PDA

View Full Version : Germanic vs. Nordic?



Nixie
Thursday, August 10th, 2006, 07:24 AM
Maybe I've been hopelessly confused my whole life, but I have always distinguished between Germanic and Nordic. They have always been two separate things in my view. I would consider Nordic to be either a subset of Germanic or possibly even an entirely different cultural/ethnic group. But it seems since I've come to this forum that a lot of people here use these terms interchangeably. Does everyone here consider Nordic and Germanic synonymous? For those who do, why?

Ragnar Thorsson
Thursday, August 10th, 2006, 02:57 PM
I consider Nordic a part of Germanic. Those who live in scandinavia aren't really that different from those who live on the western continental.

Atleast I consider myself as a Nordic Dutch Man so I guess there is no difference. Just the place where we live.

Allenson
Thursday, August 10th, 2006, 03:45 PM
Maybe I've been hopelessly confused my whole life, but I have always distinguished between Germanic and Nordic. They have always been two separate things in my view. I would consider Nordic to be either a subset of Germanic or possibly even an entirely different cultural/ethnic group. But it seems since I've come to this forum that a lot of people here use these terms interchangeably. Does everyone here consider Nordic and Germanic synonymous? For those who do, why?


Well, I guess it depends on what category we are discussing....

Culture? Language? Anthropological races and subraces?


In my humble opinon, I would say that culturally speaking, the Nordic or Scandinavian is indeed a subset of the greater Germanic whole and the same holds true for linguistics: Danish, Faroese, Icelandic, Norwegian & Swedish are classified as belonging in the North Germanic branch of the greater Germanic branch of the Indo-European tree (http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/language.html).

If we are speaking of racial anthropology than things are a little different. Nordic is a common term used for a specific human phenotype--that seems to have its highest concentration in the Scandinavian counties--but by no means is it confined to. I've never seen a human taxonomy that refers to a Germanic subrace--although there are certainly subtypes that are more common amongst peoples belonging to the Germanic branch of humanity (linguistically & culturally speaking). By my reckoning, Germanic is better off left as a cultural and linguistic designation and not a racial one. Nordic on the other hand can be used, or so it seems, to designate a subracial type, a broad cultural area and perhaps as synonymous with the North Germanic branch of the Indo-European language tree.....

I'm sure there will be those who wish to correct any errors I may have put forth. ;)

Janus
Thursday, August 10th, 2006, 03:56 PM
To say it short and simple. They are not the same. Germanic is a cultural (and linguistic) term whereas nordic is an anthropological term but the vast majority of the nordic people was Germanic whereas a lot of the Germanics weren't nordic. Nordics are together with dalofaelids, alpinids and other subraces a part of the Germanic whole.

Theudiskaz
Thursday, August 10th, 2006, 04:04 PM
Germanic is a cultural (and linguistic) term whereas nordic is an anthropological term but the vast majority of the nordic people was Germanic whereas a lot of the Germanics weren't nordic.
That depends on what time period you are referring to. Before the Germanic tribes settled among and interbred with Alpinids and Mediterranids etc during the Migration Period, or Voelkerwanderung, the Germanic Peoples were essentially Nordid/Cromagnid(Dalo-Faelid and Bruenn for the most part), with Nordid being dominant. The further back you go in time, the more racially Nordid the Germanic peoples are.

Jäger
Thursday, August 10th, 2006, 04:16 PM
Since I believe that the ability to create culture is part of ones race, I can't but believe that Nordic and Germanic are closely related to each other.

However, both words have different meaning, as already explained, and of course not all germanics are nordics, and not all nordics are germanics, and should not be used interchangeably.

Weltfaschist
Thursday, August 10th, 2006, 04:21 PM
Germanic vs. Nordic? Are you all crazy? Never mind! If we dont stand together - europe is dead!!!
Look at France, Spain, England, Sweden, Greece, Germany.....,

We are only a few millions of European people against billions of non-whites and they all want our EUROPE.

Allenson
Thursday, August 10th, 2006, 04:27 PM
Germanic vs. Nordic? Are you all crazy? Never mind! If we dont stand together - europe is dead!!!
Look at France, Spain, England, Sweden, Greece, Germany.....,

We are only a few millions of European people against billions of non-whites and they all want our EUROPE.


I don't think she was addressing some "VS." sort of thing--just looking for a little clarification on common terminology.

Nixie
Thursday, August 10th, 2006, 08:05 PM
To say it short and simple. They are not the same. Germanic is a cultural (and linguistic) term whereas nordic is an anthropological term but the vast majority of the nordic people was Germanic whereas a lot of the Germanics weren't nordic. Nordics are together with dalofaelids, alpinids and other subraces a part of the Germanic whole.

