Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: Nordish vs. Germanic: Their Advantages and Disadvantages [split from: Skadi Orientation ]

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, December 8th, 2006 @ 02:25 AM
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Gender
    Posts
    4,101
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Question Nordish vs. Germanic: Their Advantages and Disadvantages [split from: Skadi Orientation ]

    I thought the same. I actually question that this is mainly for server load. To me it seems to be also a tactical step against TNP. I'm not convinced either, this sound a bit political. It reminds me of something Tony Blair would do. I'm not saying it is all wrong, as Aryandawn was indeed pro-Germanic and Nordicist, but the time chosen is just suspicious.

    I also find it funny that some who have been against this change now support it fully. Suomut should know.


    Quote Originally Posted by Triglav
    Skadi was turning more and more pro-European

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


    Join Date
    May 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Flemish
    Country
    Flanders Flanders
    Gender
    Posts
    5,485
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    23
    Thanked in
    20 Posts

    Post Re: AW: Re: AW: Re: Skadi Changed its Orientation: Germanic instead of European

    Quote Originally Posted by Volksdeutscher

    I also find it funny that some who have been against this change now support it fully. Suomut should know.
    That's an interesting observation, but it's vagueness makes one desire for a well-construed solution.

    I only overheard the claim that some form of moderate nordicism might be workable whereby Nordish races are determined as constituting undiminishing, fundamental part of the historical composition of a given nation -- a cornerstone of what grants a population its unique, derived but not interchangable character, recognition and destiny; however, there would be sound limitations to the advancement of the Nordish concept if it demotes the importance of non-Nordish races or population stocks in the emergence of a nation or meta-ethnical family as well negligence to matters of culture and spirituality in favour of a singulary attention(fetishism) to bodily features.
    Last edited by Frans_Jozef; Sunday, November 28th, 2004 at 01:37 AM.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, December 8th, 2006 @ 02:25 AM
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Gender
    Posts
    4,101
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Post Re: AW: Re: AW: Re: Skadi Changed its Orientation: Germanic instead of European

    I'm the one, together with you, and a few others, who have always remained the most critical when we have seen discussions on Nordish types being lumped together. Based on single traits, there are people in the Balkans who are Nordish too. The overall look may differ, and sometimes not even that, and change the name of the person and the classifier shall also change his or her opinion. The bias is there and it has been exposed several times. Still, Nordish does exist in the minds of people, and it did to me even before I heard of such a thing made up by some American.

    Nordish to me is Europid without doubt, if you will, call it mid-European type, and it does not need to mean strictly Scando-Nordid. What it does mean though is that it excludes some populations in the darker pigmented regions of Southern Europe, that from the perspective of Central and Northern Europe, phenotypically differ the least from typical Levantines.

    But there is also a bias for NW Europe, as someone of such a descent made the concept and the followers are mainly those of British descent who look up to types found in Scandinavia. In fact, NE Europe is probably the least Mediterranid, but are they typical Europeans. I say no. Typical Europeans are not strictly Scando-Nordid either. The typical European look in USA is not from Sweden, but rather Ireland. More Europeans have features that fit there than in eastern Sweden or western Finland.

    Nordish in itself is a broad term, which is unheard of outside (especially in Scandianvia) of the net and the assimilability scale is different if the centre is changed.
    Populations differ in the frequency of traits, and I'm beginning to believe that it does not lead much if one generalise the individual from the population.
    Better would probably be to first and foremost view the individual.

    I agree that culture is also important but one cannot belittle the importance of phenotype either. You cannot change a significant part of a population and except that the culture and mentality will remain the same.

    I don't really understand the problem. I have yet to see a German who does not look Nordish at all. In the same way, per definition, someone with ancestors from Celtic, Germanic, Baltic and Slavic (north?) is most likely more or less Nordish based on any scale of Nordish assimilability. It would not end there though, individuals in the Romance-speaking world could be included as well. Even NW Africa show a unity with Europe (mainly western). There are some physical types in distinct form that cannot be called Nordish, and do we really need a discussion about that? You also know that the serology of many Alpinid regions of Western Europe does not show a difference with the more Nordid regions. What does that mean? Lundman suggested that these different races or types were formed relatively late on the place from a serologically similar basis. We can then again see that races or types among humans does not always imply anything based a phenotype in the rather homogenous Europid stock, but it's also equally wrong to deny that there are differences of physical traits and neglect those who wish to preserve these traits.

