PDA

View Full Version : Can Colonials Uphold More Than One Celto-Germanic Tradition at a Time?


Brynhild
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 05:56 AM
OK, there has been plenty of talk about heritage and culture in the Germanic nations of Europe, but what about the rest of us who are more far-flung in the wider areas?

There are plenty of us here who have more than one Germanic ethnicity. Do you believe that it is - or isn't - possible to uphold the values and culture of all the separate ethnicities that are within the Germanic framework? Or should you adapt to the one ethnicity you feel most drawn toward?

For Example, in Australia, we are still predominantly a Celto-Germanic nation, and those of us who love our country value all the traditions within the Celto-Germanic framework.

Bridie
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 06:17 AM
I'm not 100% sure of exactly what you're asking Brynhild, but I believe that in the case of a multi-(European)ethnic person who is born and bred in Australia, and who identifies themselves as "Australian", they should uphold traditional "Anglo-Celtic" (which just means "British Isles") values and culture.

I don't think that some very minor level of non-British Isles European immigration to Australia is a problem, as long as they assimilate. If they're not willing to assimilate, their stay in Australia should be short-term only.

Talan
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 06:45 AM
For Example, in Australia, we are still predominantly a Celto-Germanic nation, and those of us who love our country value all the traditions within the Celto-Germanic framework.

1. Australia was colonised by the British race. To describe their nation as Celto-Germanic is the tyrannical arm of multiculturalism.

2. Australia is not a country.

MockTurtle
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 06:45 AM
There are plenty of us here who have more than one Germanic ethnicity. Do you believe that it is - or isn't - possible to uphold the values and culture of all the separate ethnicities that are within the Germanic framework?

No, I think it sounds almost schizophrenic, to be honest. I think the peoples in the Germanic 'colonial territories' follow the same natural laws as do those in the Old World nations. A coherent sense of 'group identity' is one of the most basic needs and desires of all humans; the sense of group identity in the Old World nations was forged out of centuries of common history and common struggle, as well as the gradual stabilization of the basic genetic material in each region. If the Germanics in New World countries manage to get a handle on things politically, they will eventually create unique identities based on the genetic material that exists.

New Worlders often have misguided ideas about the 'ethnic identities' of Old Worlders; they tend to think that imitating the older ethnic identities is the only way to 'preserve' Germanic traditions. But this stagnant view of ethnicity is a big misconception. The Nordish-Germanic populations of New World countries are the new product of assimilation and stabilization of a variety of stocks from Northern Europe over time. They are still Germanic, but their identities will never be exact copies of those that exist in Old World countries. This is obvious because the genetic material is different in each case.

Of course, this is the same process that originally took place in Old World countries anyhow. If you go back far enough, you will continue to find more and more scattered identities that had not yet gathered together into a larger coherent group.

Brynhild
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 06:51 AM
I'm not 100% sure of exactly what you're asking Brynhild, but I believe that in the case of a multi-(European)ethnic person who is born and bred in Australia, and who identifies themselves as "Australian", they should uphold traditional "Anglo-Celtic" (which just means "British Isles") values and culture.

I don't think that some minor level of non-British Isles European immigration to Australia is a problem, as long as they assimilate. If they're not willing to assimilate, their stay in Australia should be short-term only.

You pretty much described what I meant :D

1. Australia was colonised by the British race. To describe their nation as Celto-Germanic is the tyrannical arm of multiculturalism.

Pardon me, but who were the Southern Irish?

2. Australia is not a country.

Oh, I forgot! It's an island continent - regarded as a country. Enough with the pedantic attitude already! You're behaving like a troll.

Talan
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 07:16 AM
Pardon me, but who were the Southern Irish?
New Chums. Name me a single colonist who identified as being Southern Irish.

Oh, I forgot! It's an island continent - regarded as a country. Enough with the pedantic attitude already! You're behaving like a troll.
Erm... trolling? You can't answer questions of colonial identity without getting into ethnological definitions of space. Australia is not a country, it is "the Antipodes," that is, the opposite of Europe and the European sense of territory. When conversing with English imperialists, the so-called "British," it is correct to use the corruption "Orstralia" to emphasise that their society is in parallel to Australia's.

EDIT: Just in case you missed that, am asking if you call Great Britain a country.

Bridie
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 08:17 AM
New Chums. Name me a single colonist who identified as being Southern Irish.
The Irish colonists (or convicts) identified with being Irish - although probably not "Southern" Irish. ;) :D


Erm... trolling? You can't answer questions of colonial identity without getting into ethnological definitions of space. Australia is not a country, it is "the Antipodes," that is, the opposite of Europe and the European sense of territory. When conversing with English imperialists, the so-called "British," it is correct to use the corruption "Orstralia" to emphasise that their society is in parallel to Australia's.

EDIT: Just in case you missed that, am asking if you call Great Britain a country.

You're right. Australia is a land within British overseas territory.

Kriegersohn
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 09:05 AM
No, I think it sounds almost schizophrenic, to be honest. I think the peoples in the Germanic 'colonial territories' follow the same natural laws as do those in the Old World nations. A coherent sense of 'group identity' is one of the most basic needs and desires of all humans; the sense of group identity in the Old World nations was forged out of centuries of common history and common struggle, as well as the gradual stabilization of the basic genetic material in each region. If the Germanics in New World countries manage to get a handle on things politically, they will eventually create unique identities based on the genetic material that exists.

