.

Yet I wouldn’t even call the descendants of those Volksdeutsche Germans in the strictest sense of the word since the reasons that separate them from Germans in Germany are the same like those for German-Americans.

Nationality is a matter of mentality, culture, language, blood and, indeed, soil.

KveldulfR
Sunday, December 18th, 2011, 12:34 AM
I posted the following in an earlier thread but thought it could work here as well:

Immigration from Germany to America was intended to spread German culture, a way to bring Germany to the world. The first wave that immigrated to Texas considered themselves to be Germans. Just because they set foot on American soil does that mean they automatically stopped being so. I have no doubt that they were still considered to be fellow Germans by the friends and relatives they left behind. The first group of children born of these immigrants were just as German as their parents and also considered Germans by friends and family back in the Fatherland. In fact Texas Germans married only other Texas Germans well into the twentieth century. They spoke the German language, ate traditional German food, and proudly celebrated their German heritage.
At what point do you suppose Texas-Germans stopped being actual Germans and irreversibly became Americans?

I feel that a German-American has every right to call themselves German if:

1. They’re blood is mostly German with no exotic admixture.
2. They learn to speak German fluently.
3. They celebrate their German heritage, and not just on specific dates, but every day.
4. They proudly proclaim their ancestry from Germany without a hint of shame.

If a German-American meets these requirements then they don’t have to be born, raised, or even live in Germany to qualify.

That is the exact description of my father's side of the family. Texas land-grant and all. I would be the first one that would be sort of a half German. Speak some of the LAnguage. Eat the food, proud of the heritage, still have the farm. Grandpa is 1st Gen. GRandma 2nd.

Siebenbürgerin
Monday, December 26th, 2011, 04:18 PM
I've a few questioning marks about the Transylvanian Saxons in the US or Canada. They are no doubt proud of their ancestry and heritage, they've cultural events and festivals. I was surprised very pleasantly to see they take regular trips to see how their homeland looks like and immerse in the communities here.

But my doubts are especially about some of the youth who take part in such groups. I've the feeling maybe they have a little bit Saxon ancestry but they're mixed, some even racially.

Here for example a group photo which enforces it:

http://www.siebenbuerger.de/bild/zeitung/2011/Kanada3Heimattag-2011.jpg

These peoples aren't European, mixed or not. They've grown up and had their mentalities formed in a new country. I view them as maybe our cousins. They're still Transylvanian Saxon by ancestry and heritage, but they've something different from us. A big difference I've noticed is the modernity. The modernity came to Romania slower than in their lands and that affected the perception and mentalities a little bit. Maybe some North American Saxons would feel strange in the small rural Saxon communities here.

Nachtengel
Sunday, January 15th, 2012, 12:18 AM
Immigration from Germany to America was intended to spread German culture, a way to bring Germany to the world.
Well it obviously didn't result too well now. In fact it's going viceversa, Americanism is being spread to Germany.


I feel that a German-American has every right to call themselves German if:

1. They’re blood is mostly German with no exotic admixture.
2. They learn to speak German fluently.
3. They celebrate their German heritage, and not just on specific dates, but every day.
4. They proudly proclaim their ancestry from Germany without a hint of shame.

If a German-American meets these requirements then they don’t have to be born, raised, or even live in Germany to qualify.
Good conditions but which are not met by most so-called German-Americans. Once more, there is no both German and American. You are either, or. You have to choose your loyalty, you can only be part of a nation but not two.

Juthunge
Wednesday, April 18th, 2012, 11:28 PM
Moderator's notice: Post split from different thread (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=149111)


Our only quarrel with them is over south Tyrol, and that is only important to the (pan)german or austrian nationalists among us. Ahem. No one thinks it is worth fighting and dying over. Otherwise, our opinion of the italians is directly dependent on how far down the peninsula they live. We have no problem with Venetians or Milanese. We don't think as much of neapolitans or sicilians. We don't think that they are subhumans or anything, we think that they are quite hospitable and friendly, we just think that latins in general are rather too ...easy going... for our taste. But northern italians are not your typical latins. That is why northern Italy is comparable in living standards to northern europe, and southern Italy is relatively speaking poor and lives off subsidies from the northern provinces. And from the European Abomination, excuse me, Union.

