PDA

View Full Version : Which Of These Lost Or Highly Marginalized Germanic Groups Do You Find Most Interesting?



Pioneer Stock
Sunday, October 6th, 2019, 03:39 PM
Criteria:

European continent only. We're not talking about the diaspora around the world
Groups must have been displaced, assimilated or their influence greatly marginalized within the last century or two. So we're not talking about the Middle Ages or Migration era.
Only groups that existed in presently non-Germanic nations. So we're not talking about the Frisians assimilating into Dutch society


I'm only using the major or oldest ones. So if you want to make an argument for Zipser Germans or another small group choose other and give a description.

Víðálfr
Sunday, October 6th, 2019, 09:38 PM
I think this is an interesting question... :)

I find all Germanic groups interesting, it's hard to make just one choice... but I'll be subjective and choose the groups which make up my own heritage.

One of them is Buchenlanddeutsche (Bukowina Germans) (https://forums.skadi.net/threads/177554-Buchenlanddeutsche-(Bukowina-Germans)) and the other one is Daci (Dacians), probably also along with Carpi (Carpians) and Bastarni (Bastarnae).

Pliny the Elder named five races of Germans, including also Daci (Dacians) and Bastarni (Bastarnae):


There are five German races; the Vandili (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandals), parts of whom are the Burgundiones (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgundiones), the Varini (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varini), the Carini (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carini_(Germanic_tribe)), and the Gutones (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutones): the Ingævones, forming a second race, a portion of whom are the Cimbri, the Teutoni, and the tribes of the Chauci (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauci). The Istævones, who join up to the Rhine, and to whom the Cimbri [sic, repeated] belong, are the third race; while the Hermiones, forming a fourth, dwell in the interior, and include the Suevi, the Hermunduri (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermunduri), the Chatti (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatti), the Cherusci (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherusci), and the Peucini, who are also the Basternæ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastarnae), adjoining the Daci (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacians).

Daci, Carpi and Bastarni are considered Germanics by some, but not by all authors.

For example, in this map Daci (Dacians) in Dacia are treated as a distinct people from Germanics in Germania (it could have been for political reasons only):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Cesare_prima_Gallia_58_a.C.jpg

Here is another map where Daci (Dacians) and Carpi (Carpians) are treated as one distinct people, distinct from other Germanics:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Roman_Empire_125_de.svg

I think it's interesting how Dacians are treated in a distinct way, having their own category, separated from any other peoples around them.

There are also authors who say that the Getians and the Goths were the same people (in Latin their names are much more similar one to another), which would again make Dacians/ Geto-Dacians count as Germanics, while other authors say that they weren't the same people, that they were distinct tribes. Who knows?

There was also the Swedish author called Petrus de Dacia (or Petrus de Gotlandia), Dacia being also the name of the province in Northern Europe, Gotlandia (More about Petrus de Dacia here (https://sok.riksarkivet.se/sbl/mobil/Artikel/7203) and here (https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/petrus-de-dacia)). Zalmoxis, the first law giver of the Getae (https://forums.skadi.net/threads/184198-Zamolxis-the-first-lawgiver-of-the-Getae-by-Carolus-Lundius) by Carolus Lundius is an interesting Swedish source that considers Swedes as having their origins in Dacia, Danes and Dacians also being closely related, so according to which Dacians could be considered Germanics (or at least the people of origin for Germanics).

On the territory of present day Romania (old Dacia of Burebista) there are many archaeological findings that belong to Germanic culture, for example the ring of Pietroassa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Pietroassa), which

features a Gothic language (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_language) inscription in the Elder Futhark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elder_Futhark) runic alphabet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runic_alphabet).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Pietroassa#/media/File:Pietroassa_Inschrift.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Pietroassa_ring_1875.jpg

There are many objects with runic inscriptions that were found on the territory of today's Romania and which can be seen in museums in Romania...

Personally I didn't think of Dacians as being Germanics until recently, when finding out about the above mentioned things... More than half of my own heritage is Dacian, as far as I know, and I was reading about Dacian culture and spirituality since I was a teenager. I might dedicate a thread to the Dacians when I'll find enough time for that.