New Worlders often have misguided ideas about the 'ethnic identities' of Old Worlders; they tend to think that imitating the older ethnic identities is the only way to 'preserve' Germanic traditions. But this stagnant view of ethnicity is a big misconception. The Nordish-Germanic populations of New World countries are the new product of assimilation and stabilization of a variety of stocks from Northern Europe over time. They are still Germanic, but their identities will never be exact copies of those that exist in Old World countries. This is obvious because the genetic material is different in each case.

Of course, this is the same process that originally took place in Old World countries anyhow. If you go back far enough, you will continue to find more and more scattered identities that had not yet gathered together into a larger coherent group.

Most people continue the traditions that they were brought up with when they moved to the "New World". Many Germanic people that came here still had a degree of separation, similiar to others outside of Anglo-American society. It took laws and two world wars to break many links within the German community and that was not entirely "successful". Outside of integrating into the dominant culture, to whatever degree, regional differences will always exist Old World or New...regardless of ethnicity. Personally, I feel comfortable and at home on either side of the Atlantic...though, admittedly, I'm hardly typical in regards to the current ethnic experience except for perhaps those other first gens (on mother's side) here. :)

FFF
Ragnar

Cythraul
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 10:35 AM
"Can Colonials uphold more than one Celto-Germanic tradition at a time?"

By "colonials", I assume we mean "colonial countries" and not the individual offspring of colonial settlers. I believe that on an individual basis, it is important to maintain a consistant, dominant culture and race - although I do feel that within the Celto-Germanic framework, the commonalities are so great that is rarely detrimental to adopt aspects from different Germanic peoples.

On a national level (and that's what I assume the thread is about), I don't think it's as important that a colonial nation maintains a strictly homogenous culture. I believe that blood and land are intrinsically related and that a piece of land soaks up the spiritual and cultural ether of its inhabitants. For example, the piece of land called 'Britain' has a vast history and belongs to the people to whom that history is ancestral. The piece of land called 'Australia' has not soaked up as much of the Germanic ether and therefore Germanics have less spiritual ownership of the land at this point in time. Specific strains of Germanic culture, therefore, can lay less of a claim.

I know this seems a bit abstract and it's not to say that Australia isn't a genuine home to Germanics and that Germanics don't have sovereignty over it. I just mean that the spiritual bonds of land and blood grow stronger with time and where Germanic colonies are younger than old-world countries, absolute cultural consistency is often less enforceable.

Schmetterling
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 11:31 AM
In my opinion, there's a clear answer: no. Most Americans are bad at retaining their cultural and linguistic heritage, and even those that manage to make this effort (usually 1st and 2nd generation immigrants) don't teach it to their children. They teach them English and try to integrate them into the American society like good citizens. The tendency of any country which has a monoculture is to become as homogeneous as possible. Multiculturalism just doesn't work in countries like the USA. Let's face it, the only people who have preserved their heritage outside their motherlands are these Volksdeutsche in Europe who live in enclaves and the Amish in the US who isolate themselves from the modern world. Without an enclave, it's pretty difficult. And please don't tell me that these sausage fests or Oktoberfests are preservation of German heritage because it's a joke. So, who comes to America is better off becoming American. Anything else is like swimming against a waterfall. I'm speaking from own experience. Had I not returned to Germany, my generation would have lost my German heritage and my children wouldn't have been German anymore.

CharlesDexterWard
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 12:12 PM
In my opinion, there's a clear answer: no. Most Americans are bad at retaining their cultural and linguistic heritage, and even those that manage to make this effort (usually 1st and 2nd generation immigrants) don't teach it to their children. They teach them English and try to integrate them into the American society like good citizens. The tendency of any country which has a monoculture is to become as homogeneous as possible. Multiculturalism just doesn't work in countries like the USA. Let's face it, the only people who have preserved their heritage outside their motherlands are these Volksdeutsche in Europe who live in enclaves and the Amish in the US who isolate themselves from the modern world. Without an enclave, it's pretty difficult. And please don't tell me that these sausage fests or Oktoberfests are preservation of German heritage because it's a joke. So, who comes to America is better off becoming American. Anything else is like swimming against a waterfall. I'm speaking from own experience. Had I not returned to Germany, my generation would have lost my German heritage and my children wouldn't have been German anymore.

Judging by americans I have met, I agree with you. But what does it make of americans then, are they really germanic? Just because someone speaks a germanic language, that person is not a germanic, in my opinion. Take german americans, for example. Switching from their traditional language and culture to american english language and american culture does not make them "still germanic" to me. They lost their heritage - that's the way I see it.

To a question put here, about whether one can choose the ethnicity that one is most drawn to, I am doubting. Generally speaking, I say no, you cannot. That would wash out the entire concept of ethnicity if you could. For people who only have one ancestor of a different ethnicity and who do not further dilute their ethnic ancestry, it could work, but for every time you cross an ethnicity with another again, it becomes a lot more complicated, and when this has occured many times I tend to say no, quite categorically, you cannot choose one of your ethnicities.

Schmetterling
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 12:35 PM
Judging by americans I have met, I agree with you. But what does it make of americans then, are they really germanic? Just because someone speaks a germanic language, that person is not a germanic, in my opinion. Take german americans, for example. Switching from their traditional language and culture to american english language and american culture does not make them "still germanic" to me. They lost their heritage - that's the way I see it.
It doesn't make them still Germanic if by that you mean English, German, Swedish, Dutch, or whatever their ancestry was, but they most certainly are Germanic. American culture and language is Germanic, just like Afrikaner culture, Australian culture or Canadian culture. By immigrating to the US and adopting these things, they become a new kind of Germanic.

