Blood or Culture - What's Worth More?

[Finnish Swede]

This should't be a question:

One which is given to you (and which you can not change) vs one which you have learned (and people can learn ... if we just want ... until we die).

So pretty easy ... blood.

[Sigurdsson]

Culture. And yet, I wouldn’t want a Sub Saharan African participating in Germanic culture, nor would I expect them to lol.

[Nachtengel]

As I wrote in this thread before, blood is infinitely more important than culture because it is, for the most part, irreplaceable. Take for example an Australoid or sub-Saharan African, it would take more than a few generations to "dilute" the blood and even then, it will never really be entirely gone and there may still be a chance that some genetic traits will resurface, even after generations. For example, the case of the "black & white twins", or those negroes with blue or green eyes. This is why some people believe in the "one drop rule" and the ideal is as close to 100% as possible. Of course, this is an ideal, not everyone is equally "pure" in this sense, however the lower the percentage of foreign blood, the less probability of such "surprises".

Culture is an emanation of race, it is a result of the creative force of a race. When you mix people of different blood, you will eventually end up with a different culture. Ethnically and racially mixed offspring usually have identity issues and don't fully integrate into either culture. for example, "African-Americans" are neither truly culturally American, nor truly African. If you sent American negroes to Africa the African negroes would be unlikely to consider them just like their own. Instead they created their new culture, hood/ebonics culture and so forth. So in a way, everything starts and ends with blood and is tied to it.

[Idis]

I believe that both are important and while generally blood is a must, there may be some cases where culture makes the difference. For example, in another thread I saw the mention of a half German half Italian who was raised in Italy speaking Italian language and practicing Italian culture. In this case, the person would be considered Italian by many, eventhough they have German blood. However, if the same person had been born and raised in Germany, they would be considered German. So in this case it would be the culture that would make the difference but I guess it's also easy because they'd have the blood.

But what about less clear cut cases, such as a person who is mostly or fully Italian by blood, but is born and raised in Germany, speaking German as a mother language? Would this person be considered German, or would they be considered Italian? I imagine that in the example the OP provided of an Iranian, born in Sweden by Iranian parents, who is completely adapting to Swedish culture, would be rejected by many right-wingers because of racial reasons (they may not consider the Iranian white). But what about people who are white and would be theoretically racially compatible/assimilable? Finally, what about the case of a person who is fully German by blood, but was born and raised in a non-Germanic country, with their language and culture? Would they be considered Germanic still? In such cases, wouldn't it be culture that would make the difference?

[Víðálfr]

I believe that both are important and while generally blood is a must, there may be some cases where culture makes the difference. For example, in another thread I saw the mention of a half German half Italian who was raised in Italy speaking Italian language and practicing Italian culture. In this case, the person would be considered Italian by many, eventhough they have German blood. However, if the same person had been born and raised in Germany, they would be considered German. So in this case it would be the culture that would make the difference but I guess it's also easy because they'd have the blood.

Good points... In the given examples it's easier, being half/half... But I met not so long ago someone who was considering themselves German, but they were Hungarian by blood. That person was presenting themselves as German to everyone, but they told me they were actually Hungarians who moved to Germany and adopted the language and culture, so now the whole family considers themselves as being Germans, plus they have German citizenship... In the context where we met, no one contested themselves as being German, even though there were Germans (by both blood and culture) in there.

But what about less clear cut cases, such as a person who is mostly or fully Italian by blood, but is born and raised in Germany, speaking German as a mother language? Would this person be considered German, or would they be considered Italian? I imagine that in the example the OP provided of an Iranian, born in Sweden by Iranian parents, who is completely adapting to Swedish culture, would be rejected by many right-wingers because of racial reasons (they may not consider the Iranian white). But what about people who are white and would be theoretically racially compatible/assimilable? Finally, what about the case of a person who is fully German by blood, but was born and raised in a non-Germanic country, with their language and culture? Would they be considered Germanic still? In such cases, wouldn't it be culture that would make the difference?