Juthunge
Sunday, October 6th, 2019, 10:08 PM
Pliny the Elder named five races of Germans, including also Daci (Dacians) and Bastarni (Bastarnae):

Daci, Carpi and Bastarni are considered Germanics by some, but not by all authors.
Literally no one considered Dacians or Carpi Germanic. Your own quote of Pliny clearly states that the Bastarnae (already a mixed tribe themselves, according to Tacitus "mixed marriages are giving [the Bastarnae] to some extent the vile appearance of the Sarmatians" and their name might actually be related to "bastards") are adjoining the Dacians, not that the Dacians are Germanic (most simply saw Dacians as Thracians). And even the Germanic identity of the Bastarnae stands on rather shaky grounds.


There are also authors who say that the Getians and the Goths were the same people (in Latin their names are much more similar one to another), which would again make Dacians/ Geto-Dacians count as Germanics, while other authors say that they weren't the same people, that they were distinct tribes. Who knows?

There was also the Swedish author called Petrus de Dacia (or Petrus de Gotlandia), Dacia being also the name of the province in Northern Europe, Gotlandia (More about Petrus de Dacia here (https://sok.riksarkivet.se/sbl/mobil/Artikel/7203) and here (https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/petrus-de-dacia)). Zalmoxis, the first law giver of the Getae (https://forums.skadi.net/threads/184198-Zamolxis-the-first-lawgiver-of-the-Getae-by-Carolus-Lundius) by Carolus Lundius is an interesting Swedish source that considers Swedes as having their origins in Dacia, Danes and Dacians also being closely related, so according to which Dacians could be considered Germanics (or at least the people of origin for Germanics).
So now we have arrived at using obscure medieval and early modern authors, that had the same mere etymological problems to distinguish between the name of the Goths and the Getae like the Late Romans, to construct a Germanic identity for Dacians?


On the territory of present day Romania (old Dacia of Burebista) there are many archaeological findings that belong to Germanic culture, for example the ring of Pietroassa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Pietroassa), which

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Pietroassa_ring_1875.jpg

There are many objects with runic inscriptions that were found on the territory of today's Romania and which can be seen in museums in Romania...
Yeah, that's because actual Germanic peoples at some point did live in southeastern territory during the Migration Age. That doesn't mean that the Dacians, Getae or Carpi were Germanic.

Víðálfr
Sunday, October 6th, 2019, 10:40 PM
Yeah, that's because actual Germanic peoples at some point did live in southeastern territory during the Migration Age.
The maps and archaeological findings I saw in the museums traced such findings as being older than the Migration Age.

Thanks for your opinions! I know not everyone agrees with those I mentioned above, and I think everyone is free to have their own opinions on such controversial issues. However, I do not want to say that "Romanians" could be considered Germanics, no way, I am mentioning this just to be sure I am properly understood! Even on the second map I mentioned there are Iranian peoples in Southern territory of present day Romania and also some present day Romanians from the south look very similar to whites in Middle East, including Iran. And these don't have anything to do with Germanics, obviously! Romania today is a very mixed country, with Romanians actually having very different backgrounds...


Now back to the topic, I also find all German ethnic groups that have lived and still live in Romania very interesting. I've been once to a museum exhibition about Germans in Romania and I was so surprised to discover so many diverse ethnic groups of Germans that have lived in Romania in the last few centuries (more recent migration). The exhibition was very well documented, with a lot of interesting maps, pictures and other materials, and I feel sorry now for not being inspired enough to have taken my camera with me in order to take some pictures of the exhibition. Lots of interesting information I didn't know of before that, including about Bukowina Germans.

Sigurdsson
Monday, October 7th, 2019, 04:20 AM
Transylvanian Saxons

Pioneer Stock
Monday, October 7th, 2019, 04:28 AM
For me I really like the ones with Medieval foundings(which is a lot). I'm partial towards Silesians because I'm 1/16 Silesian from Liegnitz. The Prussians always interested me with their Teutonic Knights heritage and the fact that they've produced intellectual giants like Copernicus and Kant.

Also I really like the Anglo-Irish for how influential they were. It seems like almost every significant Irish figure were actually Anglos. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_people

Þoreiðar
Monday, October 7th, 2019, 05:40 AM
If Dacians supposedly were Germanic, then there surely should be some linguistic remnants of their language showing a connection to Proto-Germanic languages. Here's a list of 160 words in modern Romanian which are thought to possibly have Dacian origins: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Romanian_words_of_possible_Dacia n_origin

I can't see much of a similarity to Germanic languages. Their cognates are found in either Latin, Albanian, Greek, or Slavic. The only exception being 'gard' (fence), which does have Germanic cognates (in Old Norse and Gothic), as well as Old Slavic languages.