To a question put here, about whether one can choose the ethnicity that one is most drawn to, I am doubting. Generally speaking, I say no, you cannot. That would wash out the entire concept of ethnicity if you could. For people who only have one ancestor of a different ethnicity and who do not further dilute their ethnic ancestry, it could work, but for every time you cross an ethnicity with another again, it becomes a lot more complicated, and when this has occured many times I tend to say no, quite categorically, you cannot choose one of your ethnicities.That's why they should become American. I would say American can be cnsidered an ethnicity today, just like English, German and the like. There is an ethnogenesis and there are certain inflows that created this ethnicity: mainly people of Germanic heritage from England, White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs), Germans and Scandinavians. Just like England is a mix of Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Normans, Celts and so forth. That's what the American ethnicity is about. It's an amalgamation of Germanics. You couldn't say the Portuguese, Serbs, Finns, Slovenians, Albanians, Georgians or the like had a significant contribution and were a significant inflow to the American ethnicity anymore than you could say the Huns were a significant inflow to the German heritage.

So, in my eyes, trying to preserve Germanness in America, unless you are Amish or live in enclaves, is like trying to preserve Normanness in England. Better just go with the flow and be an American.

Gefjon
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 12:57 PM
Americans are Germanic. The issue here's another. Some folks don't like Americans, so they deny them being Germanic. It's based on malicious, vile hatred for Americans, not on reality. Ya know something, Germanic ain't an exclusively European concept.

Allenson
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 01:27 PM
If the Germanics in New World countries manage to get a handle on things politically, they will eventually create unique identities based on the genetic material that exists.

New Worlders often have misguided ideas about the 'ethnic identities' of Old Worlders; they tend to think that imitating the older ethnic identities is the only way to 'preserve' Germanic traditions. But this stagnant view of ethnicity is a big misconception. The Nordish-Germanic populations of New World countries are the new product of assimilation and stabilization of a variety of stocks from Northern Europe over time. They are still Germanic, but their identities will never be exact copies of those that exist in Old World countries. This is obvious because the genetic material is different in each case.


Excellent post and one that well sums up my personal opinion on such matters. I can't attempt to juggle the various strains of my ancestry any more than I can to pick only one to focus on. Both seem rather shallow and arbitrary to me.

And of course, I am speaking as an 'old New Worlder', of very early, 1600s stock, and not as the product of more recent immigration.

In my corner of the world, we have forged a new identity on a new continent and under new & different circumstances...most certainly derivitive from various places in the northwest of Europe, both Germanic and Celtic, but new & different nonetheless. I can't 'pretend' to be Dutch or English or German or Scottish (though I very much acknowledge these strains in my genes & memes)--all I can be is the northern New Englander that I am. It is precisely the traits that we still have here from older days, both cultural and populational, that I attempt to preserve and see continue into the future. And, beacuse of my hyper-provinciality, I have a difficult time thinking of myself as just a general American--that's just purely too simple and expansive of a term.

Freydis
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 01:33 PM
Americans are Germanic. The issue here's another. Some folks don't like Americans, so they deny them being Germanic. It's based on malicious, vile hatred for Americans which is cultivated on Stirpes, not on reality. Ya know something, Germanic ain't an exclusively European concept.

Not all Americans are Germanic, but I'd say some are. The issue here isn't hatred for Americans; the issue is the evolution and changing of the original culture of America. To deny that is to deny decades or in some cases hundreds of years of change. What's wrong with disliking general perceived behaviours or attitudes of Americans anyways? I, for the most part, have not many problems with some Americans, but others I cannot stand (i.e. the tourists in Toronto who thought I didn't speak any English and yelled in my face o_O or the ones who are very rude).

I cannot say that I like every American, just like you cannot say that every American is Germanic. It's too general, I guess like the term "American" which has some rather negative connotations due to some poor experiences with some rude or otherwise poor-minded Americans.

America is a state rather than a nation, in my opinion. I would say that only a minority of Americans could be counted as Germanic because they lack the culture (rather than a lack of blood per se, though mixing would account for some loss of "Germanicness") to be so.

Gefjon
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 01:42 PM
Not all Americans are Germanic, but I'd say some are. The issue here isn't hatred for Americans; the issue is the evolution and changing of the original culture of America. To deny that is to deny decades or in some cases hundreds of years of change.
What about the evolution and changing of the original culture of England? Last time I've been there, I saw whiggers on the streets and Muslims. So the conclusion would be that England is not Germanic? What about Germany? No, nobody comes to these conclusions, except when it comes to the USA. ;)

What's wrong with disliking general perceived behaviours or attitudes of Americans anyways?
Nuffin, but disliking Americans shouldn't be the reason to deny their Germanic heritage.

America is a state rather than a nation, in my opinion.
Please define state, define nation and prove that America is not a nation while England for example is.

I would say that only a minority of Americans could be counted as Germanic because they lack the culture (rather than a lack of blood per se, though mixing would account for some loss of "Germanicness") to be so.
Many modern-day Germans lack the culture. Yet no one questions Germany's Germanic character.

Freydis
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 01:58 PM
What about the evolution and changing of the original culture of England? Last time I've been there, I saw whiggers on the streets and Muslims. So the conclusion would be that England is not Germanic? What about Germany? No, nobody comes to these conclusions, except when it comes to the USA. ;)

One of the differences between the English nation and the American state is that England, up until very recently was ethnically homogeneous. England is changing, and I never denied that, nor did I deny it's changing for the worse.