We don't have much good to say about italian soldiery. Neither does anybody else.

Why would South Tyrol, which has been ethnically Germanic since the Migration Period and afterwards German, be less important than, say, Alsace or Eastern Prussia?
You don’t strike me as someone who would be against the return of these, and especially the latter, to Germany.

Excuse me but why do you think you could speak for actual Germans anyway?
From all your posts it’s evident that you’re someone who wasn’t raised in German culture, who wasn’t born to German parents on German soil, who knows nothing about the situation in Europe or how Germans feel.
Please leave it to Germans to speak for themselves.

Tom Schnadelbach
Thursday, April 19th, 2012, 08:08 AM
Why would South Tyrol, which has been ethnically Germanic since the Migration Period and afterwards German, be less important than, say, Alsace or Eastern Prussia?
You don’t strike me as someone who would be against the return of these, and especially the latter, to Germany.
Juthunge, I wrote"Our only quarrel with them is over south Tyrol, and that is only important to the (pan)german or austrian nationalists among us. Ahem. "

The "ahem" is put in to include me in the group of (pan)german nationalists of which I spoke. I would be very satisfied if Südtirol were to return to a unified "Gesamtdeutschland"/complete Germany. I consider that to be part of the natural order. But most german germans of my acquaintance are not upset that it is under the control of the italians. If the italians were to behave now as they did during the fascist period, and even later, it would be different, but most people do not see the Südtiroler as being particularly oppressed. They certainly would not think that bringing Südtirol "Heim ins Reich" under the present circumstances is worth dying for.
Emphasis following added by me


Excuse me but why do you think you could speak for actual Germans anyway?
From all your posts it’s evident that you’re someone who wasn’t raised in German culture, who wasn’t born to German parents on German soil, who knows nothing about the situation in Europe or how Germans feel.
Please leave it to Germans to speak for themselves.


In what way have I angered you?
I was born in the US. At the time of my birth, my father held the german citizenship. Jus soli has no place at all in the Reichs- und Staatsangehörigkeitsgesetzes (RuStAG), of 1913.
Jus sanguinis alone, and that through the father. Therefore, I was born a german citizen.

As far as knowing nothing of the situation in europe, I lived most of my adult life in Germany, Munich, and know quite a bit about it, thank you
I know about the Heinselmaenchen and the Mainzelmaenchen, about the Herr Karl and about Rudi Dutschke, about the Waehrungsreform/currency reform and how the shops had nothing in them on Friday when everybody had lots of money and how on Monday when they opened the shops there was everything to buy, without ration points, and nobody had more than 40 marks. I learned the german "Komm Herr Jesu und sei unser Gast".. meal blessing as a child and about the "Lieber Jesus, mach mich fromm, das ich in dein Himmel komm", night prayer. I learned german from my grandparents and the reason that I make many grammatical errors is because I did not have the "blessing" of a german education. Of course that means also that I did not have the germanness educated out of me in favor of paneuropeanism.
I worked in a german Intercontinental hotel as a concierge for years and dealt with people from all over europe and the world.

I do indeed know something of which I speak.
Mit freundlichem DEUTSCHEM Gruss/With Friendly GERMAN greeting,
Thomas

Juthunge
Thursday, April 19th, 2012, 11:05 PM
Juthunge, I wrote"Our only quarrel with them is over south Tyrol, and that is only important to the (pan)german or austrian nationalists among us. Ahem. "

The "ahem" is put in to include me in the group of (pan)german nationalists of which I spoke. I would be very satisfied if Südtirol were to return to a unified "Gesamtdeutschland"/complete Germany. I consider that to be part of the natural order. But most german germans of my acquaintance are not upset that it is under the control of the italians. If the italians were to behave now as they did during the fascist period, and even later, it would be different, but most people do not see the Südtiroler as being particularly oppressed. They certainly would not think that bringing Südtirol "Heim ins Reich" under the present circumstances is worth dying for.
Sorry but “ahem” usually indicates derision, at least around here.
Most Germans nowadays are upset by few things concerning their people or country, at least on the outside, as long as they can quietly go on with their usual lives.
That doesn’t make it right though.


