Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: The Ethnic and Genetic Heritage of Germanics in Europe and America

  1. #21
    Schimmelreiter Hauke Haien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    Monday, September 4th, 2017 @ 08:59 AM
    Ethnicity
    Deutsch
    Location
    Land der Deutschen
    Gender
    Posts
    1,868
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    10
    Thanked in
    10 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by signofthehammer View Post
    the concept of Germany as a nation didn't exist until the 19th century
    'Germany' has always been an ethno-geographic term, predating our late nation called 'Deutsches Reich' by centuries. Ethnogenesis and nationhood are not strictly the same. Colonials are usually defined by their territory, hence the need to qualify the statement with a genealogical table.

    Singt ihr das Deutschlandlied, dann sei's Erkenntnis,
    singt ihr das Deutschlandlied, dann sei es Sehnsucht,
    Sehnsucht nach der Erfüllung Deutschen Reichs;
    Staat unter vielen Staaten; denn ihr sollt
    das Heilige nicht eitel nennen, Deutsche!
    Deutschland ist größer!
    Quote Originally Posted by signofthehammer View Post
    What matters is heritage.
    That would mean: Abandon the colonial labels and start an ethnic revival. Teddy Roosevelt does not approve.

  2. #22
    Moderator "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Stormraaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Afrikaner
    Ancestry
    Broadly Northwestern European
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Posts
    953
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    11
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    Parts of this discussion is much like the "Afrikaners and mixing" thread in the South Africa forum a short while back, which was basically the same kind of scrutiny applied to Afrikaners (a.k.a. "Boers", mentioned earlier) as to [white] Americans here.

    My take on all this is somewhat different, because I'm a "colonial" who thinks the Germanic torch should be handed to the Europeans. I would have liked to equate Afrikaners' Germanic identity with those of European Germanic peoples, but it just doesn't seem right to me, and not only on a possibly-less-pure level (yup, we had a helping of French blood early on as well). Don't get me wrong, I have tremendous pride in my Germanic heritage, and Afrikaners are absolutely identifiable as Germanic in language usage, culture and physical appearance. It would take about 30 seconds to integrate an Afrikaner into another Germanic society. However, reading or hearing bad news for the preservation of Germanic culture in Europe hurts me more than would similar news here. If we lose here, it would be unfortunate. If we lose there, if the Germanic peoples were to lose their identity on their home ground, it would be a horrendous tragedy.

    I wouldn't point out a less purely Germanic bloodline to anyone. Based on my own dark features it might even be hypocritical, who knows. I agree completely with Thorburn in the sense that you identify fellow Germanics by looking at and talking with them, and in that regard, the person you're interacting with is either Germanic or not. Still, I do think a high degree of genetic purity has a place, and that it's a good idea to know which populations carry more Germanic genetic history. Unique genetic markers are one aspect of Germanics, and all aspects of Germanics should be nurtured and protected, not only those the different groups have in common. I think people who are offended at being told they're genetically less Germanic have created their own kind of political correctness within the forum which I believe is counter-productive to Germanic preservation, much like all the other political correctnessess of our time. Of course, I don't think we should start comparing our admixture, I just don't think the topic needs to be a taboo. From the translation of the Roman Tacitus's Germania I read, his observation of Germanic tribals was that "all have red hair and fierce blue eyes"... which you have to admit is a seriously cool observation (even though I think the "all have red hair" part is somewhat unlikely, since the gene responsible for red hair is recessive). I, for one, would view someone's claim of belonging to a "purer" group, all sharing such a characteristically Germanic trait, alive today in the same light.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vingolf View Post
    [...] and I think this forum should leave its archaic focus on traditional European nationalism (i.e. territorialism), and focus on the overwhelming importance of a transatlantic, supranational Germanic identity.
    Excellent. Yes. But can we use a term other than "transatlantic"? Us Boers and the Aussies are feeling left out.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Stormraaf For This Useful Post:


  4. #23
    The Godfather "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Forseti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Monday, July 2nd, 2012 @ 12:44 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Saxon
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    California California
    Location
    Orange County
    Gender
    Family
    Married parent
    Occupation
    Managing Director
    Politics
    Conservative Constitutionalist
    Religion
    Traditionalist
    Posts
    74
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrioten View Post
    What good can possibly come out of this?