    People have different definitions of Nordish and it's hard to define what one mean, and it's not always depigmentation, as there are numerous examples of blondism yet the individual does not have the morphology, and vice versa. Physical traits are not confined to a region but the overall makeup of traits tend to be unique for certain regions.

    The Nordish concept is even wrong for those who are most interested in it, those in the British Isles (mainly Scots-Irish?) in the New World. Centre should not be Scando-Nordids (Göta, Trönder and Västmanland) as they are rare on the British Isles, but rather the types more common there, Reihengräber and Friterpian (as is found in Groningen and Frisia), North-Atlantid and with some Litoroid (Mediterranid-Armenoid) and Dinarid (the latter almost exclusively in some coastal regions, and then the upper classes, as most of us can easily observe) that can yield both the so-called Anglo-Saxon in England and Lowland Scotland, or Keltic Nordic, and some weak Insular and a bit more Palaeo-Atlantid (mostly in parts of Wales). These types are only functional and convenient terms. One should determine the centre of assimilability for each region and family.



    Quote Originally Posted by Frans_Jozef
    there would be sound limitations to the advancement of the Nordish concept if it demotes the importance of non-Nordish races or population stocks in the emergence of a nation or meta-ethnical family as well negligence to matters of culture and spirituality in favour of a singulary attention(fetishism) to bodily features.
    Last edited by Glenlivet; Sunday, November 28th, 2004 at 03:02 AM.

  4. #4
    Member Triglav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, April 25th, 2006 @ 12:24 PM
    Subrace
    Arya/Paleoeuropeidal (norda) :D
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Location
    European Union
    Gender
    Politics
    Fairness
    Posts
    2,405
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post AW: Re: AW: Re: AW: Re: Skadi Changed its Orientation: Germanic instead of European

    "slavic" languages are absolutely arteficial (Read "slawenlegende"). The "glagolica", invented by a bunch of monks, is nothing but an ancient esperanto, creating new words, definitions and alphabet out of regional slangs.

    The craddle of European Civilization comes from the North. All blond people originate from the north. So if you see a blond-blue eyed Slovene, Russian, Czech, Polak ect., you can be 100% sure that his ancient ancestors originated from "Germanics" (Germanic = Nordic).
    "slovenja" was the settelment of the Langobards = Germanics/Teutons. "Poland" of the Goths and East-Vandals ect. ect. What do "slavs" tell us about their origin?
    Some silly story that they originate from some swamps in the east and popped out of no where into history.

    So you see my dear "Gorostan" [=Triglav], you are in reality a "Germanic" indoctrinated with panslav propaganda and historic fantasy stories. ~Dr. Brandt, former TNP and Skadi member

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, December 8th, 2006 @ 02:25 AM
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Gender
    Posts
    4,101
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Post Re: AW: Re: AW: Re: AW: Re: Skadi Changed its Orientation: Germanic instead of Europe

    I have seen quite many, but Njörd and Agrippa should of course know more about those southern regions. I actually wonder why you always try to belittle the Nordidness and Nordishness of Germans. There is a chance that some populations in especially mountain regions of Central Europe have become culturally germanicised. Some Swedish anthropologists have suggested that. It would be pedantic to exclude them, as such individuals uphold German values.

    I have seen those plates and they are extreme cases. I can find such extreme atypical examples for any region and it won't lead us anywhere.

    The typical German, and not only that, but also numerically, is not of those types.


    Quote Originally Posted by Triglav
    I guess you haven either not seen many Germans in the course of your life or I am completely at a loss as to what Nordish has become to mean.

  6. #6
    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: AW: Re: AW: Re: Skadi Changed its Orientation: Germanic instead of European

    I thought the same. I actually question that this is mainly for server load.
    Organize us some additional $3000,- to $4000,- per year, and we'll get a third server and return to the European orientation. No problem.

    http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php...2&postcount=12

    I'd prefer running a large European forum (encompassing Germanics, Slavs, Celts, Latins, Hellenes, and Finno-Ugrians alike) over a Germanic one, for the reasons I have cited in the past. That's why Skadi had a pro-European orientation and that's why I pushed Skadi through several server moves, costing me a fortune to preserve it. I'm not pushing it any further without additional financial backup. Simple.