Nuffin, but disliking Americans shouldn't be the reason to deny their Germanic heritage.

Like I said, not all Americans are Germanic. To say something like that is delusional.

Please define state, define nation and prove that America is not a nation while England for example is.

It's elementary political science... -_- A state is a political entity surrounded by borders. A nation is based off of common language, ethnicity and culture. America has a common language, but not a common ethnicty and arguably does not have a common culture throughout (more than just subtle differences between regions). England is not a state because it is not a political entity-- it is only a nation. A nation-state would be somewhere like Slovenia, where it is both a nation and a state.

Many modern-day Germans lack the culture. Yet no one questions Germany's Germanic character.

I wouldn't say that too many true Germans differ from the national character of their parents, etc. Turks, maybe yes.

Allenson
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 01:58 PM
Let's keep other fora out of the discussion please.

K thanx.

MockTurtle
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 02:06 PM
England is not a state because it is not a political entity-- it is only a nation.

According to the definition that you yourself have provided from 'elementary political science', England doesn't qualify as a nation in its current form; it doesn't possess a common ethnicity, as it has plenty of non-Europids from all around the globe. It's obvious that it wasn't ethnically heterogeneous until very recently, but nevertheless it currently isn't a legitimate 'nation' based on elementary political science.

Boche
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 02:13 PM
Ya know something, Germanic ain't an exclusively European concept.

Ya know, Americans are an exclusively European Concept. ;)




Gru▀,
Boche

MockTurtle
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 02:30 PM
I can't attempt to juggle the various strains of my ancestry any more than I can to pick only one to focus on. Both seem rather shallow and arbitrary to me.

Exactly. It's like asking someone from a European nation to pick one of the smaller tribal communities that were once separated and identify exclusively with them. That's just not how ethnic identities work; they constantly change, whether its through new social experiences or new genetic influences...

Loyalist
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 02:50 PM
The gap between the various Germanic and Celtic ethnic groups is a reality, but that should not suggest it is in any manner equal to that which exists between Germanics and Negroes, for example. The two groups have co-existed in neighbouring regions of Europe for a millenia, there has been extensive inter-breeding (especially as West Germanics [ie: English, Germans, Dutch, etc.] are concerned), and, as both Europe and the Colonies have provided numerous example of, our cultures are, at the very least, compatible.

The United States and other Colonial lands are the products of Celtogermanic exploration, settlement, and development. While I am making no concrete assertion on the matter, my personal definition of an American, Canadian, Australian, or other Colonial is an individual hailing from the same ethnic stock as the original settlers of these lands. It is both helpful and essential to mention that, with the exception of early Iberian migrants in southern North America, these original inhabitants were of exclusively Germanic, Celtic, and Celtogermanic blood. To this day, our government, laws, customs, societal structure, and so on, continue to, for the most part, parallel that of our ancestral homelands. It is inevitable that, after so many centuries of separation, certain Colonists will forge unique identities, but that is merely a variation of the broader culture of their ancestors.

The nations under consideration remained relatively homogeneous in terms of ethnicity until the turn of the last century. While it is true that, at this time, waves of Italians, Jews, and various Slavic groups began arriving en masse, these intruders have proven mostly inconsequential to the culture and ethnicity of old-stock Colonials, and their more recently-arrived parallels from north-western Europe. It seems evident that certain individuals, both in this thread and elsewhere, are over-emphasizing the impact that the aforementioned intruders have had on the various aspects of Colonial identity. Though we are under increasing occupation from Hispanics, Africans, and Asians, in addition to the alien Europeans I listed above, the fact that the history, culture, and general ethnic constitution of the Colonies continues to reflect their Celtogermanic heritage is undeniable. Stripping the applicable Americans of their true identity simply because nefarious and corrupt governments have permitted the large-scale settlement of other ethnicities and races is both unfair and ludicrous.

One could fairly argue that a "Celtogermanic" Colonial of largely mixed origins, be it in an ethnic or racial sense, has forfeited their ability to claim practice or maintenance of one particular aspect of their heritage, but such individuals are utterly insignificant in proportion to those who have remained more or less ethnically homogeneous. Colonial nations have not relinquished their true identity for simply permitting the entrance of ethnicities and races not in line with the original settlers, and to claim such is a laughable examble of hatred and bias. Those of old-stock ancestry are, in this case, victims of circumstances. Therefore, simply by continuing to live their lives in a usual manner, and with the customs and legacy of their ancestors in mind, Colonials retain the culture pertinent to their ethnic origins. As our survival as a wider ethnic group is concerned, what is in our blood is far more significant than some vague aspect of culture. The latter is proving a tool of division between our people, instead of a mechanism for unity.

MockTurtle
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 03:06 PM
While it is true that, at this time, waves of Italians, Jews, and various Slavic groups began arriving en masse, these intruders have proven mostly inconsequential to the culture and ethnicity of old-stock Colonials, and their more recently-arrived parallels from north-western Europe.

This might be a semantic trifle, but technically these groups weren't 'intruders'; they arrived in accordance with the law.

Secondly, in what sense did their arrival prove 'inconsequential' to the culture/ethnicity of Old Stock Americans? Clearly, the mass immigration of these relatively more dissimilar types had a considerable impact on the cultural identity of the Old Stock. After they arrived, it became more and more difficult to speak of a cohesive 'Nordic-American' identity, even though this was clearly the direction America was taking prior to this new influx. This was mentioned specifically by some of the Senators in the Congressional debates on the Immigration Bill of 1924, after all.

Boche
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 03:28 PM
It's like asking someone from a European nation to pick one of the smaller tribal communities that were once separated and identify exclusively with them.

Tribal and Ethnical Heritage can't be compared. I don't mind Americans who can't or won't identify with one Ethnicity. Most Americans have various Ethnicites. And if one of them who has f.e. 3,4 or 5 Ethnicites says "I am a <put in any of his Ethnicity>." instead of saying that he's American while his Family lives in the USA since a few Generations is just false.




Gru▀,
Boche

Loyalist
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 03:30 PM
This might be a semantic trifle, but technically these groups weren't 'intruders'; they arrived in accordance with the law.

Of course, and I made that clear. However, that doesn't legitimize their presence here in the eyes of those concerned with the preservation of either their race or nation.

Secondly, in what sense did their arrival prove 'inconsequential' to the culture/ethnicity of Old Stock Americans? Clearly, the mass immigration of these relatively more dissimilar types had a considerable impact on the cultural identity of the Old Stock. After they arrived, it became more and more difficult to speak of a cohesive 'Nordic-American' identity, even though this was clearly the direction America was taking prior to this new influx. This was mentioned specifically by some of the Senators in the Congressional debates on the Immigration Bill of 1924, after all.

Have old-stock Colonials begun assuming the cultural practices of the newcomers in overwhelming numbers? Have they inter-bred with them in a manner significant enough to erase their ethnic identity? No; the majority of the original American people retain both their blood and customs present before the arrival of foreign groups. It's certainly now much more difficult to take steps to promote and preserve their identity, as the prevailing attitude of the liberal, politically-correct establishment is to suppress this legacy, but it has not yet brought about the downfall of racial and cultural integrity. When we begin speaking Spanish, converting to Catholicism, wearing hijabs, and eating with chopsticks in overwhelming numbers, then I'll accept the consequential nature of this foreign invasion.

mischak
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 10:19 PM
The complexity of the situation makes it difficult to generalize. What I do know is the situation shouldn't be glorified or encouraged. It's just a lesser form of multiculturalism in my opinion.

3 out of my 4 grandparents are/were "new" Americans, and to be honest I resent them in a way for leaving their country and denying their children and grandchildren their heritage and culture, something they definitely had a right to.

When we begin speaking Spanish, converting to Catholicism, wearing hijabs, and eating with chopsticks in overwhelming numbers, then I'll accept the consequential nature of this foreign invasion.

The majority of Canadians are already Catholic.

Freydis
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 10:24 PM
According to the definition that you yourself have provided from 'elementary political science', England doesn't qualify as a nation in its current form; it doesn't possess a common ethnicity, as it has plenty of non-Europids from all around the globe. It's obvious that it wasn't ethnically heterogeneous until very recently, but nevertheless it currently isn't a legitimate 'nation' based on elementary political science.

-_- Britain the state posesses lots of lovely non-Europids, I don't see Britain and England as the same sort of entity. Besides that a lot of our lovely non-Europid friends don't consider themselves really English but British (i.e. belonging to a state but not a nation).

You're mistaking the two, perhaps?

The majority of Canadians are already Catholic.

I doubt it.

mischak
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 10:40 PM
I doubt it.

Whether or not they're practicing may be a different story (which I'm sure could also be applied to Protestants), but according to your census, the majority identify as Catholic.

MockTurtle
Monday, July 14th, 2008, 10:49 PM
-_- Britain the state posesses lots of lovely non-Europids, I don't see Britain and England as the same sort of entity.

I don't either; I wasn't trying to state that they were.


Besides that a lot of our lovely non-Europid friends don't consider themselves really English but British (i.e. belonging to a state but not a nation).

Perhaps some don't, but do you really believe that this applies to all of them? I remember an article awhile back from a recent Jamaican immigrant who believed 100% in her 'Englishness'. Furthermore, do you think most native English people would openly say that they don't consider someone like her truly 'English'? Based on my own observations from my time in England, somehow I find the idea that they would a little difficult to believe.


You're mistaking the two, perhaps?

I don't think so.

Evolved
Tuesday, July 15th, 2008, 12:01 AM
Do you believe that it is - or isn't - possible to uphold the values and culture of all the separate ethnicities that are within the Germanic framework?

Values of different Germanic ethnicities don't clash with one another to make maintaining the values impossible. Culture, on the other hand is different. You cannot maintain multiple cultural identities and traditions at once without having some inner chaos. Choose a side and identify thus, whatever is seemingly dominant in you.

Loyalist
Tuesday, July 15th, 2008, 12:09 AM
The majority of Canadians are already Catholic.

Until the turn of the 20th century, the only Catholic presence in Canada was largely confined to the French populace of Quebec, and small pockets of Irish in Ontario and the Maritime Provinces. At that time, the country was overwhelmingly Protestant, with Canadians of English, Scottish, Ulster-Scottish, Welsh, German, and Dutch birth or descent almost exclusively professing the Reformed faiths. The massive inflation of Catholicism in Canada subsequent to 1900 is the result of the arrival of waves of Italians, Poles, Hungarians, Portuguese, etc. I must also thank you for illustrating my point perfectly; old-stock Canadians, for the most part, retained their Protestant religion, and there were little or no conversions to the Catholic Church, the latter remaining an alien allegiance to the original, non-Francophone settlers of this nation. The large-scale influx of Catholic, non-Celtogermanic Europeans was just one more hurdle that Anglo-Canadians swept aside to preserve their identity.