So then the possible Dacian connection to Germanics rests on some ancient authors mentioning the Dacians in the same sentence as some Germanic tribes, and naming them ('Getians') in a fashion similar to 'Goths', as well as a ring with runic inscriptions in Gothic found in Romania (coincidentally an area which the Goths were migrating through at the same point in time)? Not very convincing.

Bleyer
Monday, October 7th, 2019, 11:24 AM
Not to mention that the Daci didn't speak a Germanic language like Germanic tribes did, and remember that Germanics were an ethno-linguistic group. Runes were used by non-Germanic peoples as well (for example, Turkic runes) and finding them in a certain area or a population using them doesn't necessarily mean that they are predominantly Germanic. Cyrillic script was used in Romania at some point, and yet Romanians aren't counted as Slavs. More than likely though, the ancient Germanic influence in Romania stems from the Goths, another Germanic tribe who was present in the area. Also, Pliny the Elder did not actually claim that the Daci were Germanic, he simply mentioned them as a neighboring tribe.

Sure, history is not an exact science but we still can make approximations that are backed up by a majority of evidence. There is not an overwhelming number of historical, archeological, linguistic or genetic evidence to suggest that the Daci were Germanic and if Romanians are the predominant descendants of the Daci, they would cluster together with other populations that descend from Germanic tribes. Particularly with the Swedes and the Danes, if they really originated in Dacia. And yet this isn't the case. We do have genetic evidence that Germanics originated in the same place, and Scandinavians do cluster together, but Romanians are not even closely related on a genetic level. How do you explain this? If they all originated in the same place, genetic tests would surely support the theory.

Anyway, from the list, I find the Transylvanian Saxons the most interesting group from a cultural point of view. However, if the emphasis is on marginalized, I would say the Sudetanlanders.

Sól
Monday, October 7th, 2019, 11:36 AM
However, I do not want to say that "Romanians" could be considered Germanics, no way, I am mentioning this just to be sure I am properly understood! Even on the second map I mentioned there are Iranian peoples in Southern territory of present day Romania and also some present day Romanians from the south look very similar to whites in Middle East, including Iran. And these don't have anything to do with Germanics, obviously! Romania today is a very mixed country, with Romanians actually having very different backgrounds...
Just curious, but if Romanians are a mixed people of different backgrounds as you say, then how do you estimate which Romanians are and which aren't Germanic? Aren't you yourself Romanian, yet you count yourself as Germanic? On what basis, how do you get to that conclusion? Have you taken a genetic test which revealed it, or do you have any genetic data which estimates how much % of Romanians could be Germanic? Or do you base it on your looks? Because I don't think I need to tell you that not everyone who looks Nordic is Germanic, or viceversa. While Scandinavians are generally Nordic, there are darker Germanics in Central Europe and Nordic people in Russia who aren't Germanic.

Elizabeth
Monday, October 7th, 2019, 01:12 PM
I voted for Ulster Scots because some of my ancestors were Ulster Scots.

Alice
Monday, October 7th, 2019, 05:18 PM
Danube Swabians, Transylvanian Saxons and Volga Germans are of particular interest to me.

I wasn't aware that Estonians were considered Germanic, but I've noticed that many Estonians have German-sounding surnames.

Þoreiðar
Monday, October 7th, 2019, 05:29 PM
I wasn't aware that Estonians were considered Germanic, but I've noticed that many Estonians have German-sounding surnames.I suppose it's a reference to the ethnic Swedes who settled in Estonia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_Swedes

Estonians proper are definitely not Germanic.

Finnish Swede
Monday, October 7th, 2019, 06:31 PM
I wasn't aware that Estonians were considered Germanic, but I've noticed that many Estonians have German-sounding surnames.

I have been Estonia few times ... Tallinn, Pärnu, Saarenmaa ... and never heard Swedish.

Alice
Monday, October 7th, 2019, 08:08 PM
I have been Estonia few times ... Tallinn, Pärnu, Saarenmaa ... and never heard Swedish.

Yes, I've been to Estonia (several times), too, and have never heard Swedish spoken anywhere. Estonian and Russian, sure, but never Swedish.