Okay, that's what I thought, too, but it really seems like a lot of people here only consider Nordics to be the "true" Germanics and the rest of us to be somehow substandard. However, as you say, Germanic is a cultural category encompassing several different subraces and it has for quite some time now. So it was just confusing me as to how some people were using the terms. For instance, in this (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=45865) thread, Nordicness seems to be used as a determiner of Germanicness; the underlying assumption seems to be that Norwegians are the standard of Germanicness by which all others should be measured. However, I would say rather that Norwegians are a standard not of Germanicness but of Nordicness, which we have already established is NOT the same thing. The thread, however, seems to be equating Nordic with Germanic, something that has not been true for nearly two millennia now, at least.
It seems that the attitude of trying to make "who's Germanic" as exclusive as possible is needlessly divisive and elitist when, as another member said, we should be focussing on unity and solidarity - we are all Northern European, and that's pretty much the ancient definition of "Germanic". Why mess with it?

Witukind
Thursday, August 10th, 2006, 08:20 PM
However, I would say rather that Norwegians are a standard not of Germanicness but of Nordicness

But the Norwegians are Germanic! Their language and culture is Germanic.

Nixie
Thursday, August 10th, 2006, 08:57 PM
But the Norwegians are Germanic! Their language and culture is Germanic.

Yes, I understand that. But they are not the "best" Germanics, or the "epitome" of Germanicness. Germanicness encompasses multiple subraces, none of which should be considered better than the others. Otherwise what you are measuring is not Germanicness at all, but Nordicness. See what I mean?

Witukind
Thursday, August 10th, 2006, 09:56 PM
Yes, I understand that. But they are not the "best" Germanics, or the "epitome" of Germanicness. Germanicness encompasses multiple subraces, none of which should be considered better than the others. Otherwise what you are measuring is not Germanicness at all, but Nordicness. See what I mean?

No, I'm not sure I understand your point. There's no question of who is "best" or who is the "epitome" of Germanicness. Their language and culture just happens to be Germanic, there's nothing more to it than that. A Norwegian from Telemark and a Swiss from Bern share a common cultural/linguistic heritage which is labeled Germanic. A nordic Russian or Irishman is not Germanic for example. It's well known that Indo-Europeans were mostly Nordics but they divided into several cultural/linguistic branches one of which is called Germanic. These branches then "absorbed" local populations in the areas they settled in (I'm over simplifying it for the sake of the idea) which is why the racial make-up varies.

oneeyeisbetter
Thursday, August 10th, 2006, 11:22 PM
The Nordic is the most advanced and unmixed of humans. Most are in or neighboring a "germanic speaking area" therefore the idea that the nordic is the original German isnt a crazy idea. The GOAL is to bring Germanic culture to every drop of nordic blood that still exists. ;)

Pro-Alpine
Thursday, August 10th, 2006, 11:29 PM
The modern day useage of "Nordic" appears to reffer to the North-Germanic countries/languages/peoples. It is occasionally used in it's subracial sense.

Eberhardt
Friday, August 11th, 2006, 04:36 AM
The modern day useage of "Nordic" appears to reffer to the North-Germanic countries/languages/peoples. It is occasionally used in it's subracial sense.
Yes, Nord/Nordic describes Northern European in a wider sense, since Irish, for example, can fit into the category of Nordic. Though many Irish do not fit in the subrace of "Nordid". Germanic are those of the purer Germanic language branch, who share a similar culture. Irish now have a Germanic language and have been influenced by Germanic culture, but their former language was Gaelige, which is far removed from the Germanic branch, so they do not fit in.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Friday, August 11th, 2006, 07:00 AM
pSince I believe that the ability to create culture is art of ones race, I can't but believe that Nordic and Germanic are closely related to each other.

However, both words have different meaning, as already explained, and of course not all germanics are nordics, and not all nordics are germanics, and should not be used interchangeably.


Your first sentence contains an interesting idea. If you go to a place where Mexicans live, it looks like Mexico. If you go to a place where blacks live, it looks just like pictures of Africa. If you go to a place where white Americans live, it looks more like pictures of England or Europe than it does anything else. I have often wondered about this.

Nixie
Friday, August 11th, 2006, 03:19 PM
The Nordic is the most advanced and unmixed of humans. Most are in or neighboring a "germanic speaking area" therefore the idea that the nordic is the original German isnt a crazy idea. The GOAL is to bring Germanic culture to every drop of nordic blood that still exists. ;)

Well, I think that's a load of crap, personally. In fact, according to many sources, the Basque people are the oldest and purest example of the European peoples, if you're going by genetics.

This is a forum for all Germanic peoples, not just Nordics; posts like this make an exceedingly unwelcoming environment for us non-Nordic peasants.