    To me it seems to be also a tactical step against TNP. I'm not convinced either, this sound a bit political. It reminds me of something Tony Blair would do. I'm not saying it is all wrong, as Aryandawn was indeed pro-Germanic and Nordicist, but the time chosen is just suspicious.
    Well, you created a lot of conspiracy theories in the past as well. I'm not sure how a Germanic forum has anything to do with the Nordish orientation of The Forum without Name (TFN).

    Germanic is not Nordish and Nordish is not Germanic. They are totally different concepts. Nordish is roughly a Scandinavian assimilation concept based on phenotype, grouping differing and evolutionary unrelated types indigenous to Northern Europe together, and with its periphery encompasses parts of Slavs, parts of Germanics, parts of Finno-Ugrians, parts of Celts, and even parts of Latins and Hellenes. That's where everything these people have in common ends. Physical anthropology.

    Germanics, on the other hand, are a linguistic, cultural, meta-ethnic, meta-tribal group of people with a high genetic relatedness sharing common roots, a common consciousness, common values, a common identity, a common history and a common fate. The term encompasses all Nordish and non-Nordish Germanics, as far as physical anthropological types are concerned, and Germanics are much more homogenous than both Slavs and Latins.

    As older members of TFN will recall, I had recommended to Loki back then to create a Celtic and Germanic forum. For reasons he will know best, he didn't share this idea, but proceeded to give it a Nordish orientation. Again, I'm not speculating on his motivation; he will know best. He might simply have a different vision or be more interested in Nordish anthropology and populations than anything else. He is a mature adult and can do what he wants. I also do, in principle, not have a problem with the Nordish concept (be it then it is connected with absurd positions and pushed to absurd limits, on some of which I shall elaborate below), nor with a Nordish forum. Great that it exists for everyone who is interested in Nordish types. I only had a problem with TFN's owner on private grounds of friendship. This has been settled to my full satisfaction, namely by terminating all contact and relations to him, and doesn't affect anyone else.

    As far as I'm concerned, however, I consider a Germanic vision endlessly more useful than a Nordish one, based on its very nature which I have characterized above.

    Thus, if Skadi can't be European, it will be Germanic; and if it can't be Germanic, it will be German if anything. I don't think Loki has any problem with it -- he actually submitted his congratulations to the decision.

    Quote Originally Posted by Volksdeutscher
    I'm the one, together with you, and a few others, who have always remained the most critical when we have seen discussions on Nordish types being lumped together. Based on single traits, there are people in the Balkans who are Nordish too.
    Not only by single traits but clearly by phenotype. I submitted Turks and Turk-Yugoslavians on TFN and Skadi who, justifiedly, got classified as (Central) Nordish. And since Nordish is a concept of physical anthropology, there are Nordish Balkan inhabitants, and there is no way around to avoid this.

    The overall look may differ, and sometimes not even that, and change the name of the person and the classifier shall also change his or her opinion. The bias is there and it has been exposed several times. Still, Nordish does exist in the minds of people, and it did to me even before I heard of such a thing made up by some American.
    It surely exists, based on observation of physical apparence. And if correctly understood that's not pigmentation alone or even predominantly pigmentation. It says little about genetic relatedness, however. Studying the history of physical anthropology teaches us that anthropologists originally grouped Southern Europeans, Levantines and Northern Africans as a greater Mediterranean race. "Medish", if you so want. As we know now, this idea is not supported by genetics in any way, however. Southern Europeans have much more in common with Northern Europeans than with Northern Africans.

    Nordish to me is Europid without doubt, if you will, call it mid-European type, and it does not need to mean strictly Scando-Nordid.
    It obviously does not mean Scando-Nordid. It also does not mean depigmented. Finland is blonder than Sweden but mostly Peripheral Nordish by definition.

    Nordish refers to different phenotypes common in Northern Europe; it again says nothing about genetic relatedness. An Irish Central Nord and a Russian Central Nord (defined by SNPA) have genetically far less in common than an Irish Nord and an Irish non-Nord, or German Nord and German non-Nord.