    Since nobody is presenting any figures, percentages, numbers, maps or graphs which would bring some reasonableness to this discussion, all we get is unsubstantiated and generalized claims about the other side's mongrelized nature. I'd give it up if I were you.
    Yes. Not that there would not be many studies demonstrating that all African, Asian and Indian admixture among both European and American Germanics is... negligible. The genetic and even cultural makeup of both groups is contrariwise strikingly similar.

    Quote Originally Posted by ÆinvargR View Post
    Instead of speculating back and forth, let's look at facts.

    1. The Genetic map of Europe shows that the different Germanic populations are separate.
    2. Most Euro-Americans have very recent ancestors from at least two or three European nations, nations they list when asked about their ethnicity/decent.
    = Euro-Americans are more mixed than European Germanics.

    What to think of this is up to each of us.
    I'm not sure what you want to express. I take from your country flag that you are Swedish, but it is actually not relevant.

    If a Swede and a Norwegian would have a daughter and she would grow up with her parents in Sweden, she would become (and be considered by the natives) a Swedish girl within a single generation. Or am I mistaken in this assumption?

    If she, two decades later, moved to England to study and married an Englishman, their child would become English within a single generation, too. How would this make the child "more mixed" than many other Englishmen who live in the U.K. and who might have Welsh, Scottish or Irish ancestors in their recent family lines? You couldn't distinguish the child from the rest of the English children if you saw it on a playground. What meaning has it to say this child is "more mixed"? Is it inferior? Is it less Germanic? If yes which ethnicity makes it inferior or less Germanic? Or is all what is hidden behind this phrase really that it has recent ancestors from different Germanic ethnicities? In this case, this phrase is ambiguous and confusing because the Anglo-Saxons or the English are themselves already a mixture of Angles, Saxons and Jutes and smaller numbers of Frisians, Flemings, Swabians, Franks, etc. Does this make them "purer" or "less mixed"?

    Germanics of other ethnicities assimilate and are integrated very easily and quickly. I agree with the many writers here who expressed that Europeans are often not aware how "mixed" they are themselves.

    The term makes no sense to me, and the insinuation that the opposite of "mixed" is "pure" pushes us into a no man's land. There are neither "pure" genes nor is there a "pure" culture.
    The answer to 1984 is 1776.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Forseti For This Useful Post:


  6. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, June 7th, 2010 @ 12:22 AM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Gender
    Posts
    325
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Forseti View Post
    If a Swede and a Norwegian would have a daughter and she would grow up with her parents in Sweden, she would become (and be considered by the natives) a Swedish girl within a single generation. Or am I mistaken in this assumption?
    You're not mistaken.

    If she, two decades later, moved to England to study and married an Englishman, their child would become English within a single generation, too. How would this make the child "more mixed" than many other Englishmen who live in the U.K. and who might have Welsh, Scottish or Irish ancestors in their recent family lines?
    By also having recent Swedish and Norwegian ancestry. Are you trying to prove European and American Germanics are equally mixed, or are you arguing for intra-Germanic mixing?

    You couldn't distinguish the child from the rest of the English children if you saw it on a playground.
    OEN will tell the difference when it's grown up.

    What meaning has it to say this child is "more mixed"? Is it inferior? Is it less Germanic?
    Like I said, it is the way it is no matter what you think of it.

    the Anglo-Saxons or the English are themselves already a mixture of Angles, Saxons and Jutes and smaller numbers of Frisians, Flemings, Swabians, Franks, etc. Does this make them "purer" or "less mixed"?
    "Pure" English are "pure" English even if the definition of English is such decent, like there can be "pure" mulattos.

    Germanics of other ethnicities assimilate and are integrated very easily and quickly.
    Well, whether intra-Germanic mixing is desirable or not is besides the point. All of this speculation is besides the point.