Nixie
Friday, August 11th, 2006, 03:26 PM
No, I'm not sure I understand your point. There's no question of who is "best" or who is the "epitome" of Germanicness. Their language and culture just happens to be Germanic, there's nothing more to it than that. A Norwegian from Telemark and a Swiss from Bern share a common cultural/linguistic heritage which is labeled Germanic. A nordic Russian or Irishman is not Germanic for example. It's well known that Indo-Europeans were mostly Nordics but they divided into several cultural/linguistic branches one of which is called Germanic. These branches then "absorbed" local populations in the areas they settled in (I'm over simplifying it for the sake of the idea) which is why the racial make-up varies.

You're not saying anything I disagree with. I agree there's no question of who's best or the epitome of Germanicness. However, as you can see from at least one other post in this thread, there are those on this forum who do seem to think there is a hierarchy of Germanics, and Nordics are at the top, representing the "true" expression of Germanicness. It is this I find objectionable. Regardless of what most Germanic peoples looked like thousands of years ago, we are now a varied cultural group and it is within that framework that we must now evolve - without creating divisive and dehumanizing concepts like "superior" and "inferior" Germanics. We are all Germanics, by accident of birth, no more, no less, so why the need to exalt one subgroup and push others down?

Theudiskaz
Friday, August 11th, 2006, 03:36 PM
I agree there's no question of who's best or the epitome of Germanicness. However, as you can see from at least one other post in this thread, there are those on this forum who do seem to think there is a hierarchy of Germanics, and Nordics are at the top, representing the "true" expression of Germanicness. It is this I find objectionable.
Once again, when you say "Nordics", are you referring to racially Nordid people, or to anyone living in Scandinavia? Not all Scandinavians are Nordid. As insensitive as it sounds, a racially Nordid German or Icelander is far more Germanic than an Anglo-Keltic/Maori American can ever be!!;)

Nixie
Friday, August 11th, 2006, 03:45 PM
Once again, when you say "Nordics", are you referring to racially Nordid people, or to anyone living in Scandinavia? Not all Scandinavians are Nordid. As insensitive as it sounds, a racially Nordid German or Icelander is far more Germanic than an Anglo-Keltic/Maori American can ever be!!;)

Yes, of course. I suppose the question, then, becomes whether this is a forum for Racial Germanics or Cultural Germanics, and is there a hierarchy between them? If so, I doubt many non-Nordic Germanics will be willing to subject themselves to sub-status here.

P.S. I'm not American, I just have to live here because my husband is.

Lissu
Friday, August 11th, 2006, 04:10 PM
Maybe I've been hopelessly confused my whole life, but I have always distinguished between Germanic and Nordic. They have always been two separate things in my view. I would consider Nordic to be either a subset of Germanic or possibly even an entirely different cultural/ethnic group. But it seems since I've come to this forum that a lot of people here use these terms interchangeably. Does everyone here consider Nordic and Germanic synonymous? For those who do, why?I have never had problems to distiguish these 2 terms. I'm not Germanic, but I'm Nordic for sure, as I live in Nordic culture.

Nordic is a cultural term, Germanic is both cultural and linguistic term. These should not be confused with anthropological terms such as Nordid.

Theudiskaz
Friday, August 11th, 2006, 04:55 PM
Yes, of course. I suppose the question, then, becomes whether this is a forum for Racial Germanics or Cultural Germanics, and is there a hierarchy between them? If so, I doubt many non-Nordic Germanics will be willing to subject themselves to sub-status here. Well, I am not a moderator or official here at Skadi, so my opinions on this issue might not be "politically correct". But here's my two cents:

During the height of European Nationalism, after the Napoleonic era and in the early 20th century, Germany and other European countries sought to understand the essence of Germandom, or Englishness etc by way of studying ancient mythology, folk art and culture, History, folklore, philology, and race-science. The nationalists of this era thought that language, culture, race, and historical heritage were essential and inseperable components of nationhood. I happen to agree with them.

I also agree with their philosophy that the essence of a nation is to be found in its past, that is to say, its origins. There is no official racial hierarchy at Skadi. But as you have probably noticed, Skadi's mission is "Germanic cultural, racial, and spiritual preservation." Now if this has any meaning whatsoever, it stands to reason that Germanic racial preservation should be concerned primarily with the racial elements that typify Teutondom, that is the Nordid and Nordid/Cromagnid subraces. The first people that can be identified as Germanic were essentially Nordid, as I have said before.To deny the inalienable link between Teutondom and racial "Nordidness" is a grave mistake. The fact that some people undervalue race (or subrace if you like) as a necessary ingredient of nationhood (or ethnicity) is a form of the racial nihilism which has gotten Germanics into this great predicament which they now find themselves in. Remember Nationalism, then and now has never been about "tolerance" and "open-mindedness".:|

Race is no less important to Germanicness than language, culture and, heritage!

Nixie
Friday, August 11th, 2006, 05:21 PM
Well, I am not a moderator or official here at Skadi, so my opinions on this issue might not be "politically correct". But here's my two cents:

During the height of European Nationalism, after the Napoleonic era and in the early 20th century, Germany and other European countries sought to understand the essence of Germandom, or Englishness etc by way of studying ancient mythology, folk art and culture, History, folklore, philology, and race-science. The nationalists of this era thought that language, culture, race, and historical heritage were essential and inseperable components of nationhood. I happen to agree with them.

I also agree with their philosophy that the essence of a nation is to be found in its past, that is to say, its origins. There is no official racial hierarchy at Skadi. But as you have probably noticed, Skadi's mission is "Germanic cultural, racial, and spiritual preservation." Now if this has any meaning whatsoever, it stands to reason that Germanic racial preservation should be concerned primarily with the racial elements that typify Teutondom, that is the Nordid and Nordid/Cromagnon subraces. The first people that can be identified as Germanic were essentially Nordid, as I have said before.To deny the inalienable link between Teutondom and racial "Nordidness" is a grave mistake. The fact that some people undervalue race (or subrace if you like) as a necessary ingredient of nationhood (or ethnicity) is a form of the racial nihilism which has gotten Germanics into this great predicament which they now find themselves in. Remember Nationalism, then and now has never been about "tolerance" and "open-mindedness".:|

Race is no less important to Germanicness than language, culture and, heritage!

I absolutely understand where you're coming from here, and I do think race and subrace are important in the preservation of culture. But I wasn't aware Skadi was explicitly a Nationalist forum?
I guess I just thought, considering the number of forums on Skadi devoted to various sub-races and groups, that Skadi's definition of "Germanic" was much broader than that of a lot of members, i.e. it has more of a "Northern European" meaning - tending to encompass even marginal white tribal/subracial affiliations in order to unify and further the perpetuation of Germanic culture, rather than clearly demarcating between them in order to "exclusify". In other words, as long as your ancestry is Northern European, it seems more inclusive than exclusive.
I guess there is just a variety of opinions on this subject. I would probably get as many interpretations as there are members! :)

One other thing: since Germanicness is currently a cultural trait shared by many non-Nordic peoples, it would appear that there is no one Germanic racial type at this time. Therefore, Germanic (a cultural term) racial preservation would imply maintaining the current state of the multiple Germanic racial types as they are. Trying to return to a purely Nordic racial type who alone possess Germanic culture (making the terms once again synonymous, as they were thousands of years ago) would really be termed racial restoration and it seems such a feat would involve vast amounts of genocide, of people such as myself. Freaky.

Theudiskaz
Friday, August 11th, 2006, 05:37 PM
One other thing: since Germanicness is currently a cultural trait shared by many non-Nordic peoples, it would appear that there is no one Germanic racial type at this time. Therefore, Germanic (a cultural term) racial preservation would imply maintaining the current state of the multiple Germanic racial types as they are. Trying to return to a purely Nordic racial type who alone possess Germanic culture (making the terms once again synonymous, as they were thousands of years ago) would really be termed racial restoration and it seems such a feat would involve vast amounts of genocide, of people such as myself. Freaky.
I do not advocate genocide of Non-Nordids within or without Germanic countries. However I think that eugenics in some form or another must be promoted to continue the propogation of Germandom's biological basis, the Nordid/Cromagnid subraces indigenous to Germania.

Witukind
Friday, August 11th, 2006, 08:44 PM
You're not saying anything I disagree with. I agree there's no question of who's best or the epitome of Germanicness. However, as you can see from at least one other post in this thread, there are those on this forum who do seem to think there is a hierarchy of Germanics, and Nordics are at the top, representing the "true" expression of Germanicness.

Well I'm not Nordic (except my beard :D), but I would agree that the true expression of Germanicness (or Indo-European-ness) is represented by Nordics. However that doesn't mean that I feel "inferior" to Nordics, I know
some typical Nordics to which I could lend a few IQ points :D For me it's an ideal.



It is this I find objectionable. Regardless of what most Germanic peoples looked like thousands of years ago, we are now a varied cultural group and it is within that framework that we must now evolve - without creating divisive and dehumanizing concepts like "superior" and "inferior" Germanics. We are all Germanics, by accident of birth, no more, no less, so why the need to exalt one subgroup and push others down?

There's no such thing as an accident of birth, you are the product of your
ancestors, and there's nothing accidental about that. That's about the same thing as saying "what if YOU were born African?". To which I always reply: "Then it wouldn't/couldn't be ME".