    Nordish is not defensible on a genetic basis; not defensible on an evolutionary and historical basis; and it is not defensible on a phenotypical basis either (and, I suppose, that has been Polak's point when he presented The Nordish Challenge); what I mean by this is that if you ignore pigmentation, then Mediterraneans have phenotypically significantly more in common with Nordics, than Nordics have with Brünns. Nordish is simply a collection of phenotypes that used to happen to migrate to Northern Europe a longer time ago, and thus are considered indigenous. So what is, if one abstains from the analysis of what is indigenous, in the last instance, the sole unifying bond that keeps the Nordish concept together if one looks at people? Pigmentation.

    And that's why less knowledgeable people slip into this pigmentation trap again and again and again. G. L. Rockwell once uttered that if Negroes would be like white men, everything being equal, but just having a dark skin, he would have no problem with them. The Nordish fringe basically says that if Negroes would be depigmented and if Negresses looked more sexy, nobody would have a problem with them.

    The Nordish concept is even wrong for those who are most interested in it, those in the British Isles (mainly Scots-Irish?) in the New World. Centre should not be Scando-Nordids (Göta, Trönder and Västmanland) as they are rare on the British Isles, but rather the types more common there, Reihengräber and Friterpian (as is found in Groningen and Frisia), North-Atlantid and with some Litoroid (Mediterranid-Armenoid) and Dinarid (the latter almost exclusively in some coastal regions, and then the upper classes, as most of us can easily observe) that can yield both the so-called Anglo-Saxon in England and Lowland Scotland, or Keltic Nordic, and some weak Insular and a bit more Palaeo-Atlantid (mostly in parts of Wales). These types are only functional and convenient terms. One should determine the centre of assimilability for each region and family.
    Surely, that's exactly the point. The Nordish concept is nothing more than a convenience to judge, very roughly, the assimibility of other populations from the perspective of Scandinavians.

    One could also postulate a Medish concept such as Medhammer did in good fun, having a very valid point. It can be equally defined and defended. Lump all populations indigenous to Southern Europe together and include the periphery and you have a Medish concept.

    We could also define a Northwestish concept for the British Isles, as you suggested.

    So far so good. Nobody has a problem with this. The problem starts when extremists, well-meaning but having little understanding, begin to lift it into the realm of race or meta-subrace; start to hook the Nordish concept on pigmentation, as pigmentation is the only thing that can phenotypically hold the Nordish concept together, seeing that there is no genetic or morphological unity; and then postulate notions of superiority based on "Nordishness" and pigmentation, ideas which are ridiculously indefensible, but divide grown communities in the process and make everyone paranoid being not "Nordish" enough or being "impure" and "inferior" for not having blue eyes. I can give you half a dozens of people on Skadi where this has manifested itself to a worrying degree.

    Is anyone really believing that "Nordish" Irishmen, "Nordish" Englishmen, "Nordish" Germans, "Nordish" Scandinavians, "Nordish" Finns, "Nordish" Poles, "Nordish" Baltics, and "Nordish" Russians will unite, expelling non-Nordish Irishmen, Englishmen, Germans, Scandinavians, Finns, Poles, Baltics, and Russians in the process -- if they have simply no cultural, ethnic, tribal, historical, linguistic, phenotypical, or genetic unity with each other -- but lots of unity with their peripherally Nordish and non-Nordish countrymen?

    Is anyone really believing that members of an ethnicity will accept to be isolated from other such members based on phenotype? That we can implement breeding restrictions? That people are willing to kick out their family members, comrades, and friends?

    Is anyone really believing that dividing the Nordish and non-Nordish parts of ethnicities and of Europe on idiotic notions of superiority and pigmentation will achieve anything for the preservation of Northern European racial types?

    I shall tell you what the only thing is that can preserve "Nordish" types -- nationalism and ethnicities. But for nationalism we need the whole unity of the nation, of everyone Nords and non-Nords alike. And nobody will be considered inferior or superior on other grounds than character and personal achievements.

    As long as German(ic)s stay amongst each other and breed with each other, we will have no problems, and "Nordish" types won't become extinct. The reality is that German(ic)s do have little problems with each other because they are, as I stated, "a linguistic, cultural, meta-ethnic, meta-tribal group of people with a high genetic relatedness sharing common roots, a common consciousness, common values, a common identity, a common history and a common fate."

    If you ask Germans on the street who is not welcome in any larger numbers, then they will tell you it's the Russians -- and they can be as Nordish as they possibly are or want to be --, the Poles -- and they can be as Nordish as they possibly are or want to be --, and the Kanaken (Southern Europeans and non-Europeans). Take them all together and you have non-Germanics in other words. If you ask the Swedes they will tell you the Finns -- and they can be as Nordish as they possibly are or want to be --, and svartskallarna (Southern Europeans or non-Europeans).