Very good questions... Personally, I am still thinking... As in the example I just mentioned with that Hungarian/ German situation...

I'll take again the questions, one by one...

But what about people who are white and would be theoretically racially compatible/assimilable?

I guess it might depend from case to case, and also how those people feel about themselves, if they identify themselves with one or another group of reference. If they integrate themselves pretty well in the big picture, I might consider them as belonging culturally to that group, at least.

Personally I was shocked many times already to meet Asians in Scandinavia, ask them where are they from, and to get the answer: "From Norway" (or something similar)... because they were adopted from Asian countries, and raised in Norway... Some Norwegians by blood even consider them as being Norwegian, they don't consider them as being anything else... It was a shock for me in the beginning, I have to admit... But also... thinking more about it... these people were raised there, in that culture, they lived there almost their entire lives... Sending them somewhere else would raise a lot of other problems too, things are very complicated... Maybe the ones taking the decision should be themselves only?... From my knowledge so far, non-Europeans don't feel so well in European countries, very often they wish to go to their countries of origin (by blood)... but sometimes it's very difficult due to political reasons... I met Africans and South Americans in Scandinavia who told me honestly that they wished they could go back to their countries of origin, or at least somewhere else, because they don't like it in Scandinavia, but that's almost impossible due to political reasons... I was so impressed when an African woman told me, when I asked her about this, "There is no place like home!"... She was living for so many years in Scandinavia already, but missed so much her home in Africa... This is tragic for everyone involved, both for their host countries (thinking about the natives), and for their countries of origin (missing their own people)...

Between different European countries the cultural clash is less obvious, but between continents and races the differences are much bigger... Some say that blood and culture go hand in hand, I believe that too, and this is why I believe it's difficult for people from other continents/ races to adapt to European cultures...

Finally, what about the case of a person who is fully German by blood, but was born and raised in a non-Germanic country, with their language and culture? Would they be considered Germanic still? In such cases, wouldn't it be culture that would make the difference?

Yes, I think in such a case the culture could make the difference. But again, it might depend from case to case.

Usually, for people being in such situation it's very complicated if they want to identify themselves as Germans and move to Germany, after being raised in a non-Germanic culture, with a non-Germanic language. They might face some problems with this. Some people in such situations wouldn't even consider themselves as Germanic anymore, but if some still consider themselves... things get more complicated...

To give another example: I know about the Hungarian/ Magyar minorities from Romania... I've heard that if they wanted to move to Hungary, they wouldn't feel so welcome there... being viewed as "Magyars from Romania"... so they preferred to stay in Romania, in their own communities there. I don't know if this is valid for the German diaspora too... But this raises another problem: cultural differences and acceptance between different local groups of the same ethnic group! I also heard there were problems for Germans from Eastern Germany if they wanted to move to Western Germany... so they preferred to go back to Eastern Germany. Cultural clashes can be inside the same ethnic groups too, just local differences... So when we talk about a bigger picture, meta-ethnicity, or race... here are even bigger differences... However, one could be surprised in such cases how someone from a different ethnic group from theirs would fit very well in their ethnic group... Don't ask me why, I have no valid explanations for this, but I know of such situations too... People who don't feel home in their ethnic group and who feel home in other ethnic groups... usually within the same race, of course... Who knows, maybe some distant genes, that 1% in their ancestry from a distant past? Or previous lifetimes, for those who believe in reincarnation? Whichever would be the answer, such cases exist too, and they aren't that rare either...

All in all... I was thinking about all those questions too for a while... and I still don't have an universal answer. I guess it mainly depends from case to case, to one particular case to another.

If one or another wins, blood or culture, it depends on each person, I guess, if they want to be assimilated in the new culture as part of that culture... or if they don't. And also how assimilable they are (maybe depends on their particular ancestry, or who knows on which other factors) in that particular culture... If things were as easy as typing here... but in real life situations, there are a lot of details to be taken into account... and each single case, each single situation, might have its own characteristics... so it might not be so easy to generalize, to give an answer applicable to everyone everywhere...