Witukind
Friday, August 11th, 2006, 08:46 PM
I have never had problems to distiguish these 2 terms. I'm not Germanic, but I'm Nordic for sure, as I live in Nordic culture.

Nordic is a cultural term, Germanic is both cultural and linguistic term. These should not be confused with anthropological terms such as Nordid.

Nevermind that most Finns are actually Swedes that speak a non-Germanic language.

Witukind
Friday, August 11th, 2006, 08:51 PM
Trying to return to a purely Nordic racial type who alone possess Germanic culture (making the terms once again synonymous, as they were thousands of years ago) would really be termed racial restoration and it seems such a feat would involve vast amounts of genocide, of people such as myself. Freaky.

Why do you think that genocide is the only solution? If you study genetics a bit you'd see that there are other ways.

Lissu
Friday, August 11th, 2006, 09:10 PM
Nevermind that most Finns are actually Swedes that speak a non-Germanic language.LOL! Where have you gotten that into your mind?

Witukind
Friday, August 11th, 2006, 10:14 PM
LOL! Where have you gotten that into your mind?

It's just obvious, because Finnish is a not a Indo-European language, and most Finns are Nordic, so they are obviously Indo-European hehehe

nätdeutsch
Friday, August 11th, 2006, 10:42 PM
Your first sentence contains an interesting idea. If you go to a place where Mexicans live, it looks like Mexico. If you go to a place where blacks live, it looks just like pictures of Africa. If you go to a place where white Americans live, it looks more like pictures of England or Europe than it does anything else. I have often wondered about this.

Plenty of places where white americans live have assumed beings of their own. "Modern" houses can be found in america, which are typically inhabitted by whites and they look nothing like anything in other continents. but you are right, people like to build houses that look familiar to where they are from

Witukind
Saturday, August 12th, 2006, 01:43 AM
Plenty of places where white americans live have assumed beings of their own. "Modern" houses can be found in america, which are typically inhabitted by whites and they look nothing like anything in other continents. but you are right, people like to build houses that look familiar to where they are from

Modern houses in America? I've been in the US 8 or 9 times for a month or two (my uncle lives in Texas), I was appaled that people there still are unable to build houses made of stone. All houses there are made of wood and yet they weep when the next hurricane sweeps their homes to a pile of rubbish... Grow up Americans and build real houses that last.

nätdeutsch
Saturday, August 12th, 2006, 02:29 AM
there are plenty of people who dont consider texas part of america..... texas is not the only state in the country, 49 which are civilized, for all of you who are as ill-informed as witukind.

but i guess the french would know alot about building things that last, since they get knocked down by invading germans every 60 years or so.

VilhelMina
Saturday, August 12th, 2006, 03:43 AM
Modern houses in America? I've been in the US 8 or 9 times for a month or two (my uncle lives in Texas), I was appaled that people there still are unable to build houses made of stone. All houses there are made of wood and yet they weep when the next hurricane sweeps their homes to a pile of rubbish... Grow up Americans and build real houses that last.

It really all depends on where in America you are at.

Early English colonies in America were not made of wood. Eighteenth century Dutch settlers mostly built in stone and brick. All original 13 colonies used the arcitectural style from which they learned prior to coming to America. And to this day, many homes are still made in the same fashion.

Where do you think the early settlers came from. :)

But alas, there are too many people in America who believe a wooden house in tornado valley is "a good investment". :nope

Witukind
Saturday, August 12th, 2006, 01:26 PM
It really all depends on where in America you are at.


Early English colonies in America were not made of wood. Eighteenth century Dutch settlers mostly built in stone and brick. All original 13 colonies used the arcitectural style from which they learned prior to coming to America. And to this day, many homes are still made in the same fashion.


Where do you think the early settlers came from. :)


Yes of course.



But alas, there are too many people in America who believe a wooden house in tornado valley is "a good investment". :nope

Probably they don't have a choice anyway, everything there is geared towards consumerism.

Witukind
Saturday, August 12th, 2006, 01:35 PM
there are plenty of people who dont consider texas part of america..... texas is not the only state in the country, 49 which are civilized, for all of you who are as ill-informed as witukind.

Mississipi for instance is worse than Texas.



but i guess the french would know alot about building things that last, since they get knocked down by invading germans every 60 years or so.

I totally agree.

nätdeutsch
Saturday, August 12th, 2006, 02:39 PM
for some "modern houses i encorage you to take some trips to the extreme western coast or extreme eastern coast.

oneeyeisbetter
Sunday, August 13th, 2006, 10:36 AM
This thread isnt on the subject anymore.:|

Nixie
Sunday, August 13th, 2006, 04:59 PM
Why do you think that genocide is the only solution? If you study genetics a bit you'd see that there are other ways.