    As you see, the instincts of the common man work remarkably well. He knows what's good for him. But then again, he also hasn't got his mind f'ed up with American Internet notions of whiteness and Nordishness.
    .

  7. #7
    Member Triglav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, April 25th, 2006 @ 12:24 PM
    Subrace
    Arya/Paleoeuropeidal (norda) :D
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Location
    European Union
    Gender
    Politics
    Fairness
    Posts
    2,405
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post AW: Re: AW: Re: AW: Re: AW: Re: Skadi Changed its Orientation: Germanic instead of Eu

    Quote Originally Posted by Volksdeutscher
    I have seen quite many, but Njörd and Agrippa should of course know more about those southern regions.
    The individuals in the pictures are Germans and Aachen isn't exactly in South Germany either. Günther (a "Nordicist") said that the Dinarid element amounts to 5% in the north of Germany (vs 15% in the south). I don't remember the percentages for Alpine.

    I actually wonder why you always try to belittle the Nordidness and Nordishness of Germans.
    You're (obviously) barking up the wrong tree and you're confused. Re-read what you said:

    "I have yet to see a German who does not look Nordish at all."

    Those people are Germans. What is "Nordish" about them? Last time I read up on the "Nordish" types, such individuals did not fit the taxon. Could you elaborate on what makes these Germans Nordish and stop taking this debate to a personal level?

    There is a chance that some populations in especially mountain regions of Central Europe have become culturally germanicised. Some Swedish anthropologists have suggested that. It would be pedantic to exclude them, as such individuals uphold German values.
    Yes, but that's irrelevant to our discussion.

    I have seen those plates and they are extreme cases.
    They are Germans and that is the point brought up by you. Since when are we talking about "typical" and "extreme" cases?

    I can find such extreme atypical examples for any region and it won't lead us anywhere.
    Exactly - which makes your statement appear even more odd.

    The typical German, and not only that, but also numerically, is not of those types.
    Again, that's beside the point. Anyway, what is a "typical" German?
    "slavic" languages are absolutely arteficial (Read "slawenlegende"). The "glagolica", invented by a bunch of monks, is nothing but an ancient esperanto, creating new words, definitions and alphabet out of regional slangs.

    The craddle of European Civilization comes from the North. All blond people originate from the north. So if you see a blond-blue eyed Slovene, Russian, Czech, Polak ect., you can be 100% sure that his ancient ancestors originated from "Germanics" (Germanic = Nordic).
    "slovenja" was the settelment of the Langobards = Germanics/Teutons. "Poland" of the Goths and East-Vandals ect. ect. What do "slavs" tell us about their origin?
    Some silly story that they originate from some swamps in the east and popped out of no where into history.

    So you see my dear "Gorostan" [=Triglav], you are in reality a "Germanic" indoctrinated with panslav propaganda and historic fantasy stories. ~Dr. Brandt, former TNP and Skadi member

  8. #8
    Member Awar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, October 21st, 2005 @ 11:04 PM
    Subrace
    Corded/Balkanoid UP
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    Location
    Olympus
    Gender
    Age
    41
    Politics
    Nutzi
    Religion
    Agnostic!!!
    Posts
    4,947
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    8 Posts

    Smile Re: AW: Re: AW: Re: Skadi Changed its Orientation: Germanic instead of European

    A copy-paste of something I said on SAF.
    Discussing with Loki who called me a hater of all things Nordish

    Draw your own conclusions from it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Awar on SAF
    As I said previously 'Nordish' can't have just one definition.
    It's a mistake to try to roll it all into one.

    Genetically 'Nordish' would be people ( of course tested ) whose DNA is predominantly of indigenous N.European genotypes. ( the exact sub-clades ).

    As for the phenotype, the definition is a different one. As some pigmentation characteristics and certain features are dominantly present in N.Europe and its neihgbourhood, then, a Nordish person would be anyone who could pass as a native in that area.

    Also, one should take into account the resemblance to the ancient skulls found in varyng parts of Europe. But, that's only superficial, and without much meaning. Someone looks 'Nordish', someone doesn't.