[Winkelried]

But what about less clear cut cases, such as a person who is mostly or fully Italian by blood, but is born and raised in Germany, speaking German as a mother language? Would this person be considered German, or would they be considered Italian?

I would not consider this person to be a native German. Whether I would consider them Italian is a different story, maybe, maybe not. I guess Italians would know this better. Personally, I would not consider German someone who did not speak the German language and was not culturally German, on the other hand simply speaking a language does not make you part of a people, since language and culture can be learned. You would need both the blood and the culture, just half of the equation wouldn't really work. However, culture can be acquired, while blood cannot, so the German-descended person who lost their language and culture due to being born and raised in Italy could become a member of the German nation if he reintegrated himself into it. The Italian born in Germany however could IMO not become part of the German nation. A nation is defined as a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language. Even if the Italian learned the culture and language, he wouldn't be bound to the nation by common descent and history.

Maybe the ones taking the decision should be themselves only?

I don't believe that someone can decide by themselves if they are part of a nation, since a nation is defined as a collective of people. How other people perceive that person therefore is also relevant, there would need to be a recurrent, large scale acceptance of that person's status IMO.

[Víðálfr]

I don't believe that someone can decide by themselves if they are part of a nation, since a nation is defined as a collective of people. How other people perceive that person therefore is also relevant, there would need to be a recurrent, large scale acceptance of that person's status IMO.

Very good point (especially what I emphasized in bold)!

I suppose that normally people are not so masochistic to force themselves into a collective that doesn't accept them, so it's a bilateral decision if someone fits in or not. Normally a person feels if they fit in or not, and so the collective, which accepts them or not.

After posting the above post I also saw the new thread created inspired by this thread we're in now, but which goes into more details: "Naturalized" Germanics or Loss of Germanic Status

[SaxonPagan]

I consider myself an ethnic Nationalist but I’m not the slightest bit interested in racial purity contests. DNA tests are only a recent phenomenon and I sometimes wish they'd never been made available to the general public. I’ve been on sites where members discuss all of their data at great length and, whilst some have genuine motives, there are others who range from the insecure seeking group approval to the braggarts on a superiority trip.

So although I think that blood and ancestry are important criteria, I’m opposed to racial snobbery and refuse to acknowledge any form of ‘hierarchy’ whereby 90% Germanics are deemed to be of greater value than the 75% ones, for example. Nor do I believe that this mentality benefits the wider community as a whole.

[Terminus]

In MK, Hitler declared that Goethe had the voice of blood AND the voice of reason in him. One-sided regard for the racial aspect leads to the mistakes of the Pan-Germanic movement.

[Sól]

I consider myself an ethnic Nationalist but I’m not the slightest bit interested in racial purity contests. DNA tests are only a recent phenomenon and I sometimes wish they'd never been made available to the general public. I’ve been on sites where members discuss all of their data at great length and, whilst some have genuine motives, there are others who range from the insecure seeking group approval to the braggarts on a superiority trip.

So although I think that blood and ancestry are important criteria, I’m opposed to racial snobbery and refuse to acknowledge any form of ‘hierarchy’ whereby 90% Germanics are deemed to be of greater value than the 75% ones, for example. Nor do I believe that this mentality benefits the wider community as a whole.

Didn't you call yourself a national socialist somewhere? The NS had a racial hierarchy scheme where they deemed certain racial types (such as Nordids) more valuable than others (such as Dinarids, Alpinids and East Baltids, who were much lower on the charts). So of course 90% Germanics are of greater value than 75% ones, just like 90% whites are of greater value than 75% ones. Even better are the 100% ones. The more contaminated one is, the less racial value they have. If someone gave you two icecream boxes, one that was 100% icecream, and another than was 75% icecream and 25% contaminated material like bugs or fecal matter, would you not care to make a choice, or would they both be of equal value? As far as I'm concerned, it's a no brainer.