Finnish Swede
Monday, October 7th, 2019, 08:21 PM
:aland::finnsw:
https://i.ibb.co/PCcPJdR/land-kopio.jpg
:aland::finnsw:

Pioneer Stock
Monday, October 7th, 2019, 09:03 PM
I have been Estonia few times ... Tallinn, Pärnu, Saarenmaa ... and never heard Swedish.

I was referring to the Estonian Swedes that are basically gone now as Þoreiðar (https://forums.skadi.net/members/35601-%C3%9Eorei%C3%B0ar) pointed out

Finnish Swede
Tuesday, October 8th, 2019, 05:50 AM
I was referring to the Estonian Swedes that are basically gone now as Þoreiðar (https://forums.skadi.net/members/35601-%C3%9Eorei%C3%B0ar) pointed out

Yes, if there were still any left in Baltic states at 1940's .... then Stalin shipped the last ones to different destinations of huge Siberia. Whole Livonians (and their language) basically disappeared at same time. Anyway I think Germanics numbers have been pretty small in Baltic states from the beginning? 3 Baltic states were not long time under Sweden's crown (opposite to Finland) and their populations are small .... for example Estonia (today) is just 1,1 million ... which even incl. clear Russian minority via Sovjet's era.

Today Estonians have new Gustav II Aldof's statue in Tartu city.
https://static2.visitestonia.com/images/9952/gustav-adolf_.jpeg

No idea have they had those earlier (or name of places, name of streets etc.), and how much. If yes, then Russians probably have removed/changed those (1940-1990).

PS: I correct my earlier post; I have talked Swedish with one Estonian in Tallinn, but that woman lived in Stockholm.

Víðálfr
Wednesday, October 23rd, 2019, 10:52 PM
If Dacians supposedly were Germanic, then there surely should be some linguistic remnants of their language showing a connection to Proto-Germanic languages.
[...]
I can't see much of a similarity to Germanic languages. Their cognates are found in either Latin, Albanian, Greek, or Slavic. The only exception being 'gard' (fence), which does have Germanic cognates (in Old Norse and Gothic), as well as Old Slavic languages.
Gard and gård are false friends, they have different meaning... but well, they still belong to the same category of things... Which is the cognate in Old Norse and Gothic? I don't know... tell me! Anyway, I knew about that list which you found on Wikipedia, but I do not trust it. Here is why (some facts about the old Dacian/Getian language, and about Romanian language in general, among other things):


John Mandis: “The oldest discoveries of some writing symbols were made at Turdaș and Tărtăria.”

Ekström Par Olof: “The Rumanian language is a key-language that influenced, for the most part, all European languages.”

University of Cambridge: “In the 4th millennium B.C., the Getic Carpathian space was the only space inhabited in Europe; The Carpathian, Getic or Wallachian space has represented the OFFICINA GENTIUM in antiquity, it has fueled with people and civilization, India, Persia, Greece, Italy, Germany, France and the so called Slavic space; The Vedas, the oldest literary monuments of humanity were created in the center of Europe.”

University of Cambridge (The Cambridge History of India, 1922): “The primary phase of the Vedic culture began in the Carpathians, most likely in Haar-Deal (Ardeal).”

Jakob Grimm (The History of the German Language, 1785-1863): “The Dacian nomenclature for plants, kept by Dioscoride (Greek medic from the period of emperors Claudius and Nero) can be found in the background of the German language.”

Miceal Ledwith (Ex-Counselor for Pope John Paul the 2nd): “The Rumanian language is grouped in the category of Latin languages as well, but during my lifetime, through my work, I came to understand that it is not that Rumanian is a Latin language, but rather that Old Rumanian is the language out of which Latin came. All European languages came from the Old Rumanian. No culture of the world has spoken the real history of the world, ever. Rumanian is wrongly considered a Latin language. It should be the other way around, Latin, Italian, Spanish are Rumanian languages. I am sure this fact will be acknowledged very soon.”

Harald Haarman, German savant: “The oldest writing in the world is that of Tărtăria – Romania. The Danubian Civilization is the first great civilization in history, preceding by thousands of years the Sumerian civilization.”

Mark Pagel, professor on Evolutionary Biology, Reading University of London: “Over 10.000 years ago, in the Carpathian region there lived a nation that spoke an unique language, precursor to Latin and Sanskrit.”