How else can you wrest Germanic culture away from the millions of non-Nordic peoples who do not want to relinquish it? I would certainly not stop speaking a Germanic language, practicing my Germanic religion and generally identifying with the Germanic half of my heritage - certainly not just because a bunch of Nordics asked me to. And I'm sure the same goes for most people who've grown up Germanic. It's their culture and heritage, too, now.
The only way to stop non-Nordic people from being Germanic is to get rid of us all, which would involve either killing us or doing some other horrible thing like forced sterilization, which as far as I'm concerned is just another method of genocide anyway.
Nor would we simply agree to breed ourselves out of existence by some selective mating plan. Most non-Nordic people are as proud of their heritage and ancestry as Nordics are of theirs. We would certainly not just acquiesce to our own annihilation. Therefore any action taken towards the exclusive identification of "Nordic/Nordid" and "Germanic" would, of necessity, involve force, violence and bloodshed on a horrific scale, not just in Europe but also in Australia, new Zealand, South Africa, the United States, Canada and various other places around the world. In effect, it would probably also spell the end of the "white race", as well, since there would be so few left when it was all over.
All-in-all, the idea may be appealing to many on a theoretical/fantasy level, but implementation would be highly unfeasible.

Jäger
Sunday, August 13th, 2006, 05:20 PM
How else can you wrest Germanic culture away from the millions of non-Nordic peoples who do not want to relinquish it? I would certainly not stop speaking a Germanic language, practicing my Germanic religion and generally identifying with the Germanic half of my heritage - certainly not just because a bunch of Nordics asked me to...The only way to stop non-Nordic people from being Germanic is to get rid of us all.
It is of no importance to make you stop being "Germanic" anyways, as Hitler put it, there are culture creators, culture bearers and culture destroyers.
If nordics would sperate themselves from non-nordics, you could keep your level of germanicsness but not expand it, all you would create would be differen to what the nordics would create, how you call it in the end is, as we say it in Germany, "Schall und Rauch" (my dictionary says it means "It's all hollow words." :) )

Witukind
Sunday, August 13th, 2006, 05:59 PM
How else can you wrest Germanic culture away from the millions of non-Nordic peoples who do not want to relinquish it? I would certainly not stop speaking a Germanic language, practicing my Germanic religion and generally identifying with the Germanic half of my heritage - certainly not just because a bunch of Nordics asked me to. And I'm sure the same goes for most people who've grown up Germanic. It's their culture and heritage, too, now.

Who said that was needed?



The only way to stop non-Nordic people from being Germanic is to get rid of us all, which would involve either killing us or doing some other horrible thing like forced sterilization, which as far as I'm concerned is just another method of genocide anyway.
Nor would we simply agree to breed ourselves out of existence by some selective mating plan. Most non-Nordic people are as proud of their heritage and ancestry as Nordics are of theirs. We would certainly not just acquiesce to our own annihilation.

What about increasing the number of Nordics for a start?



Therefore any action taken towards the exclusive identification of "Nordic/Nordid" and "Germanic" would, of necessity, involve force, violence and bloodshed on a horrific scale, not just in Europe but also in Australia, new Zealand, South Africa, the United States, Canada and various other places around the world. In effect, it would probably also spell the end of the "white race", as well, since there would be so few left when it was all over.
All-in-all, the idea may be appealing to many on a theoretical/fantasy level, but implementation would be highly unfeasible.

That's not my opinion.

Nordgau
Sunday, August 13th, 2006, 06:33 PM
How else can you wrest Germanic culture away from the millions of non-Nordic peoples who do not want to relinquish it? I would certainly not stop speaking a Germanic language, practicing my Germanic religion and generally identifying with the Germanic half of my heritage - certainly not just because a bunch of Nordics asked me to. And I'm sure the same goes for most people who've grown up Germanic. It's their culture and heritage, too, now.
The only way to stop non-Nordic people from being Germanic is to get rid of us all, which would involve either killing us or doing some other horrible thing like forced sterilization, which as far as I'm concerned is just another method of genocide anyway.
Nor would we simply agree to breed ourselves out of existence by some selective mating plan. Most non-Nordic people are as proud of their heritage and ancestry as Nordics are of theirs. We would certainly not just acquiesce to our own annihilation. Therefore any action taken towards the exclusive identification of "Nordic/Nordid" and "Germanic" would, of necessity, involve force, violence and bloodshed on a horrific scale, not just in Europe but also in Australia, new Zealand, South Africa, the United States, Canada and various other places around the world. In effect, it would probably also spell the end of the "white race", as well, since there would be so few left when it was all over.
All-in-all, the idea may be appealing to many on a theoretical/fantasy level, but implementation would be highly unfeasible.


