Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Nordish vs. Europid

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Monday, December 11th, 2006 @ 02:51 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    2,312
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Question Nordish vs. Europid

    Polak is a man of reason, indeed.

    Loki still fails to understand both the Nordish and the Europid concept. He argues, that Nordish is a "racial" concept, while Europid is a "political-geographic" concept.

    This is false, of course.

    The creator of the Nordish concept, McCulloch, defines it as (4) [definitions (1) - (3) by myself]:


    "... the indigenous peoples of Northern Europe as a whole ..."

    "Northern Europe" is, of course, a geographic term, and it groups all sub-races together that are considered "indigenous", i. e. that lived there (and continued their development) for an extensive period of time, regardless of their sub-racial origin and sub-racial affiliations.

    Northern UPs and Nordids, for example, both of whom are considered "Central Nordish" in the concept, differ racially, phenotypically and from their history of evolution dramatically from each other; it has been argued by anthropologists, for example, that the evolutionary link between Mediterraneans and Nordids is closer than those between either them and UPs.

    If we now define Europid proper as referring to "the peoples [or sub-races] indigenous to Europe as a whole", we have a similar racial-geographic concept, which Loki, however refuses to acknowledge.

    This is all the more strange, as the borders of the Nordish concept are much more blurred and arbitrary than those of the Europid proper concept. Europe as a whole, was simply for thousands of years, a breeding pool of relatively more perfect isolation than Northern/Central Europe.

    Also, there is this prevailing view amongst certain Nordicists which I would call "depigmentation fetishism." They establish Nordishness predominantly by depigmentation which leads to all sorts of contradictions, seeing that incipient and developed blondeness (of all skin, hair, and eyes) can be found in all Europid sub-racial groups.

    Polak is right, of course -- the genetic link between Europids is strong and the similarity striking; it exceeds in relative terms the one amongst Nords; the Nordish concept is simply more blurred. That does not make it useless but whoever denies these facts of genetic research confuses his personal aesthetic ideals with science.

    Thoughts?
    .

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


    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, September 5th, 2008 @ 06:36 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    California California
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Posts
    4,095
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    17
    Thanked in
    16 Posts

    Post Re: Nordish vs. Europid

    McCulloch and Coon are nice but this sort of eye-balling or racial typing has been replaced with better genetic data. Genes don't lie. All that can be manipulated is the understanding of the relationships between various molecules which are the fingerprints of our evolutionary ancestry, not the molecules themselves. This basis of potential evolutionary information is not limited to a roomfull of fossils but consists of five billion souls.

    My understanding from the genetic evidence is that all "Nordid" people are descended from the European population of the Upper Paleolithic. This includes core and most secondary types, Nordics, Alpines, Baltics, and most everyone else except Southern Meds. who have their origin in the Near East in post-Pleistocene times. If I am wrong, please correct me here.

    To me, this means that genetic guys, like Polak, should be telling us "how it is" and old bone guys like Coon and McCulloch should be called upon for raw data, history and interpetation and as possible inspiration for further genetic research but the genetic information must have priority.

    It seems that Europe, minus the wave of Neolithic agricultural people from the Near East, is a very tight group racially with lots of very old, local and even communial races (as in Switzerland) within this larger unit. The only question in my mind is are we going to accept or reject the Southern Meds. who arrived with agriculture from the Near East?

  3. #3
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    May 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Flemish
    Country
    Flanders Flanders
    Gender
    Posts
    5,484
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    17
    Thanked in
    14 Posts

    Post Re: Nordish vs. Europid

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Solar Wolff
    McCulloch and Coon are nice but this sort of eye-balling or racial typing has been replaced with better genetic data. Genes don't lie. All that can be manipulated is the understanding of the relationships between various molecules which are the fingerprints of our evolutionary ancestry, not the molecules themselves. This basis of potential evolutionary information is not limited to a roomfull of fossils but consists of five billion souls.

    My understanding from the genetic evidence is that all "Nordid" people are descended from the European population of the Upper Paleolithic. This includes core and most secondary types, Nordics, Alpines, Baltics, and most everyone else except Southern Meds. who have their origin in the Near East in post-Pleistocene times. If I am wrong, please correct me here.

    To me, this means that genetic guys, like Polak, should be telling us "how it is" and old bone guys like Coon and McCulloch should be called upon for raw data, history and interpetation and as possible inspiration for further genetic research but the genetic information must have priority.