Clémence Royer (The Bulletin of the Anthropological Society, Paris, 1879): “The Celts, Germans and Latins come from Eastern Europe and the traditions of the historic Aryans of Asia shows them as coming from the Occident. We have to search for the common cradle at the lower Danube, in this Pelasgian Thrace, that its language we ignore.”

Prof. Fabio Scialpi: “I am intrigued by the presence on the territory of Rumania, of a number of many toponyms of Sanskrit resonance.”

Bonaventura Vulcannius of Bruges, 1597: “The Getes had their own alphabet long before the Latin one was born. The Getes sang, using the flute, the deeds of their heroes, composing songs even before the foundation of Rome, that of which Cato says – the Romans started to do much later.”

V. Titov, Russian archaeologist: “At Tărtăria emerged the oldest writing of humanity.”

Pope Nicholas the 1st to Michael the 2nd of Byzantium: “The Greeks name the Latin language, the language spoken by the Scythians.”

Courtenay Baoudin: “In Slavonic can be found many Rumanian words, especially in the language used by the Church.”

Source (https://vieilleeurope.wordpress.com/2015/12/19/getes-the-story-to-be-told-quotes/)In the light of these facts, that list of "Dacian words" makes no more sense for me. Also, in the dictionaries of the Romanian language, most words are considered borrowed from lots of other languages, which makes no sense. It's the other way around, actually... They need to reconsider the "official" version about the Romanian language, including its history...

And I'm quoting this one more time:


Jakob Grimm (The History of the German Language, 1785-1863): “The Dacian nomenclature for plants, kept by Dioscoride (Greek medic from the period of emperors Claudius and Nero) can be found in the background of the German language.”


I don't like to speak or answer in quotes, but this time it was and is necessary, otherwise I'll keep being accused of claiming that kind of things myself, like if I invented it myself, without any evidence...



Sure, history is not an exact science but we still can make approximations that are backed up by a majority of evidence. There is not an overwhelming number of historical, archeological, linguistic or genetic evidence to suggest that the Daci were Germanic
Well, there is overwhelming evidence... which some are deliberately ignoring. I can't tell about genetic evidence at this point, but there is overwhelming historical and archaeological evidence... about linguistics they still need to work more on it, but there is also overwhelming evidence that the official version about what Romanian language is is totally wrong...

First of all, Daci/Dacians and Getes/Getians are the same people (hopefully this fact is unanimously accepted).
I will just quote some authors:


Heinrich PANTALEONIS, The book of the heroes of the German nation:

Dacus, also called Danus, suitor of Tuiscon, the central deity of the old Germans, the Son of the Sky and Earth, the creator of humans, characterized by special seriousness and skills. Tuiscon gave him the land around Istru, to the North until Sarmatia and to the South until the Danube. After that he leaded a great people of the Dacians to the German sea (Baltica) and to the peoples from the North and to the islands, and according to some opinions he put them near the Danes. This country is still governed today by the King of Denmark, great among the German dukes. The old inhabitants of Denmark were called Cimbri or Cimerians. It was established that the country they lived in firstly was called, from Dacus, Dacia, and it is nowadays the Great Walachia, from which a part is now called Transylvania or Siebenbürgen.

Other heroes of the German nation were (the spelling of names according to the quoted volume): Zamolxis, Dromigethes, Boerobist, Deceneu, Comosicus, Cotiso, Scorilo, Dorpaneus and Decebal.

[all of these are names of great Geto-Dacian personalities, either sages or priests or political leaders]


Robert L. REYNOLDS, professor at University of Wisconsin (USA):
In his own later work on the primitive Germanic tribes... he had come across references again and again to the Getae, designated in the Latin sources as the most prominent of all Germanic nations.


In Thesaurus POETICUS linguae latinae of L. QUICHERAT, 1899 edition, p. 290, Dacus, I, m; Daci, ōrum, pl. [some Greek letters hard to reproduce with a normal keyboard]. Dāces, peuple de Germanie/ Dacians, people from Germany.