In what way have I angered you?
I was born in the US. At the time of my birth, my father held the german citizenship. Jus soli has no place at all in the Reichs- und Staatsangehörigkeitsgesetzes (RuStAG), of 1913.
Jus sanguinis alone, and that through the father. Therefore, I was born a german citizen.

As far as knowing nothing of the situation in europe, I lived most of my adult life in Germany, Munich, and know quite a bit about it, thank you
I know about the Heinselmaenchen and the Mainzelmaenchen, about the Herr Karl and about Rudi Dutschke, about the Waehrungsreform/currency reform and how the shops had nothing in them on Friday when everybody had lots of money and how on Monday when they opened the shops there was everything to buy, without ration points, and nobody had more than 40 marks. I learned the german "Komm Herr Jesu und sei unser Gast".. meal blessing as a child and about the "Lieber Jesus, mach mich fromm, das ich in dein Himmel komm", night prayer. I learned german from my grandparents and the reason that I make many grammatical errors is because I did not have the "blessing" of a german education. Of course that means also that I did not have the germanness educated out of me in favor of paneuropeanism.
I worked in a german Intercontinental hotel as a concierge for years and dealt with people from all over europe and the world.

I do indeed know something of which I speak.
Mit freundlichem DEUTSCHEM Gruss/With Friendly GERMAN greeting,
Thomas You didn’t “anger” me as such but I believe this is long overdue.
The soil part wasn’t the most important part of my enumeration and this is not about citizenship at all, by the way.
It’s indeed about descent and culture. But judging from your own statement you’re only half-German by ancestry and grew up in the USA. That's not sufficient to call you a German in my eyes.

To be honest with you, I believe you’re overidentifying with Germany or “being German” and it’s getting a bit tiresome.

Tom Schnadelbach
Saturday, April 21st, 2012, 07:35 PM
To be honest with you, I believe you’re overidentifying with Germany or “being German” and it’s getting a bit tiresome.
Emphasis added by me.
As opposed to so many "Bundesburger" who identify with the congolese and sinti and roma and somalis and everybody else EXCEPT the germans? I suppose that is something unusual to you. God knows that I wish that that were otherwise. Perhaps I do lay on the Deutschtumelei a bit too much. That is how I am. For me, Germany is everything.
Tom

Sawyer
Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012, 01:13 PM
I think this is a bit unfair.

Especially considering the leader of Blood and Soil during the Third Reich, Richard Darré, was born in Argentina, and only about half-German himself. He moved to Germany when he was 9. His last name was not even German.

Rudolf Heß was born in Egypt, and he did not move to Germany until he was 14.

Think of all the national heroes of certain nations who were not even 'full-blooded'. Napoleon is adored by every Frenchman and is the national hero even though he was Corsican, and never even identified as French.

Knut the Great of Denmark was half Polish. Queen Victoria of the British Empire was German. Alexander the Great was only half Makedon.

So if all of these great people have been accepted by their nations as leaders, why is Mr. Schadelbach being rejected as a layman?

I've made some observations about this. A half-Hungarian/Ukrainian I know who does not speak Hungarian (grew up in 'Slovakia'), has been completely accepted by Hungarian nationalists and ultra-nationalists. A half-Russian who did not grow up in Russia I know has been accepted by Russian nationalists. A half Serb has been accepted by Swedish nationalists. I, myself, have never been told by Swiss nationalists that I 'overidentify' with my Swiss heritage (even though I am 1/4 German :-O).

Is this all because people get sick of Americans, who have a great great grandmother who was German so they call themselves Germans yet have no family in the country at all? Because I understand that. But if someone is half, or a quarter of a certain nationality, say German, and has strong frequent contact with his/her family there, why should he be told he can never belong there? At least if the person in question is Germanic on his non-German side, I don't see why they shouldn't be, if they are seriously committed to 100% embracing the culture, language and customs of said group.

Juthunge
Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012, 04:00 PM
Especially considering the leader of Blood and Soil during the Third Reich, Richard Darré, was born in Argentina, and only about half-German himself. He moved to Germany when he was 9. His last name was not even German.

Rudolf Heß was born in Egypt, and he did not move to Germany until he was 14.