    Chances are that a 'Nordish' person has an Alpine sister, and a non-Nordish person has a Nordish sister, or cousin etc.

    History of what's 'Nordish' is another concept. I don't really care about what is, but I do care about what isn't

    The first people who populated N.Europe and the neighbourhood were various peoples who migrated northward from such places as the Balkans, Iberia and S.Russia. All of the really important migrations were from the south to the north. Not the other way around.

    Why I say 'important migrations'. Because these migrations happened
    thousands of years ago, when the populations were small.
    In that era, even a single person could make a significant genetic impact, as the number of people in entire regions of Europe was no more than a few hundred individuals.

    ( Though, a single person couldn't migrate, because leaving a tribe meant certain death. )

    These tribes moved slowly, and with routes that wouldn't make much sense to a modern man. ( but made all the sanse back then, since the people were hunter/gatherers ).

    The Eu7/I haplogroup, for example, originated some 25.000 years ago, probably in the middle east, and then ( over a course of thousands of years ) moved into the Balkans, Central Europe and N.Europe.
    I know it's a Y-chromosome haplogroup, but, it nicely depicts migration routes

    From there, you have the genetic similarity of Swedes and Serbs/Croats.
    The difference between sub-clades proves that these populations separated a long time ago. Thus, there's no place for any fairytale about Gothic tribes and their leaving Germanic blood on the Balkans.
    It's the other way around.

    The R1b populated Europe as the ice was retreating along the atlantic coast. Thus the similarity between Iberians and Brits or Norwegians etc.

    The R1a, also had various interesting migration routes, as well as
    the 8000-12.000 yrs ago and the Neolithics and their haplogroups, and the hg subclades.

    Whatever happened genetically, the pigmentation still is gradually increasing as one goes southwards. Spaniards, even though 'equipped' with nearly the same 'NOR' ( or better said, UP European DNA ) as Germans are still darker pigmented.

    This IMO could mean that pigmentation doesn't take so long to change.
    There are also various phenotypes, and our weak knowledge about them.
    The processes such as gracilization, brachycephalization etc. many variables and many unknowns.

    Too many to succesfully use anthropology in creating a 'Nordish' concept.


    A Geo-Political definition would be something else I don't have the will to discuss right now. A cooperation and friendship between certain ethnicities, based on their geographical position, culture and interests.

    Draw some borders, but avoid drawing in genetics or anthropology, because then, it all falls down. Simple.
    Last edited by Awar; Sunday, November 28th, 2004 at 03:06 PM. Reason: typo

  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. Germanic: their advantages and disadvantages [ split: Skadi Orientati

    Quote Originally Posted by Awar on SAF
    As I said previously 'Nordish' can't have just one definition.
    It's a mistake to try to roll it all into one.
    The traditional concept and definition has been physically; and it will always be somewhat linked to physical anthropology, as "Nordish" refers to the populations indigenous to Northern Europe. If you want to measure it genetically, you'd have to establish first which people are of the indigenous "Nordish" types that qualify for the genetic sample. You can only establish this by observation, i. e. physically.

    Genetically 'Nordish' would be people ( of course tested ) whose DNA is predominantly of indigenous N.European genotypes. ( the exact sub-clades ).
    Agreed, with the limitation outlined above.

    As for the phenotype, the definition is a different one. As some pigmentation characteristics and certain features are dominantly present in N.Europe and its neihgbourhood,
    Indigenously present which makes it somewhat vague, and not only because one can argue forever about the cut-off time (how long does a phenotype have to be present to be considered indigenous?) -- but because it permits people to exclude all sorts of phenotypes they don't like as non-native or non-indigenous. This is in particular frequently done if Scandinavians are not blonde and light-eyed. They become, in some people's eyes, automatically peripheral Nordish or, in some instances, even non-Nordish.

    then, a Nordish person would be anyone who could pass as a native in that area.
    Agreed with the rest.

    Also, one should take into account the resemblance to the ancient skulls found in varyng parts of Europe. But, that's only superficial, and without much meaning. Someone looks 'Nordish', someone doesn't.
    In theory, that would be a good measurement for indigenousness, with the limitation that skull shapes and morphology have been subject to great changes over the centuries and millenia.

    Chances are that a 'Nordish' person has an 'Alpine' sister, and a non-Nordish person has a Nordish sister, or cousin etc.
    Surely. I know such cases personally.