However, besides those who are saying that Getes/Dacians were Germanics, some are saying that Germanics came from Getes/Dacians:

Laurentius TOPPELTINUS (1641-1670), Saxon historian from Transylvania, publishes, in 1667, at Lugduni (today Lyon, France), Origines et occasus Transsylvanorum /The beginnings and dawn of the Transylvanians. In chapter III, § III, p. 25, he writes:

That according to others, all the Germans, even the Saxons themselves, are descendents of the Dacians or Transylvanians: the German author Petrus Bertius, in Commentaries regarding the German realities, Book I, c.2, Germans, they say, the noblest of all European peoples, have their origins from the Dacians.


Jane Akomb LEAKE: The Getes were looked upon as the founding nation of all Germanic people.

More in this thread: The Geto-Dacian Origin Of The Germanics and The Geto-Dacians As Germanics (https://forums.skadi.net/threads/203836-The-Geto-Dacian-Origin-Of-The-Germanics-and-The-Geto-Dacians-As-Germanics)



Just curious, but if Romanians are a mixed people of different backgrounds as you say, then how do you estimate which Romanians are and which aren't Germanic? (...) Because I don't think I need to tell you that not everyone who looks Nordic is Germanic, or viceversa. While Scandinavians are generally Nordic, there are darker Germanics in Central Europe and Nordic people in Russia who aren't Germanic.
Well, there are obviously people of all European subraces in Romania, including Nordics. It's not easy to tell, of course. I guess you should take case by case each person and study their genealogy, besides doing racial classification. This would be the traditional way.
Romania also had lots of recent Germanic influence, I mean for example German influence. And some people just mixed...

And, sorry, but I'm not going to answer publicly too personal questions. I don't think this place should be about publicly discussing private persons without their consent. All that I want to admit publicly is that I have enough German ancestry to be German according to the official standards, so even without considering the "controversial" Geto-Dacian part as Germanic or not, adding the culture part, I consider that I am fully entitled to consider myself Germanic. End of story. If you'd like to know more things about me, just write me in private, please, not in public, thanks! ;)

Bärin
Wednesday, October 30th, 2019, 03:47 AM
And, sorry, but I'm not going to answer publicly too personal questions. I don't think this place should be about publicly discussing private persons without their consent.
Considering that this is a forum for people of Germanic heritage, ethnic background is relevant and not something optional, that you can hide or be ambiguous about and tell people in private if or when you feel like it. In fact, it's a required field: New Members, Ethnicity & Ancestry (https://forums.skadi.net/threads/130148-New-Members-Ethnicity-amp-Ancestry)


All that I want to admit publicly is that I have enough German ancestry to be German according to the official standards, so even without considering the "controversial" Geto-Dacian part as Germanic or not, adding the culture part, I consider that I am fully entitled to consider myself Germanic. End of story. If you'd like to know more things about me, just write me in private, please, not in public, thanks! ;)
What "official" standards? Romanian? Generally, "official standards" are lax if not laughable. Even the German "right of return" has been abused. They're known to have been used by foreigners with very little German ancestry (Poles, Russians with a German grandparent or great-grandparent) who wanted to get to Germany for economic reasons and the like. In fact, those laws were so lax that some of them even brought their fully Polish, Russian etc. families with them. Today it's not difficult to get your hands on a piece of paper to make you an "official" of another country, but that doesn't mean that everyone who has it is automatically a part of that nation. Nation is about blood ties. You can't join it at your own will. You're either part of it by birth and blood, or you aren't. That you come with this "official standards" cop out on a forum that is based on meta-ethnicity of all things makes it even more ridiculous.

If you're so uncomfortable with revealing your real, full ethnic background, then maybe you should join a forum that doesn't care about such things.

Being Germanic is not something you suddenly decide to be one day, after reading some theories written by obscure, dubious people. You either are or you aren't. Someone who is less than half Germanic by ancestry isn't entitled to call themselves Germanic. And someone who is negligibly Germanic (along the lines or 1/8, 1/16 and the like) has no right to claim full Germanicness. :thumbdown If someone who isn't Germanic is going to try to claim that role, you can be sure that they are going to be called out!

Sigurd
Thursday, October 31st, 2019, 02:04 PM
Since when exactly are South Tyroleans "lost, assimilated or highly marginalised"? Other than the fact they're still caught in an unforgiving Italian state some hundred years later, they've managed to stay a majority in their region, have successfully negotiated far-reaching autonomy, keep their customs alive and thus perhaps compare more to Hungarian speakers in Siebenbürgen than to let's say Volga Germans. ;)