Richard Darré was three quarters German and one quarter Swedish, grew up in a German expatriate community and was educated in the local German school. One of his ancestors in the 17th century was a Huguenot immigrant to Germany and that's were the French name comes from.
All of this hardly makes him non-German, especially since, as you said yourself, he came to Germany at the age of nine and was before that educated in a German manner by his parents.

Rudolf Heß was fully German on both sides and his "family lived in luxury on the Egyptian coast near Alexandria, and visited Germany often during the summers, allowing the Hess children to learn the German language and to absorb German culture."



Think of all the national heroes of certain nations who were not even 'full-blooded'. Napoleon is adored by every Frenchman and is the national hero even though he was Corsican, and never even identified as French.

Knut the Great of Denmark was half Polish. Queen Victoria of the British Empire was German. Alexander the Great was only half Makedon.

So if all of these great people have been accepted by their nations as leaders, why is Mr. Schadelbach being rejected as a layman?The French understanding of ethnicity(will to live together, regardless of ancestry) is vastly different from the German(descent and culture) understanding and I have no reason to doubt that Napoleon considered himself French.
But that just as a side note, as the example is irrelevant to me. Which is also true for your examples of nobility, which are obviously special cases since they were a special social group.
For the vast majority of the population the circumstances were entirely different than for the nobility, nor did they have the choice to choose them as leaders.


I've made some observations about this. A half-Hungarian/Ukrainian I know who does not speak Hungarian (grew up in 'Slovakia'), has been completely accepted by Hungarian nationalists and ultra-nationalists. A half-Russian who did not grow up in Russia I know has been accepted by Russian nationalists. A half Serb has been accepted by Swedish nationalists.This only tells me that their definition of nationality/ethnicity is flawed.


Is this all because people get sick of Americans, who have a great great grandmother who was German so they call themselves Germans yet have no family in the country at all? Because I understand that. But if someone is half, or a quarter of a certain nationality, say German, and has strong frequent contact with his/her family there, why should he be told he can never belong there? At least if the person in question is Germanic on his non-German side, I don't see why they shouldn't be, if they are seriously committed to 100% embracing the culture, language and customs of said group.Yes, it's mostly because of the situation outlined in your first sentence.
But I also disagree with what you said below it, as I have no reason to consider someone, who is only half or let alone only a quarter German, the same as myself or others of my kin who are fully German.

Mind you though, I never said that I wouldn't accept someone who is very predominantly of German descent, has no non-European ancestry, was educated in a German manner and speaks the language as well as a real German. Which was the case for both Darré and Heß by the way.
But that's certainly, at least nowadays, the exception rather than the rule and I don't see that being the case here.

Sawyer
Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012, 04:45 PM
Yes, it's mostly because of the situation outlined in your first sentence.
But I also disagree with what you said below it, as I have no reason to consider someone, who is only half or let alone only a quarter German, the same as myself or others of my kin who are fully German.

Mind you though, I never said that I wouldn't accept someone who is very predominantly of German descent, has no non-European ancestry, was educated in a German manner and speaks the language as well as a real German. Which was the case for both Darré and Heß by the way.
But that's certainly, at least nowadays, the exception rather than the rule and I don't see that being the case here.

'educated in a German manner'
- Not sure what you mean. Thinks and acts like a German?

And, so they must be more than half to be German? Would you consider groups such as Flems, Dutch, Swiss, as racially part of the 'German' definition.

Angus
Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012, 06:08 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, Juthunge, but I think what you're saying is that it's a case-by-case basis. If a colonial with a German background is to be accepted by German nationals they need to meet certain requirements; learning, if not mastering the German language, be mainly of German heritage, learn the culture and In my own personal opinion, I feel like you need to know the bare minimum of that country's history.

If a colonial is unable to meet those requirements, then I don't feel like they have the right to make the claim of being more than which ever colonial country they're from.

MCP3
Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012, 06:30 PM
Emphasis added by me.
As opposed to so many "Bundesburger" who identify with the congolese and sinti and roma and somalis and everybody else EXCEPT the germans? I suppose that is something unusual to you. God knows that I wish that that were otherwise. Perhaps I do lay on the Deutschtumelei a bit too much. That is how I am. For me, Germany is everything.
Tom



According to Reich citizen law of 1913 and the update of 1935 ("Nuremberg Laws") you are when your self description (ancestry) was accurate. ;)


Reich Citizenship Law, September 15, 1935

The Reichstag has unanimously enacted the following law, which is promulgated herewith:

§ 1

1. A subject of the State is a person who enjoys the protection of the German Reich and who in consequence has specific obligations towards it.
2. The status of subject of the State is acquired in accordance with the provisions of the Reich and State Citizenship Law.

§ 2

1. A Reich citizen is a subject of the State who is of German or related blood, who proves by his conduct that he is willing and fit faithfully to serve the German people and Reich.
2. Reich citizenship is acquired through the granting of a Reich Citizenship Certificate.
3. The Reich citizen is the sole bearer of full political rights in accordance with the Law.

§ 3

The Reich Minister of the Interior, in coordination with the Deputy of the Führer will issue the Legal and Administrative orders required to implement and complete this Law.



Nuremberg, September 15, 1935, at the Reich Party Congress of Freedom
The Führer and Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler
The Reich Minister of the Interior Frick

Relevant :"Of German or related blood" (transl.:Aryan) means you don't need to be entirely German as long as you are Aryan, and "prove by your conduct that you are willing and fit faithfully to serve the German people and Reich."

Schneider
Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012, 07:02 PM
I am my ancestors. My ancestors are Europeans.

Juthunge
Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012, 07:11 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, Juthunge, but I think what you're saying is that it's a case-by-case basis. If a colonial with a German background is to be accepted by German nationals they need to meet certain requirements; learning, if not mastering the German language, be mainly of German heritage, learn the culture and In my own personal opinion, I feel like you need to know the bare minimum of that country's history.

If a colonial is unable to meet those requirements, then I don't feel like they have the right to make the claim of being more than which ever colonial country they're from.

You're correct. It's indeed a case-by-case basis for me and I'm aware that I'm generalising but in my most cases, even on this forum, it seems like Colonials who call themselves German, don't speak German, have a certain "mindset" which is distinguishable as non-German for a German(admittedly, this is very vague and hard to explain) because they were brought up in an entirely different culture and know very little about the history or customs of Germany.

Certainly, one could theoretically become German "again" once he mastered the language etc (and ideally moved to Germany as it would be very "unfair" towards the population of the country you live in, if you remained in their country) but I don't see why this right should be granted to people before they fulfil these criteria.


'educated in a German manner'
- Not sure what you mean. Thinks and acts like a German?

And, so they must be more than half to be German? Would you consider groups such as Flems, Dutch, Swiss, as racially part of the 'German' definition.
Yes to the first two questions.

It's not so much a "racial" or rather ancestral question in these cases but a question of culture. I consider Austrians(which, until very recently they did themselves) German as we shared pretty much all of our history.
The Dutch, the Flemings and even the Swiss Germans have separated too long ago for me to still consider them the same as Germans(nor do they themselves). But they're still the closest out of all the other Germanic ethnicities, of course.

Sawyer
Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012, 07:35 PM
You're correct. It's indeed a case-by-case basis for me and I'm aware that I'm generalising but in my most cases, even on this forum, it seems like Colonials who call themselves German, don't speak German, have a certain "mindset" which is distinguishable as non-German for a German(admittedly, this is very vague and hard to explain) because they were brought up in an entirely different culture and know very little about the history or customs of Germany.

Certainly, one could theoretically become German "again" once he mastered the language etc (and ideally moved to Germany as it would be very "unfair" towards the population of the country you live in, if you remained in their country) but I don't see why this right should be granted to people before they fulfil these criteria.

The people who have a great grandmother whose cousin new a guy who was German, and thus they are Germans, love that. The history stuff I totally understand, because these 'Germans' think Germany started in 1933 and ended in 1945

The internet is the worst place for this though. Because I have even seen a person with the English flag as their avatar on another forum, claiming 'we don't want the Eastern territories back from Poland'.

Do you often come across people in real life in this situation, or is it mostly to internet Hitlers?