    I agree with the many writers here who expressed that Europeans are often not aware how "mixed" they are themselves.

  7. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Online
    Friday, June 18th, 2010 @ 01:54 PM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    Vandalic
    Ancestry
    Reidgotalandic
    Location
    Limes Germanicus
    Gender
    Posts
    945
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    13
    Thanked in
    13 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ÆinvargR View Post
    1. The Genetic map of Europe shows that the different Germanic populations are separate.
    The study you are referring to should be interpreted with caution. The data/samples from Norway and Sweden are, for example, not representative (Eastern Sweden - Uppland - and Western, Atlantic Norway) for these gene-pools.

    The Swedish gene-pool, for example, is not unique in a Germanic context. Both Germanic Sweden, Norway and Denmark share a common genetic heritage with other Germanic gene-pools in Germanic NW-Europe (northern Germany, the Netherlands, Eastern England etc.). The most common haplogroup in Sweden is I1a*, which is also present in the same frequency in Norway. I1a* has a decreasing gradient from Scandinavia towards both the east and the west (Atlantic) and Western Europe has been suggested as the source of the Scandinavian I1a*. Sweden has frequencies similar to other Scandinavian populations (Danes, Norwegians) and has a higher frequency of the Western haplogroup R1*(xR1a1) compared with haplogroup R1a1.

    http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v.../5201651a.html

  8. #26
    Schimmelreiter Hauke Haien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    Monday, September 4th, 2017 @ 08:59 AM
    Ethnicity
    Deutsch
    Location
    Land der Deutschen
    Gender
    Posts
    1,868
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    10
    Thanked in
    10 Posts
    Cohort effects in a genetically determined trait: eye colour among US whites.
    Grant MD, Lauderdale DS.

    Department of Family Medicine, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL 60153, USA.

    BACKGROUND: While the inheritance of eye colour is likely polygenic, blue eye colour is thought to follow an inheritance pattern similar to that of a recessive trait. Consequently, age-related differences in the prevalence of blue eye colour would be unanticipated. AIM: This study explores the finding and explanation for birth cohort differences in the prevalence of blue eye colour in the US white population. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Data from the first (1971-1975) and third (1988-1994) US National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES-I and NHANES-III), nationally representative surveys of the US population, were analysed. Trends in eye colour prevalence by birth cohort were analysed together with mortality rates according to eye colour. US census data (1980) were examined to explore cohort differences in ancestry and assortative mating by ancestry. RESULTS: The prevalence of blue eye colour among non-Hispanic whites in NHANES-III was 57.4% (95% CI: 50.1-64.7) for individuals born between 1899 and 1905 compared to 33.8% (95% CI: 31.3-36.5) for those born between 1936 and 1951. No association was found between survival and eye colour, nor was a cohort effect evident for primary ancestry. However, proportions reporting only one ancestry in census data declined with successive birth cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: A cohort effect in blue eye colour prevalence was found for the US white population. A secular trend of decreasing assortative mating by ancestry is the likely explanation.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12573082

  9. #27
    Senior Member Angharad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Last Online
    Tuesday, November 22nd, 2016 @ 11:35 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    California California
    Gender
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Posts
    136
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maelstrom View Post
    With all intended respect I find at least this portion of your post to be both misleading and false.

    A great many of the immigrants to America were facing religious persecution. Already in the early stages of America you had a disproportionate number of these religious refugees. Thus it's safe to assume that they would not have the same views as those people who lived in Europe at the time.

    Because of early immigration to America many radical elements were present from an early stage such as anti-monarchist Revolutionaries.

    America might have been colonised by people of Germanic stock, but the values and beliefs of these people were not proportionately represented.
    Your analysis of religion and politics in the colonies is a bit of over-simplification too.

    There were also many who came to the colonies for economic reasons. The first colony wasn't puritan Plymouth, but commercial Jamestown. Plymouth was just more successful, and even they had a division between the faithful and the "strangers". There were early Lutherans in PA, Catholics in MD, and even regular Anglicans in New England and especially Virginia. Then there are the Dutch and "New Sweden." As an old-stock American, I have ancestors from several of these early 1600's settlements, and many of them started out as loyalists. Saying that all my ancestors were nuts and radicals is a bit like calling all the Aussies' ancestors criminals, since we know they all weren't.