Freydis
Tuesday, July 15th, 2008, 03:18 AM
Perhaps some don't, but do you really believe that this applies to all of them? I remember an article awhile back from a recent Jamaican immigrant who believed 100% in her 'Englishness'. Furthermore, do you think most native English people would openly say that they don't consider someone like her truly 'English'? Based on my own observations from my time in England, somehow I find the idea that they would a little difficult to believe.


I think that they may say it more tactfully than that but I doubt they'd actually believe her to be fully English per se.

Brynhild
Tuesday, July 15th, 2008, 05:14 AM
Note to self - don't bother creating a thread with a bout of hayfever and nagging kids on holidays! LOL

The differing opinions in itself sums up the complexity of the question, and I was interested in finding out from the more colonial viewpoint of what Germanic preservation entails.

Here is how I feel about it - as an Australian under the dominion of a British Territory, no less! I may have trouble conveying what I mean at times, but it doesn't mean that I don't know what I'm thinking.

Nobody likes an expert, Talan, it's lonely at the top! Enough said.

Australia was founded as a penal colony, with the inclusion of English, Irish and Scottish Gentry, governing bodies and convicts. By a technicality, this country was already multi-cultural - multi meaning more than one of anything. These races are distinctly different, yet also compatible with one another.

From my perspective, I'm still figuring out from where I draw my early values. Please, don't mistake this for confusion. It's more of an awareness process that allows me to take more note of what works for me and from where. I'm proud of all the various aspects of my heritage. I'm also aware of the fact that the early Australians have set the tone for this nation to have evolved with its own identity, having been away from Europe for so long it's a natural progression for colonial countries to take this step.

I'm a reconstructionist Heathen nowadays and I draw my values mainly from the Norse pantheons. There are some amazing challenges with this, including a practise that stems from Northern Hemisphere traditions. Before that though, and to some extent still, I would've upheld more of my Irish heritage. It's not impossible for the Celtic and Norse traditions to meld, as they are very similar, and this works for me.

Bridie
Tuesday, July 15th, 2008, 12:58 PM
What I do know is the situation shouldn't be glorified or encouraged. It's just a lesser form of multiculturalism in my opinion.

Well said Mischak. :)


to be honest I resent them in a way for leaving their country and denying their children and grandchildren their heritage and culture, something they definitely had a right to.I'm with you on this one. Emphatically so.

Just serves to remind us all of how careful we must be when making life decisions that we think are ours alone to make... so many more people are affected by these decisions than just ourselves... people who are yet to be born... people who we have a responsibility towards.


Nobody likes an expert, Talan, it's lonely at the top! Enough said.

Awwww... come on... don't be so mean. :( Talan is such a character. :D I just adore his nutty ways and the way he speaks in riddles! :tea00000: I don't think he is a smartass really, he just disagrees with everything in the universe, :D and he's more than just a little bit pissed off. ;)


Australia was founded as a penal colony, with the inclusion of English, Irish and Scottish Gentry, governing bodies and convicts. By a technicality, this country was already multi-cultural - multi meaning more than one of anything. These races are distinctly different, yet also compatible with one another.

It was multicultural to start with, no doubt, but over time all of these British Isles ethnicities have together found enough common ground and sense of kinship to forge a common identity. Common loyalty. Problems that exist between these ethnic groups in the British Isles tend to be left behind here.... I was once told by a very clever Irishman (you know who you are ;)) that the reason for this has been speculated to be that as these populations are no longer in competition with each other for resources (as they necessarily are "back home") inter-ethnic tensions become somewhat irrelevant, and then eventually cease to exist.

In the early days of colonisation in Australia, those from Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales had to band together as a means of survival. And often the exploited working classes of all of these ethnic groups had far more in common with each other than they did with the English "governing bodies". ;) (I think this is largely where Australia's "rebellious spirit" comes from.)

The Horned God
Tuesday, July 15th, 2008, 03:53 PM
Problems that exist between these ethnic groups in the British Isles tend to be left behind here.... I was once told by a very clever Irishman (you know who you are ;))

Ah yes, that sounds like me alright. :D


that the reason for this has been speculated to be that as these populations are no longer in competition with each other for resources (as they necessarily are "back home") inter-ethnic tensions become somewhat irrelevant, and then eventually cease to exist.

I can't seem to find the quote now but the argument was that when early colonists were turned out of the penal colonies after serving their time (usually for something relatively minor by todays standards), the Crown freely granted them as much land to settle as they could clear for themselves by hand. In that kind of environment one has to rely heavily upon his neighbours at least in the first few years in order to have any hope of survival at all, and their was a fair percentage that didn't survive their first year. So the toughness of life encouraged co-operation and "nation building" of necessity.

The Crown forces may have been less sympathetic towards Catholic's in some respects (such as supporting the building of RC schools and churches) but they exacted taxes equally on all, this was usually done confiscating badly needed livestock, and so the army came to be seen as the common enemy by the colonists.

Kriegersohn
Tuesday, July 15th, 2008, 05:24 PM
In my opinion, there's a clear answer: no. Most Americans are bad at retaining their cultural and linguistic heritage, and even those that manage to make this effort (usually 1st and 2nd generation immigrants) don't teach it to their children. They teach them English and try to integrate them into the American society like good citizens. The tendency of any country which has a monoculture is to become as homogeneous as possible. Multiculturalism just doesn't work in countries like the USA. Let's face it, the only people who have preserved their heritage outside their motherlands are these Volksdeutsche in Europe who live in enclaves and the Amish in the US who isolate themselves from the modern world. Without an enclave, it's pretty difficult. And please don't tell me that these sausage fests or Oktoberfests are preservation of German heritage because it's a joke. So, who comes to America is better off becoming American. Anything else is like swimming against a waterfall. I'm speaking from own experience. Had I not returned to Germany, my generation would have lost my German heritage and my children wouldn't have been German anymore.

Curious, you act like some things can't be regained once people have lost them. In some respects it is like loosing your keys, if you can't find it make a new set. I've been doing that here for a bit now, helping others learn German and understand, as well as implement, a culture that they lost over time. Now, given my background, I can't help them "become" Westphalian, Bavarian, Saxon, etc...but I can encourage them to research their regional heritage and to travel back in order to experience it first hand. This approach does have precendents in both the US with the former Amana colonies and the ethnic Germans in Silesia (currently Poland). It is quite a different approach from the usual "hey I'm German, let's get drunk!" or "dress up in trachten and dance" that is seen here. It takes time...and alot of patience, though in the end I think it is worth it if it improves their lives. With out our roots, we will not survive. Granted, there has been more than once that I've wanted to just go back to Berlin and stay, at the same time though I have invested a lot of time and energy here (even fought for this country). Maybe it is just the very stubborn Dittmarscher in me, going against the flow or becoming a rock that fights that waterfall you mentioned...of course, it is becoming annoying getting called a foreigner here lately.:censored: Either way, perhaps something to think about.

Values of different Germanic ethnicities don't clash with one another to make maintaining the values impossible. Culture, on the other hand is different. You cannot maintain multiple cultural identities and traditions at once without having some inner chaos. Choose a side and identify thus, whatever is seemingly dominant in you.

Hehe, try having family in two countries seperated by an ocean...that creates enough inner turmoil and chaos. :) Brucken...gotta love it. :D

FFF
Ragnar

Octothorpe
Wednesday, August 6th, 2008, 01:46 PM
I've seen some youngsters try very hard to uphold their heritages. A fellow from Elgin, IL, has helped his kids start a New German-American Bund, which meets on Saturdays. They have German-language lessons, take trips to German enclaves, and study German culture. These same kids (I used to teach at their school) are also proud Americans, who salute the flag, are involved in local and state politics, and are active in their church. Are they not upholding more than one tradition? Let's give credit where credit is due!

SwordOfTheVistula
Thursday, August 7th, 2008, 07:08 AM
I don't see a conflict between ethnic culture (German, Irish, Scottish, English, etc) and a local culture (American, British, Australian, Austrian, Swiss, Canadian, etc). Ethnic culture is generally immutable, local culture is mutable.

Even local culture is often subdivided, 'Texan', 'New Yorker', or 'New Englander', and often combined with other more mutable 'identities' such as class or religious identity, rural/urban, professional, subculture, lifestyle, political, etc.

For example, one could be a middle class gay Irish pagan New York American libertarian punk rocker, and not have any identity conflict. Someone could be a working class Swiss metalhead in their 20s, and then become a middle class Texan American Evangelical by their 40s.

Where it gets schizophrenic is attempting to adopt multiple ethnic cultures equally, especially if they are dissimilar.

Ossi
Thursday, August 7th, 2008, 02:00 PM
I've seen some youngsters try very hard to uphold their heritages. A fellow from Elgin, IL, has helped his kids start a New German-American Bund, which meets on Saturdays. They have German-language lessons, take trips to German enclaves, and study German culture. These same kids (I used to teach at their school) are also proud Americans, who salute the flag, are involved in local and state politics, and are active in their church. Are they not upholding more than one tradition? Let's give credit where credit is due!
I give no credit to "German" American flag wavers. German culture might be compatible with Americans since America was founded as a multicultural country, but American culture is incompatible with Germans since we are a nation-state, and not a state of many nations. German nationalists don't accept German Jews and German Turks, so we don't accept German Americans either. I only give credit to those Germans from the US who make the effort to be wholly German and renounce waving American flags. As a proverb goes, "friend to all is friend to none". Those who are "loyal" to more than one nation are loyal to none.

Allenson
Thursday, August 7th, 2008, 02:45 PM
we don't accept German Americans either.

The ironic thing here is that I don't see anyone asking for your acceptance. I neither need nor seek the approval of anyone to know myself, know where I come from and know which direction I would like to see my folk here in the New World travel in.

I don't pretend to be a German but there is no debating that I am (partially) of German stock. There is nothing that you can do or say to cancel this fact.

New identities were forged here from similar and kindred peoples, identities that are of value and worthy of preservation and continuity. At leas they are in our eyes and that is what is most important to us, not the opinion of some German 5000 miles away.

C˙chulainn-Rurik
Thursday, August 7th, 2008, 03:20 PM
The ironic thing here is that I don't see anyone asking for your acceptance. I neither need nor seek the approval of anyone to know myself, know where I come from and know which direction I would like to see my folk here in the New World travel in.

I don't pretend to be a German but there is no debating that I am (partially) of German stock. There is nothing that you can do or say to cancel this fact.

New identities were forged here from similar and kindred peoples, identities that are of value and worthy of preservation and continuity. At leas they are in our eyes and that is what is most important to us, not the opinion of some German 5000 miles away.

Yeah, those are pretty much the sentiments of many colonial Europeans.

Amorsite
Friday, August 8th, 2008, 01:38 AM
What would you define as 'upholding a tradition'? What does it mean in practicality?

Ossi
Friday, August 8th, 2008, 02:46 AM
The ironic thing here is that I don't see anyone asking for your acceptance. I neither need nor seek the approval of anyone to know myself, know where I come from and know which direction I would like to see my folk here in the New World travel in.

I don't pretend to be a German but there is no debating that I am (partially) of German stock. There is nothing that you can do or say to cancel this fact.

New identities were forged here from similar and kindred peoples, identities that are of value and worthy of preservation and continuity. At leas they are in our eyes and that is what is most important to us, not the opinion of some German 5000 miles away.
I didn't debate whether Americans are partially of "German stock" or not. Heidi Klum and Seal's baby is also partially of "German stock". So what? Being German is not just about having some German ancestors. I couldn't care less about your new identities, native Germans define what is and what isn't part of their nation. Americans are a lost cause to me, so as long as they stay out of German business it's equal to me whether they forge a new identity or become identity-less. But the moment an American claims he or other Americans can be German and American at the same time, it's ridiculous. Native Germans also don't ask Americans who want to be German whether they are fine with their rejection or not, they simply reject them. ;)

SlÝNanGael
Friday, August 8th, 2008, 03:51 AM
Americans are a lost cause to me, so as long as they stay out of German business it's equal to me whether they forge a new identity or become identity-less.

I only give credit to those Germans from the US who make the effort to be wholly German and renounce waving American flags.

Why give credit to a lost cause?

Ossi
Friday, August 8th, 2008, 03:57 AM
Why give credit to a lost cause?
Germans who keep German are not Americans and not a lost cause. Germans have lived in foreign countries for centuries. If they managed to keep German in Czechoslovakia, Russia, Romania, Hungary and other countries, they could do it in the USA too. Hell, they even do it in Togo. But it's not something that's done after n generations and after ethnic mongrelisation. If a German immigrates to the US and decides to be an American and not teach his language and culture to his children, then he is a traitor and ceases to be German. So do his descendents.

Brynhild
Friday, August 8th, 2008, 05:36 AM
For Ossi,

Unless my memory fails me, I made this thread for the benefit of colonials, being all too aware of the differences between us and Europeans.

But for all the antagonistic attitudes present in your last couple of remarks, you would've been welcome with your opinions.

From where I sit, you don't ever seem to have anything noteworthy to say about "Us", so I can only wonder as to why you bother to say anything at all, apart from just the enjoyment of antagonising!

Another observation I have noticed is that because you are ignorant to "Our" new world ideology, you simply don't have anything better to say.

I think some of us have already made it quite clear our feelings on this matter.

TheGreatest
Wednesday, December 24th, 2008, 05:23 AM
Germanic? Sure... But German? Certainty not! At least the last time someone spoke fluent German, was a Great Grandfather and even than it wasn't his primary tongue.


What must the continentals think? Going by patrilineal descent, I'm a mix of Norwegian, Scottish, Swedish, German and Ruthenian, and maybe a little bit of French (my ancestors had lived in a Francophone region, as Anglophones.)



Most Continentals would quickly point out that I'm "Mixed" (Though ironically by American standards, I'm unmixed. :| ) and call me a pot of cheese.


But I have no identity crisis. I identify as being Anglo-Saxon. And I don't identify as being ''White''. Mainly because I have little in common with these Roman Catholic, Southern Italians, city rats, who had been converging on America en masse since the 1950's.
(That's my criticism of White Nationalism in general. Most of them would support Bulgarians and Albanians to emmigrate and marry with our people. :-O Not a whole lot different than the ''Multi-Culturalists")

Resist
Wednesday, September 30th, 2009, 05:16 AM
This kind of reminds me of those American movies about Anglo-Jewish families that celebrate Chrismukkah to reconcile all traditions from all sides. It looks artificial, incompatible, and, to be honest, ridiculous. I think we are better off upholding one identity.

Vindefense
Wednesday, September 30th, 2009, 09:21 PM
Interesting question. One I have thought about before especially since my personal belief is that cultures should be dynamic, not static. So, I vote no upon the grounds that it was not the interest of those who emigrated to preserve the 'old'. This also leads me to conclude, a vast divide must have existed in the mindset of those who stayed in the motherland and those who left for colonies. This divide is clear since millions of Germanic immigrants have come to the new lands and are still continuing to leave Europe for the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand

This begs to ask the question, why? What is it that caused some to leave and some to stay. There was hardly an alien presence in Europe at the time and the European states were for the most part homogeneous, yet many left and are continuing to leave. Of those who did, within a few generations they assimilated into the majority.

History books say they left primarily for the following reasons. Opportunity, and to escape both political and religious limitations. In order to agree with this, then we must accept that in Europe, the economic climate was bleak and the various nation states were moving towards authoritarian rule. This was in stark contrast to the new world where the old Germanic ideal of limited government was being revived. This would certainly appeal to those who were witness to the restrictive effects of Statism and Catholicism that was engulfing Europe.

So it is not far fetched to say that these immigrants who left the old world for the new world did so in protest. It also stands to reason that a people who left in protest at what the old world had become would have no interest in passing that culture on to their descendants and for the most part they didn't. Instead they saw themselves, from that time on, as part of a new culture, or as Allenson so accurately illustrated they 'forged a new identity.'

Dagna
Wednesday, September 30th, 2009, 11:19 PM
The USA, Canada, Australia, South Africa, are Germanic lands. Therefore I believe it is our duty to preserve Germanic heritage. For Americans, this revolves around the white Anglo-Saxon culture, but German and Scandinavian elements have blended in too. I believe one of the most important values we must preserve is freedom. That is why our forefathers came here and built this nation.