    It seems that Europe, minus the wave of Neolithic agricultural people from the Near East, is a very tight group racially with lots of very old, local and even communial races (as in Switzerland) within this larger unit. The only question in my mind is are we going to accept or reject the Southern Meds. who arrived with agriculture from the Near East?
    Dubious at least, even the Atlanto-mediterrenean branch which alledgedly was sea-faring and spread the Impresso Ware over to the Balkan and the French Rivièra, however I read that the type of artefacts aren't downright similar which doesn't tally with the idea of a founding father group nestling down over the shores of the Euro-Mediterrenean in one wave and from one unique starting point, thought it might come from the fact that the Balkan got the biggest share of refugees of the Black Sea Flood,- had a old counterpart in Western Europe, a reminder that our known subraces are specialized descendants of different, geographically seperated UP population stocks.
    IMO the circum-Mediterrenean population in Europe, from Catalonia over Padania and land-sliding down into the Balkan, splitting up to encompass the Danubian area, have their roots in the Epi-Gravettians, curiously enough it holds even nicely together with the initial dispersal of the Aurignician.
    While Central Europe and North Europe should be linked with the Magdalénians, France and probably Belgium are somewhat intermediary and connect to the later Tardenoisins, which have been influenced by the Azilians, who partially by their techno-complex and in terms of racial types, have been mixed with a slight contigent of Capsians of North Africa.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Monday, December 11th, 2006 @ 02:51 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    2,312
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Re: Nordish vs. Europid

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Solar Wolff
    The only question in my mind is are we going to accept or reject the Southern Meds. who arrived with agriculture from the Near East?
    This is far too much a generalization, Doc, and, even where it applies,

    1. the genetic data is still subject to interpretation,
    2. it is only a part of the picture,
    3. it says little if anything about the original sub-racial composition of those Neolithic farmers, and
    4. it simply doesn't apply to Southern Europeans as a whole.

    Just to give you one example. The source some more confused Nordicists rely on that Greeks are allegedly less Europid than some Turks (Anatolians) is typcially based on Cavalli-Sforza's proposal to reflect the diffusion of Neolithic farmers, considering the Eu4, Eu9, Eu10, and Eu11 components in population groups. Here is a rough sketch thereof:


    That is supposed to prove that Greeks are "less Europid" than Turks.

    What is conveniently overlooked, however, is, that

    a. these markers are just a piece of the whole; by these markers alone Iberians would be as Europid as Austrians and Central Russians; and Southern Portugese are as Europid as Northern Italians.

    b. these markers say nothing about the rest of the genetic or sub-racial composition of a territory (such as Greece vs. Turkey.)

    c. this sketch is a combined reflection of various markers already, and individual frequencies differ geographically;

    d. these "Neolithic" markers do not strictly correspond with any sub-racial or racial group; that they -- within Europe -- were Neolithic in origin and that Europids were mostly descended from Neolithic farmers was merely a proposal by Cavalli-Sforza that has been recently come under attack, and recent evidence rather suggests that Europids derived mostly from Paleolithic hunter-gatherers, derived from refuges in Iberia and the Ukraine during the last ice age. The "Neolithic" interpretation is entirely circumstantial and simply not a fact; nor does it say anything about the sub-racial composition of these original "Neolithic farmers."

    They definitely were hardly composed of those sub-racial groups that now make up Arabs or Ethopians.

    Compare these allegedly "Neolithic markers" (HG 9/21) in detail:

    Algerians.....93% (41/52)
    Greeks........56% (28/28)
    Turks.........43% (33/10)
    Italians......32% (18/14)
    Czechs........19% (11/ 8)
    Portuguese....19% ( 7/12)
    Dutchmen......15% ( 7/ 8)
    Frenchmen.....13% ( 5/ 8)
    Slovakians....13% ( 3/10)
    Spaniards.....13% ( 3/10)
    Slovenians....13% ( 6/ 7)

    If they are, as it is claimed by confused Nordicists, a yardstick to measure non-Europidness, then Czechs and Loki's Dutchmen are less Europid than Spaniards and Slovenians.

    This is even more striking when it comes to "Neolithic" mtDNA:

    North-West.........22% (Irish, English, Welsh, Cornish and French)
    South-East.........20% (Bulgarians and Romanians)
    North-East.........18% (Finns, Karelians, Estonians, Chuvash and Russians)
    North-Central......17% (Germans, Czechs, Danes and Poles)

    While Europe's Periphery definitely has assimilated a certain amount of non-Europid proper sub-racial elements (alone because there a. was never a perfect isolation, and b. because there are no pure races) -- to a larger extent than Central and Northern Europe anyway --, the influences have been, taken as a whole, marginal, and the admixture has in proportion already been distributed over the rest of Europe in the last thousands of years.

    In general, Europe has been a breeding pool over all its history, in relative isolation from the rest of the world due to social, religious, ethnic, linguistic, and geographic factors; extra-Europid genetic influences have been, since the last ice age, significantly smaller (in proportion) than non-Nordish Europid influences onto the Nordish genetic pool.

    Thus, it is not really surprising that Europids form genetically a union with a high degree of phenotypical resemblance, with non-Europeans standing by and large outside. And a few fallacious speculative interpretations of incomplete genetic data on Europe's periphery will not discuss this very fact away -- just because someone confuses his depigmentation fetishim (which I, on an aesthetic level, even share) with science.
    Last edited by Thorburn; Sunday, July 11th, 2004 at 10:52 AM.
    .

  5. #5
    Disinterested
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, September 13th, 2005 @ 09:17 PM
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Gender
    Politics
    Folkish
    Posts
    1,403
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Re: Nordish vs. Europid

    Quote Originally Posted by Tryggvi
    That is supposed to prove that Greeks are "less Europid" than Turks.
    If physical major races are supported by correltions in genetics, then minor races (subtypes) have a similar role in tracing migrations. But you're right that they can't be used the way people are using them to prove theories, unless they can be linked to a type at least. Even if they can, it must still be remembered that lineages can be lost in a population. While genes from the ancestor that introduced them, would still have a noticable effect on race.

    But I don't think South-East Europeans are any more or less Europid than West Asians, in my opinion. I think this fits with the Neolithic immigrant origin, and with most of the evidence from physical types (there are Dinarids in Europe and Asia, etc). And it's for these physical similarities, that Poulianos calls this Black Sea region Circumpontic.

  6. #6
    Disinterested
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, September 13th, 2005 @ 09:17 PM
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Gender
    Politics
    Folkish
    Posts
    1,403
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Re: Nordish vs. Europid

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Solar Wolff
    McCulloch and Coon are nice but this sort of eye-balling or racial typing has been replaced with better genetic data.
    I think genetics is just another source of evidence and you have to be very careful interpreting this evidence racially.

    It is important but its still of limited usefullness to anthropology, I think.

  7. #7
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    May 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Flemish
    Country
    Flanders Flanders
    Gender
    Posts
    5,484
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    17
    Thanked in
    14 Posts

    Post Re: Nordish vs. Europid

    Quote Originally Posted by atlanto-med
    I think genetics is just another source of evidence and you have to be very careful interpreting this evidence racially.

    It is important but its still of limited usefullness to anthropology, I think.
    Genetic researchers are like parvenus who think they invented warm water and otherwise they suffer from some form of echolalia.

    Some exceptions besides and then ornated in the usual scientific scholastics which is open to everyone's wild interpretation, stuck in general in the current paradigm, they havent progressed further than what was already known in the thirties, solely based on bone material, like the division in Africans and Non-Africans.

    Contrary what some eagerly believe, there are enough cases where the archaeological record doesn't tally with the solutions provided by gene studies.

  8. #8
    Progressive Collectivist
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Agrippa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, January 31st, 2011 @ 09:22 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Asgard
    Gender
    Politics
    Progressive Collectivist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    6,969
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Post Re: Nordish vs. Europid

    About the initial topic, I would just say, that one wants to preserve the Nordid race in its substance, doesnt have to mean to oppose the "Europid" or European racial concept, which, like Njörd pointed correctly out, is as much or even more consistent than the "Nordish".

    European preservation is the first rule, and it is totally rational, Nordid preservation is, at least to me, included in this concept, because the Nordid type is one of (or the most) the more progressive and important types of the European people.

    But I think it would be better probably, to fight the personal thing in another thread out, because it is going more and more away from the original topic...

    I can just understand both of your positions, and I like Awar and Brandt, but if I read what is written here, I can just see that Njörd is right in general.

    I'm a German and I see the German position. My family suffered from the things which happened in WW2 even more than most of the people here on this board, I'm quite sure, but time goes by and we should look into the future.

    Never forget and stay what we are, fight for Germany and our folk as long as it is existent in its true spirit, and might there be just single individuals left...

    But some "arguments" are just unnecessary and offending, and there should be no place for such things in this forum.

    European in-fights at this time are the last thing we need, thats at least my opinion. And if this microcosmos on the i-net, with an overwhelming majority of people with a good will, has such problems, how might it be in the macrocosmos?

    There should be a good example in our microcosmos, something which promotes European preservation which IS Nordish and German preservation as well!

    I hope you can find your way back to a good comradeship, like I thought you both had it, it would be pity if some small disputs would cause such things after a long time...
    Last edited by Agrippa; Sunday, July 11th, 2004 at 08:19 PM.
    Magna Europa est patria nostra
    STOP GATS! STOP LIBERALISM!

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Monday, December 11th, 2006 @ 02:51 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    2,312
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Re: Nordish vs. Europid

    The off-topic discussion has been split into our shiny, new Soap Opera forum.

    http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=14746
    .

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 11
    Last Post: Friday, July 7th, 2006, 08:13 AM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: Monday, June 26th, 2006, 09:22 PM
  3. Nordish Diaspora (for Colonialists, travellers, & all that are Nordish)
    By Odin's Pie in forum Germanic Diaspora, Enclaves, & Influences
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: Saturday, October 15th, 2005, 07:27 PM
  4. Nazism and Fascism are Non-Nordish and Anti-Nordish
    By Arkona in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: Tuesday, June 14th, 2005, 03:19 AM
  5. Ainus: Non-Europid or Europid?
    By Glenlivet in forum Non-Europoid
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 07:28 PM

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
  •