    One thing I'd like to point out is that I am a descendant of one "religious nut," Elder William Brewster, whose crime was starting his own church. I am just a bit tired of all the American bashers who criticize our history of religious freedom. I think it is hypocritical of people here (Sorry to point you out Maelstrom, you just happened to voice this opinion is this thread--I've really nothing against you otherwise) to criticize my ancestors for desiring religious freedom, while simultaneously practicing it yourselves.

    There were and are still Congregational churches in the UK, so the Pilgrim's beliefs are not that far outside the norm of Germanics (well, in this case the British). They just wanted local control of their churches.

    On that note, I'd like to ask everyone if you have been attending Anglican communion (or services at a state sponsored Lutheran Church, etc.)? How many here would be willing to pay a fine to not attend the State Church (Church of England, State Church of Sweden or Catholic Church, etc)? Maybe some here want to belong to non-mainstream religions? If so, you might have a lot in common with my religious nut ancestor.

    Those of you who prefer Odinism should especially be a bit more appreciative of their efforts for religious freedom, considering that you would be considered "lunatic fringe" by just about everyone else. Just try to imagine the inquisition showing up on your doorstep, there are relatively few devout Catholics here. Honestly, most people here have fringe views compared to the majority of modern "Germanics".

    Now I'm getting off topic, but as to the topic of ethnic and genetic heritage of Germanics I'm sure that there are plenty of people who married people from other regions. In fact I've often seen this in genealogy research, in Europeans (pre-1900) not just in America.

    I've seen Austrian men moving to Germany; Danish families moving to Italy; German men marrying women from France, Switzerland, etc.; Danes marrying Swedish, Norwegian and more; English marrying French, Dutch, etc. If I can find this in the trees of ordinary Europeans, I'm sure that there are more, and less desirable mixes too.

    As an example, my Danish friend vacationing here told me she is 1/8 Irish a few weeks ago, her boyfriend is a Swede who lives in Copenhagen. By some of your reckonings, if they have children, they might as well be Americans, because you wouldn't allow them any "pure" ethnicity. I am not going to say that it is equal to the amount of mixture in Americans but generally speaking our Germanic ancestors weren't as concerned about the ethnicity of their spouses as some of us here (at Skadi) are.

    Personally, I think that all the bickering is counter-productive. We'd be much better off to do something about the loss of culture and immigration issues in both America and Europe (or other colonies) unless we want great-grandchildren named Mohamed or Xochitl.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Angharad For This Useful Post:


  11. #28
    Senior Member Rodskarl Dubhgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    21 Minutes Ago @ 05:26 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Swedish & Dutch
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Rhode Island Rhode Island
    Location
    KY
    Gender
    Family
    Married parent
    Occupation
    Lorry Driver
    Politics
    Yankee
    Religion
    Geneva Bible
    Posts
    2,025
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,255
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    104
    Thanked in
    86 Posts
    American assimilation of immigrants should be viewed as the same in Britain and the White Commonwealth. I'm descended from English both before and after the Revolution. I'm descended from the people who founded my birthplace and home "colony", when it was ruled from on high in London. I'm a Rhode Islander both by birth and breeding in Providence Plantations. My British English ancestors were involved in the Industrial Revolution, some from the same areas as the original textile engineers. It matters not that my forefathers lived elsewhere in the same society.

    I look at various ethnic groups in their relationship with America through their fitness for Britain. Granted, Britain had Danes and America Swedes, America Dutch and Britain Germans, but they are close enough to see the synthesis from England to New England. This is no different than the British Commonwealth and Protectorate spawning the American Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. The original English free state bore a coat of arms and banner in which Scotland and Ireland were also displayed in a supremely relevant fashion. All others either align or deviate from the genetic baseline of those who have set up America to live in and exercise self-government outside of the homeland where it's not allowed.
    https://forums.skadi.net/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=45371&datel  ine=1529458786

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •