Page 38 of 38 FirstFirst ... 28333435363738
Results 371 to 379 of 379

Thread: Just How Germanic is Britain/England?

  1. #371
    Senior Member Sigebrond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Last Online
    1 Day Ago @ 06:14 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English/British, part Irish
    Country
    England England
    State
    Sussex Sussex
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    warehouse work, arts and crafts
    Politics
    Tribalism, Anarcho-Primitivism
    Religion
    Traditionalist Pagan/heathen
    Posts
    102
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    20
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    31
    Thanked in
    19 Posts
    I am aware that no Europeans are 100% pure, but I am talking about traces among modern Europeans that account for the darker traits among Celtic peoples and those with links to Celtic peoples. It's not really that important, but we can accept that's where these traits come from.

    The whole Basque narrative should be treated with scepticism - it's hugely exaggerated how supposedly distinct Irish people are genetically and their alleged links to "Basques" (as opposed to iberians in general) can be called into question. It's also very much debatable that Basques are 100% the original Basques, it's likely due to their language they have remained isolated enough to obtain a distinct ethnicity (like Irish gypsies, or Sardinians) but in all likelihood they just happened to speak one of the non-Celtic Iberian languages, I have even heard the claim they aren't even the original Basques and they were just introduced to the language.

    Northern Europeans (with the exception of those in Northern Norway, Sweden and Finland) are generally the purest, under this umbrella we can include basically all the Germanic countries and all the Baltic countries. Central European as well I suppose. The best way to map a population is to look at rural populations, as this immediately cancels out almost all mongrelised trash concentrated mostly in the cities, but in Southern Europe this mixing applies to rural areas too, sadly. I will also add that ginger hair is a genetic disorder and not a sign of "purity", only of mutation caused by mixing between blonde blue eyed people and those with darker traits.

  2. #372
    Senior Member Aelfgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Last Online
    3 Days Ago @ 11:56 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    8/16 English, 1/16 Scottish, 7/16 Irish
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Lancashire Lancashire
    Gender
    Religion
    Agnostic/Panentheist
    Posts
    237
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    148
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    129
    Thanked in
    95 Posts
    I'm not saying the Basques are super-European but they are up there with the purest. The Irish have no special connection to them. It's more a case of northwesterners rather than northerners being the purest. The differences are small, but Swedes and Balts are slightly Siberian which is why they are not at the top. All genetic features are mutations. There are two theories about blond hair:
    https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/...000-years-ago/

    Dark hair and eyes are native to N/N-W Europe, just less common because of the lightening that occurred.

  3. #373
    Senior Member Sigebrond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Last Online
    1 Day Ago @ 06:14 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English/British, part Irish
    Country
    England England
    State
    Sussex Sussex
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    warehouse work, arts and crafts
    Politics
    Tribalism, Anarcho-Primitivism
    Religion
    Traditionalist Pagan/heathen
    Posts
    102
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    20
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    31
    Thanked in
    19 Posts
    Swedes aren't Siberian, only a few in the North are, same as Norway (in Finland it's a bit more, because I am pretty sure most or all ethnic Finns have trace Mongolian genes).

    With the Baltic that's inaccurate as well, there may be some pockets or odd people affected by the Mongol expansion but it isn't anywhere near as bad as you'd expect. The Baltic states also tend to have by a long shot not only the highest native populations, but are also almost universally blonde-haired and blue-eyed (particularly Estonia and Latvia). The only places that are probably even more homogenous is the really poor post-Soviet countries no migrants want to go to, like Belarus. Also the way the 20th century panned out these countries came out of it pretty well considering that a sizeable portion of e.g. Lithuania's population was Jewish.

    The places you'd expect to have Turk traces often don't, genetic tests generally confirm this. The exceptions primarily apply to as said the northern extremities of Scandinavia (and the Sami themselves obviously) and parts of "Europe" that are no longer European, such as Albania, what was Anatolia, parts of Eastern Europe like Ossetia and Chechnya, and certain ethnic groups, like Bosnian Muslims, Tartars (who are not far off being as white as the Sami) and in all likelihood the Cossacks (again, distantly). Many claim Bulgarians and Hungarians are "Turks" or "part-Turkish", but studies have failed to prove this.

    The places lest pure basically are the Balkans and the Mediterranean, and any places affected by very concentrated migration from the Balkans or more commonly the Mediterranean.

  4. #374
    Blut ist ein ganz besonderer Saft. Juthunge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Online
    1 Hour Ago @ 10:47 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    German
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordid-CM
    Gender
    Religion
    Religion of the Blood
    Posts
    1,455
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    23
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    48
    Thanked in
    22 Posts
    Do you people even follow the genetic studies of the last three to four years or so? It sounds eerily like a pre-2015 discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigebrond View Post
    I am aware that no Europeans are 100% pure, but I am talking about traces among modern Europeans that account for the darker traits among Celtic peoples and those with links to Celtic peoples. It's not really that important, but we can accept that's where these traits come from.

    The whole Basque narrative should be treated with scepticism - it's hugely exaggerated how supposedly distinct Irish people are genetically and their alleged links to "Basques" (as opposed to iberians in general) can be called into question.
    Neither the Basque narrative, which seems to have been based back then on the very high amounts of R1b in both the Irish and Basques, nor your general idea of heightened "Mediterranean" affinities(at least in a genetic sense) are correct. If anything, the Irish(and Scots), well, some of them, have a slightly higher affinity to the Western Hunter Gatherers.
    Ironically the English have a very slightly higher affinity towards the "south"/EEF than other Brits. Undoubtedly simply due to being the first place a foreigner(Romans, Normans, Huguenots, Flemish) usually sets foot on when arriving in Britain. But as I said, that effect is very small, too.

    It's also very much debatable that Basques are 100% the original Basques, it's likely due to their language they have remained isolated enough to obtain a distinct ethnicity (like Irish gypsies, or Sardinians) but in all likelihood they just happened to speak one of the non-Celtic Iberian languages, I have even heard the claim they aren't even the original Basques and they were just introduced to the language.
    Autosomally they look very much like people that have lived there in the late Neolithic but at one point their Y-DNA pool seems to have been affected by an admixture event of a few Indo-European men, followed by an extreme founder effect on the paternal side. Likely through polygamy with local women, which explains why their amount of Steppe genetics is comparatively low. Due to traditional matrilocality in Basques society, the mixed children grew up with their mothers culture and language.

    I will also add that ginger hair is a genetic disorder and not a sign of "purity", only of mutation caused by mixing between blonde blue eyed people and those with darker traits.
    Is this another, entirely unfounded, Vikernes theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigebrond View Post
    (in Finland it's a bit more, because I am pretty sure most or all ethnic Finns have trace Mongolian genes).

    With the Baltic that's inaccurate as well, there may be some pockets or odd people affected by the Mongol expansion but it isn't anywhere near as bad as you'd expect. The Baltic states also tend to have by a long shot not only the highest native populations, but are also almost universally blonde-haired and blue-eyed (particularly Estonia and Latvia).
    That has nothing to do with the Mongol expansion/invasion but with an expansion of Siberian groups sometime before 1500 BCE. See Ancient Fennoscandian genomes reveal origin and spread of Siberian ancestry in Europe:
    "Here we analyse ancient genomic data from 11 individuals from Finland and Northwest Russia. We show that the specific genetic makeup of northern Europe traces back to migrations from Siberia that began at least 3,500 years ago. This ancestry was subsequently admixed into many modern populations in the region, in particular populations speaking Uralic languages today. In addition, we show that ancestors of modern Saami inhabited a larger territory during the Iron Age than today, which adds to historical and linguistic evidence for the population ​history ​of ​Finland."

    The places you'd expect to have Turk traces often don't, genetic tests generally confirm this. The exceptions primarily apply to as said the northern extremities of Scandinavia (and the Sami themselves obviously) and parts of "Europe" that are no longer European, such as Albania, what was Anatolia, parts of Eastern Europe like Ossetia and Chechnya, and certain ethnic groups, like Bosnian Muslims, Tartars (who are not far off being as white as the Sami) and in all likelihood the Cossacks (again, distantly). Many claim Bulgarians and Hungarians are "Turks" or "part-Turkish", but studies have failed to prove this.
    You lump a lot of regions here which are/were quite different genetically. Albania and even Bosnian Muslims don't seem to be genetically that different from what they were in the Bronze Age, Anatolia never was genetically predominantly European either(though in the Neolithic closer than today), same for the northern Caucasus(incidentally, a new pre-print was just published for the Caucasus: The genetic prehistory of the Greater Caucasus the PCA on page 26 is especially interesting.)


    Quote Originally Posted by Aelfgar View Post
    ^ I'm not sure what Sigebrond means by Med but all Northwestern Europeans have some (fine scale) genetic crossover with North Africans and West Asians. Perhaps surprisingly, the purest Europeans are probably the Basque people, along with Norwegians, Icelanders and British/Irish. Just follow the geography.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aelfgar View Post
    I'm not saying the Basques are super-European but they are up there with the purest.
    How do you define "purest European" in this context? Because Basques are genetically quite different(although that was much exaggerated in the past) from all other living Europeans, certainly from the ones you mentioned. And it would make no sense to exclude other North-central Europeans from your list because we're all very similar genetically, in the grander scheme of things.

    But I concede with the Basques, you could make the case that the overwhelming majority of their ancestors have lived here longer than those of the rest of the Europeans because they have less of the Indo-European steppe component(and the slight North African and Jewish admixture of the average Iberian) and are more of a 50/35/15% split of WHG, ANF and IE ancestry.
    "And in the shock of battle the men of the North seemed like a sea that cannot be moved. Firmly they stood, one close to another, forming as it were a bulwark of ice, and with great blows of their swords they hewed down the Arabs. Drawn up in a band around their chief, the people of the Austrasians carried all before them. Their tireless hands drove their swords down to the breasts of the foe." - The Mozarabic Chronicle of 754, about the Germanic victory at the Battle of Tours.

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


  6. #375
    Senior Member Aelfgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Last Online
    3 Days Ago @ 11:56 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    8/16 English, 1/16 Scottish, 7/16 Irish
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Lancashire Lancashire
    Gender
    Religion
    Agnostic/Panentheist
    Posts
    237
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    148
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    129
    Thanked in
    95 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    How do you define "purest European" in this context? Because Basques are genetically quite different(although that was much exaggerated in the past) from all other living Europeans, certainly from the ones you mentioned. And it would make no sense to exclude other North-central Europeans from your list because we're all very similar genetically, in the grander scheme of things.
    In this very academic, hair-splitting context, I'm defining purest European as the population having least in common with North Africans/West Asians/North Asians. I base my conclusions on the Eurogenes K13 data:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...#gid=804264822
    It basically goes northwest to southeast, as one would expect, but the Basque are a bit of an exception.

    By the way, how much of the specific DNA from the ancient populations - hunter gatherer, Anatolian farmer, Steppe herder, etc. will have survived to the modern day? There must have been many mutations in European pops. in the last few thousand years. They said modern Britons are only 10% descended from Chedddar Man.

  7. #376
    Senior Member Sigebrond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Last Online
    1 Day Ago @ 06:14 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English/British, part Irish
    Country
    England England
    State
    Sussex Sussex
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    warehouse work, arts and crafts
    Politics
    Tribalism, Anarcho-Primitivism
    Religion
    Traditionalist Pagan/heathen
    Posts
    102
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    20
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    31
    Thanked in
    19 Posts
    That looks handy, I will take a closer look later.

    Studies have confirmed the descent from steppe nomads, though. More recent studies I believe explained a lot about the settlement of Scandinavia. I can't remember what it said exactly, if I remember correctly what would become Norse Scandinavia was settled by two different groups, and the Finns were made up of a mixture of this group (or one of these groups) and another group that arrived considerably later, and the Sami were of a similar mixture to the Finns but mixed in with an original Mongoloid group. I think it basically revealed that Sami were fairly mixed to begin with, and that the "breeding out" of the Mongoloid traits wasn't as recent as we might think (sure some old photos of Sami do make them look quite Mongoloid, but there are at least as many if not more photos of more European-looking Sami as well). I believe it also explained a lot about the introduction of the Proto-Indo-European language family into Europe, but maybe I am making too much of this particular study.

    I think what you say applies a lot less to the Baltic. It applies most to far-Northern Scandinavia and the Balkans and Caucasus. Countries like Armenia have clearly become pretty compromised genetically. Less the case with Romania and Bulgaria - people incorrectly make sweeping generalisations about all Romanians and Bulgarians having gypsy and/or Turk blood. Plenty I see still look very much European, just a little more Southern. Also blonde haired and blue eyed people from these countries are far from unheard of.

    Regarding Britain and Celts, these are just Mediterranean traces we're talking about - all it shows is a lot of Northern and central Europeans have traces of part-non-European ancestry, not that they are themselves part-non European. These traits - brown hair and brown eyes - are pretty dominant. They've survived in Northern Europe since antiquity or further back than that even, so they aren't contradicted by the claim that we are among the purest of European tribes. We are also a lot more "Germanic" or Nordic ethnically than many appreciate. The argument that Britain is mostly Celtic is just poorly backed propaganda that I suspect is aiming at justifying the victim complex that obnoxiously patriotic (and insecure) people from Celtic nations can often have. This narrative makes them out to be the "true natives". Notice Celtic nationalism seems to be the only type of European tribalism accepted in the West these days, probably because the left has given them the status of basically the Jews of Europe, history's biggest victims etc... The Celts never had empires of their own apparently (which is why the area they occupied in antiquity was so vast, reaching all the way to South East Europe even).