A bit hyperdramatized, what you point out as the two alternatives. Actually there is the happy and healthy medium of not excluding autochthonous non-Nordid elements from the respective Germanic folk, but of accepting them as traditional participating components, but of candidly pointing out the Nordid basis of the folk and core of its essence and of a common idea and aim of the folk that it Nordid and means the strengthening of Nordiddom within the folk's structure. Actually the Third Reich had no problem with the fortification and welding-together of the whole folkish community and nation, but with having a narrower selected elite group where the subracial makeup did play a role (SS); and subracial considerations also played a role for population policy.

Nixie
Monday, August 14th, 2006, 07:00 PM
A bit hyperdramatized, what you point out as the two alternatives. Actually there is the happy and healthy medium of not excluding autochthonous non-Nordid elements from the respective Germanic folk, but of accepting them as traditional participating components, but of candidly pointing out the Nordid basis of the folk and core of its essence and of a common idea and aim of the folk that it Nordid and means the strengthening of Nordiddom within the folk's structure. Actually the Third Reich had no problem with the fortification and welding-together of the whole folkish community and nation, but with having a narrower selected elite group where the subracial makeup did play a role (SS); and subracial considerations also played a role for population policy.

But such a "solution" presumes the agreement and cooperation of the non-Nordid elements. That is a big assumption and far from guaranteed. As I said, how many people willingly accept a state of inferiority?

Nordgau
Tuesday, August 15th, 2006, 12:03 PM
But such a "solution" presumes the agreement and cooperation of the non-Nordid elements. That is a big assumption and far from guaranteed.

With such continuous anti race propaganda coming from anti-racialist side, maybe. With a positive, race-based nationhood consciousness not.


As I said, how many people willingly accept a state of inferiority?

What "status of inferiority"? There will be no general legal discrimination or exclusion of autochthonous non-Nordic elements on national basis.

"Inferiority" is anyway a term appropriate for individuals actually inferior from the standpoint of eugenics, not for those subracial elements. Also, to go on with that, "alien race" and "racial bastard" in the real sense are only races and their bastards which are actually alien to the folk, most notably non-European races and their bastards.

Well, in every Third Reich race schoolbook it is said that the essence and ideal of Germanness must be Nordicness. The "agreement and cooperation", however, seemed to work very well. I've never heard of mass demonstrations of Alpinoids and Dinaroids against the government in the 1930s. :D

Germaniathane
Tuesday, December 13th, 2016, 11:09 PM
No! Not all Germanics are Nordics.

Blod og Jord
Friday, March 24th, 2017, 11:19 PM
No, Germanic and Nordic are different things. A Germanic can be Nordic and a Nord can be Germanic but there are non-Germanic Nords and non-Nordic Germanics.
Nordics are basically people from Northern Europe: Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland.

Catterick
Saturday, March 25th, 2017, 01:14 AM
Unless we are talking about race then Nordic refers to the subarctic Germanics speaking North Germanic. And racially a lot of Germanics are Alpines or other non-Nordic types.

Argos
Monday, March 27th, 2017, 10:28 PM
No! Not all Germanics are Nordics.
No, Germanic and Nordic are different things.
,
... And racially a lot of Germanics are Alpines or other non-Nordic types.

I think "Nordic" is a term of race. Being a Germanic (or a Semite or Slav) is not a matter of race, but a character of language (and culture). It characterizes the native speaker of a Germanic (Slavic or Semitic) language and has nothing to do with his ethnic or racial affinity. The racial difference between a German, a Russian (if he is of Nordic origin) or a Czech is extremely small, although they all speak languages of different origin (Germanic and Slavic languages). Of course, not all Germanics are Nordics. Bavarians and Austrians e.g. are mainly Dinarics and Alpines (race) and speak German, a Germanic language.

The reason why languages and races do often not fit together has not been discovered yet (and will not be in future because study of race is not popular nowadays). I suppose it is rooted in ancient and prehistroic times, developments and peoples' migrations, separations, unifications, conquests, oppressions etc.

Siebenbürgerin
Tuesday, March 28th, 2017, 11:00 AM
Germanic is a term of race and culture, a combination of both. An Afro-American who speaks English as mother tongue isn't a Germanic person, because he lacks the race factor. A Nordic or Borreby Irishman isn't Germanic because he lacks the culture factor. The Germanic peoples can be of most European Europid races. Nordics, Faelids, Anglo-Saxons, Tronders, Borrebies, East/West Baltics, Alpines, Dinarics, Mediterranids, Pontids, etc.