It's not so much a "racial" or rather ancestral question in these cases but a question of culture. I consider Austrians(which, until very recently they did themselves) German as we shared pretty much all of our history.
The Dutch, the Flemings and even the Swiss Germans have separated too long ago for me to still consider them the same as Germans(nor do they themselves). But they're still the closest out of all the other Germanic ethnicities, of course.

Hmmm, could not these people have an easier time becoming 'German again', than Colonials?

Juthunge
Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012, 08:17 PM
The people who have a great grandmother whose cousin new a guy who was German, and thus they are Germans, love that. The history stuff I totally understand, because these 'Germans' think Germany started in 1933 and ended in 1945

The internet is the worst place for this though. Because I have even seen a person with the English flag as their avatar on another forum, claiming 'we don't want the Eastern territories back from Poland'.

Do you often come across people in real life in this situation, or is it mostly to internet Hitlers?

It's restricted to the internet for the most part, I don't have a lot of contact to Colonials outside of the internet and of the few I knew in real life none considered themselves German.



Hmmm, could not these people have an easier time becoming 'German again', than Colonials?Certainly. In these cases being only half German by ancestry would suffice for me personally, provided they fulfilled the other criteria I've mentioned.

Lagergeld
Tuesday, May 8th, 2012, 04:50 PM
What do you think of Colonials (Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc.) who identify as European? Specifically, I refer to those whose families have been in the New World for some generations, did not inherit any European traditions but who try to practice and pass down the language, culture and history of their distant ancestors and even wish to move to Europe. Europeans, do you accept these people as one of your own, and Colonials, how do they make you feel? Why and amongst who do you believe this trend occurs and is it detrimental to our country and the countries of others?

Should we identify as Martians?

Branches of my family have been in America since at least 1650, and that doesn't break the bonds of blood and kinship.

I don't know why some people are up in arms that we identify with our race and the mother continent that made us.

Lagergeld
Tuesday, May 8th, 2012, 04:57 PM
According to Reich citizen law of 1913 and the update of 1935 ("Nuremberg Laws") you are when your self description (ancestry) was accurate. ;)



Relevant :"Of German or related blood" (transl.:Aryan) means you don't need to be entirely German as long as you are Aryan, and "prove by your conduct that you are willing and fit faithfully to serve the German people and Reich."

German citizenship isn't what it used to be. In spite of that my mother and her family are expelled Volksdetusche from Yugoslavia, I do not qualify for Right of Return citizenship. If I wanted German citizenship, I'd have to get in line with the Turks.

vicorix
Tuesday, May 8th, 2012, 05:32 PM
americans all over are losing there traditions which stemmed from the older ones in europe. my home the southern part of the united states and the greatest state i might add South Carolina is rich in traditions that bring communities closer together than you see else where in the u.s. but going back i believe that for the rest of the country that is moving away from these thing in general people want something to belong to. there is no better place to start with than ancestry. i think as a colonialist that we should not be hendered by leaving our country of origin even if it was generations ago and should a person want to learn about who they are and return to the mother lands in which there ancestors are from then they should be able to do that. y'all must excuse my rambling it happens sometimes.;)

Todesritter
Tuesday, May 8th, 2012, 09:32 PM
In my experience in Europe (mostly Germany & UK) I preferred smaller less "cosmopolitan" (multiculti) cities & towns, and was more or less taken to be of the local ethnicity, even by folks I worked with unless we had a very in-depth discussion or they explicitly asked. <though the bouncers at my favorite nightclub on the Baltic coast of Germany eventually decided I was not German & probably Dutch or Luxembourgish :D >

However I made no pretense at being a native*, my primary focus was working hard and being a loyal Mitarbeiter so we could take a long lunch break from the college and help our colleague Andreas build his new house for his family aus Weißbeton by laying a few more slabs or so we could get to the beer at the end of the workday.
So perhaps the fact I was not attempting to advertise myself as native or more crazily as 'more native than a native' helped me just blend in or not to be otherwise noticeable.

The issue rarely came up.

(*in rural England I did need to alter my normal accent to be closer to the local norm in order to be understood, but it was not an effort to deceive, but rather not to confuse the bartender when ordering a drink



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhotic_and_non-rhotic_accents#Development_of_non-rhotic_accents
)