    The first people who populated N.Europe and the neighbourhood were various peoples who migrated northward from such places as the Balkans, Iberia and S.Russia. All of the really important migrations were from the south to the north. Not the other way around.
    True.

    Why I say 'important migrations'. Because these migrations happened thousands of years ago, when the populations were small.
    In that era, even a single person could make a significant genetic impact, as the number of people in entire regions of Europe was no more than a few hundred individuals.
    True.

    Whatever happened genetically, the pigmentation still is gradually increasing as one goes southwards.
    True.

    Spaniards, even though 'equipped' with nearly the same 'NOR' ( or better said, UP European DNA ) as Germans are still darker pigmented.
    I don't think NOR explains that much. High NOR seems to correlate to a certain extent with depigmentation; that doesn't mean, however, that NOR carries the depigmentation, neither exclusively nor predominantly. Thus, if there are two populations that are about equal in NOR and one is more depigmented than the other, this can well be explicable in the terms of all other genes they carry.

    This IMO could mean that pigmentation doesn't take so long to change. There are also various phenotypes, and our weak knowledge about them. The processes such as gracilization, brachycephalization etc. many variables and many unknowns.
    I still have not a good explanation on how depigmentation developed amongst human beings; it appears still to be a mystery, even considering mutations and selection, as dark pigmentation appears to dominate somewhat, and there are different chromosomes and genes involved for all hair, skin, and eyes. I suggest it would have needed very small groups as a minimum requirement. I agree that it appears to have developed rather rapidly, though, spoken in evolutionary terms. Some hundreds of generations at most. Whether it can be reproduced again in our mass populations with hundreds of millions of people I don't dare to say, but I would seriously doubt it.

    Draw some borders, but avoid drawing in genetics or anthropology, because then, it all falls down. Simple.
    One can draw it anthropologically simply by grouping various types together that are indigenous to Northern Europe. That's how it's defined. Genetic unity or subracial unity these types do not have, obviously. They are different types and sub-races. They differ morphologically and by their history of development, evolution, and migration. One can link them to a certain extent by depigmentation, on a more likely than not basis, albeit there surely are types that are darker-pigmented and native to Northern Europe, while there are lighter-pigmented types not native to Northern Europe. So basically it hinges on whatever one considers indigenous -- and it's no surprise that Lappish populations have been excluded, more on ideological and political than on geographical grounds. They are surely indigenous to Northern Europe, and that's how Nordish is defined. Being, amongst others, native to Sweden and Norway, they should be considered Central Nordish.

    But many people don't have a scientific look on the Nordish concept but rather an emotional attachment to certain phenotypes they group under Nordish.

    Thus, in a nutshell, I would agree that whatever some people consider Nordish can't be consistently defined either genetically or morphologically. It could be defined by pigmentation, but that would deviate from the definition promoted by McCulloch and the SNPA, "indigenous to Northern Europe;" it was their intent to include explicitly more pigmented Northwestern European types. Also, I'm not sure what sense it would make to group people that differ in everything but pigmentation; if we could as well group them by genetic or more important phenotypcial characteristics.

    Needless to say, I'm still all for the preservation of depigmentation and these Nordish types, and in particular the most pretty blonde females, but there is simply no basis whatsoever to deduct Nordish superiority or purity without genetic or (sub)racial unity -- apart from the obvious fact that there is no racial purity and no general superiority in nature.
    .

  10. #10
    Member Marius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, March 8th, 2005 @ 03:45 PM
    Subrace
    Cro-Magnid/Dinarid
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Location
    Europe
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Politics
    Conservative Christian
    Religion
    Uniate, Greek-Catholic
    Posts
    891
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Nordish vs. Germanic: their advantages and disadvantages [ split: Skadi Orientati

    Not all Germanics are Nordish, no matter how much one would try by meta-science to make this look so. It is not the subrace who makes the person, but his education, culture, knowledge, soma and of course physical atractivity.

    So, I do not see why problems are met this way: Nordic vs. Germanic.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Skadi Forum Orientation?
    By Thorburn in forum Rules & Announcements
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: Friday, April 14th, 2006, 12:24 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, November 29th, 2004, 08:39 PM
  3. Skadi Changed its Orientation: Germanic instead of European
    By Thorburn in forum Rules & Announcements
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: Sunday, November 28th, 2004, 03:15 AM

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
  •