Nordic is a term which is used with double meaning. It can be a racial term, but to avoid confusion peoples in anthropology use the term Nordid, which is a racial type (Hallstatt Nordid, East Nordid etc.) The most popular meaning of Nordic in mainstream use is to refer to the Northern European countries: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Greenland, etc.

Argos
Friday, March 31st, 2017, 12:53 AM
Germanic is a term of race and culture, a combination of both.

@Siebenbürgerin, I think you are right. Europeans belong to certain nations, which are a mixture of several European races, the percentage of a single race varies in most of the nations. Therefore European nations are much more similar to each other than we do imagine. In order to be Germanic, you basically have to belong to a European race for there is no Germanic culture and language outside Europe. They had been developed by European nations and tribes. An Afro-American who speaks English as mother tongue is not a Germanic and can never become one because he lacks the race factor. A Nordic or Borreby Irishman is not Germanic because his culture and language is not Germanic. But he in principle could become Germanic if he switches from the non Germanic nation he belongs to to a Germanic one.

We can change our ethnicity to some extent when we give up our culture and language in order to switch to another ones. We can do that, if our race is also represented in the nation we want to switch to. A German can become e.g. a French when he gives up the German language and culture and switches to the French culture and language because the race he belongs to is represented in both nations.

The only absolute term, the unchangeable pillar in man’s life is the race he has been born in. Because European peoples are a mixture of races and much more similar to each other than we do imagine, switching from one nation to the other might be possible.

Wulfaz
Tuesday, April 11th, 2017, 02:47 PM
It is just linguistic.

The Nordic or Nordish means firstly the citizen of the Nordic Countries (Iceland, Feröer Islands, Norway, Sweden, Danemark and Finnland. They can be black or white, Germanic or non-Germanic (Finns, Saamis).

Secondly the Nordic or Nordish mean a colloquial word for a bunch of races (Borreby, Brünn, Dalo-Faelid or Northern-Cromagnonid, Baltid, Reihengräber, Hallstatt/Göta-Nordid, Trönder, North-Atlandid, Anglo-Saxon) from Middle- West- East- and North-Europe, side by side via Wölkerwanderung they are survived in South-Europe too.

Thirdly the Nordic or Nordish mean a smaller group of races (Dalo-Faelid or North-Cromagnonid, Reihengräber, Hallstatt/Göta-Nordid) what are connected to the Ancient Germans of Wölkerwanderung, but all these are spread along full of Europe.

Fourtly the Nordic or Nordish mean exclusivly the gracilised, Mediterranid influenced Hallstatt/Göta-Nordid what is a very rare type among the Germanic and the German population. The idiot nazis whos were nothing to do with the modern scientific physical anthropology, they worshipped this type as "the most original German type" however it is not true and very false, because it is a mix of the Reihengräber and the Corded-Mediterranid or the Danube-Mediterranid (exactly the Hallstatt is the mix of the Reihengräber with the Danube-Mediterranid, the Göta is the mix of the Reihengräber with the Corded-Mediterranid).

Fifthly a modern nation does not base on races, but it bases on language and cultur.

LordLoki
Friday, April 14th, 2017, 12:53 AM
The way I look at it, these terms are interchangeable for us ethnic-spiritualist conscious peoples of Germanic ancestry. But the 2 terms have evolved with different meanings over time. Originally it was geographic with Nordic referring to a region and Germanic is an adjective for language, culture, phenotype, etc. But with romanticism, nationalism, and eugenics ideas of Nordid blood and phenotypes were layered on top. But I suppose today "Nordic" is not only cultural (referring to some raceless welfare state idea) but also geographic (look at the Nordic Council). This is why I see Finns often called Scandinavian or Nordic despite not being Germanic.

To me, if our main way of identifying is blood then Germanic and Nordic should be one in the same.

Friedrich
Saturday, May 27th, 2017, 09:35 PM
I never thought there was much of a historical difference.

The Germanic tribes lived more inland, those by the coast were called "Norsemen", and the few who went to sea were called "Vikings".

Indo-European
Friday, July 28th, 2017, 01:39 AM
I understand that the origins of Germanic culture and language lie in Southern Scandinavia during the Nordic Bronze Age (which of course developed from the common Indo-European culture & language that expanded all throughout Europe during the Bronze Age). In my view the original Germanic culture that developed during the Bronze Age is Nordic and vise versa. Only later did Germanic and Nordic begin to diverge a bit. That's my understanding at least.

Modern day Germanics have branched off linguistically but are still more or less the same people genetically/racially. Although in countries such as Germany (particularly Southern Germany), Austria, The Netherlands, and Switzerland the Germanic tribes must have absorbed more Celtic tribes than Germanics who stayed further North. But it appears that some Celts from the British Isles were likely taken back to Scandinavia during the Viking Age which doesn't surprise me.