  8. #377
    Senior Member Aelfgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Last Online
    3 Days Ago @ 11:56 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    8/16 English, 1/16 Scottish, 7/16 Irish
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Lancashire Lancashire
    Gender
    Religion
    Agnostic/Panentheist
    Posts
    237
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    148
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    129
    Thanked in
    95 Posts
    Irish, Welsh and (to a lesser extent) Scottish nationalism is indulged because they are minorities, similar to how minorities of all kinds are indulged. I think it's because they are not considered to be dangerous whereas English nationalism is potentially dangerous given the population size.

    Most Europeans now are reckoned to be descended from the Steppe herders that moved westward and they had various eye and hair colouring. In any case, I think going back more than a couple of thousand years to define European racially is pretty meaningless. I find it hard to get excited about any culture before the early Iron Age.

    And I don't think it really matters. A DNA test can tell how European a person is with high accuracy and from whereabouts in Europe his or her ancestry is from with some accuracy.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Aelfgar For This Useful Post:


  10. #378
    Senior Member Baorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    1 Hour Ago @ 10:17 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Jutish
    Country
    England England
    State
    Jutland Jutland
    Gender
    Posts
    1,794
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    510
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    46
    Thanked in
    41 Posts
    There's nothing amiss about genetic overlap between English and Welsh folks. Unless you are from East Anglia or Anglesey, you're not going to be wholly one or the other.
    English are Jutish not Jewish. Don't hate us.

  11. #379
    Senior Member Sigebrond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Last Online
    1 Day Ago @ 06:14 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English/British, part Irish
    Country
    England England
    State
    Sussex Sussex
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    warehouse work, arts and crafts
    Politics
    Tribalism, Anarcho-Primitivism
    Religion
    Traditionalist Pagan/heathen
    Posts
    102
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    20
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    31
    Thanked in
    19 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Aelfgar View Post
    Irish, Welsh and (to a lesser extent) Scottish nationalism is indulged because they are minorities, similar to how minorities of all kinds are indulged. I think it's because they are not considered to be dangerous whereas English nationalism is potentially dangerous given the population size.

    Most Europeans now are reckoned to be descended from the Steppe herders that moved westward and they had various eye and hair colouring. In any case, I think going back more than a couple of thousand years to define European racially is pretty meaningless. I find it hard to get excited about any culture before the early Iron Age.

    And I don't think it really matters. A DNA test can tell how European a person is with high accuracy and from whereabouts in Europe his or her ancestry is from with some accuracy.
    You can go back further, 2000 years isn't that long, relatively speaking. I don't think ethnic distinctions that we have only gained because of some geographic isolation really mean that much, it's a romantic, regional pride that's understandable, but being English or even being "Germanic" has never really meant a huge amount to me. Being broadly speaking "Nordic" does. You also can judge a book by its cover, without a DNA test, and I think we naturally relate more to those who look most like us. The early iron age is interesting, I think we can view both that and the bronze age as high points of modern European history (as opposed to Neanderthal prehistory). I have always been interested in the Viking Age but find it rather bizarre that people idealise it so much - it was a time of turmoil and retribution against Christians, it was when things started to go wrong for Norse people and saw the start of their gradual conversion to Christianity. It's about as dumb as revisiting the Third Reich to embrace Nordic culture, when you could just revisit a high point in our history instead. It's as bad as modern secular Jews basing their whole identity on their collective suffering in WWII. Real Norse culture comes from the Iron Age.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sigebrond For This Useful Post:


Page 38 of 38 FirstFirst ... 28333435363738

Similar Threads

  1. The Future of Germanic England
    By Carl in forum England
    Replies: 89
    Last Post: Monday, April 16th, 2018, 09:04 PM
  2. How Germanic is England?
    By karolvs in forum Germanic & Indo-Germanic Origins
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Wednesday, October 12th, 2011, 09:30 AM
  3. Britain and England: A Case Of Split Identity
    By Nachtengel in forum England
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: Sunday, May 9th, 2010, 04:23 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Wednesday, July 29th, 2009, 10:24 AM
  5. The Germanic Idea in England
    By Nordgau in forum England
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: Saturday, October 15th, 2005, 12:19 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
  •