Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,673
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Jun 7, 2018 8:24:27 GMT
The Celtic Britons or Brythonic people were the natives of what is now England, Wales, and Cornwall, as well as Lowland Scotland before the Anglo Saxons came in and wiped out their culture in England driving them into Wales, Cornwall, and to exile Brittany in France. Being the greater part of a descent from the British Isles from the English and Lowland Scots I theorize that these people are probably the people I am most descended from. They probably had a rich fascinating culture, mythology, religious customs, cosmology, societal structure, oral history, mode of dress, primitive architecture, priestly class (the druids) and would be a fascinating people to study. Unfortunately they didn't write any of these things down as like most Celtic people they thought writing things down was a lesser way of passing things on to the next generation and preferred to tell things orally. The Romans came in an conquered these tribes and Romanized them culturally and most written sources come from people outside this ethnic group. I would really like to study these people so if anyone can point me in the direction of any good books, websites, ancient texts from the Romans or Greeks, scholarly articles, or anything regarding them and if anyone has anything to teach me about these people I'm all ears.
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,673
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Oct 19, 2020 10:05:15 GMT
Just one point: the word 'Germanic' is an entirely roman construct. Yes, and the word "Celt" is a Greek construct. It doesn't mean Celts didn't exist as a broad ethnic group with similar languages, religion, culture etc.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Oct 19, 2020 10:17:36 GMT
Just one point: the word 'Germanic' is an entirely roman construct. Yes, and the word "Celt" is a Greek construct. It doesn't mean Celts didn't exist as a broad ethnic group with similar languages, religion, culture etc. The way in which we categorize these groups is fairly arbitrary. The distinction between language groups like "French" and "German" arrives as a consequence of both literacy and Monarchy.
In pre-Christian times, the lines between these groups was so
much more blurred than today. The borders were totally permeable, and the dialect from one village to the next was often difficult to distinguish.
I take particular exception to the nonsense that Scandinavia
was somehow 'Germanic', when in those times the concept of German did not exist within those cultures, only in the brief period of the Roman Empire.
As it is, even in 1860's Germany did not exist. It was Prussia (mostly). So its clear that Hitler and his forbears used the word 'German' as a term of convenience purely for the sake of empire building.
The conflict between Denmark and Germany is so ancient that their border earns the distinction as being one of the most sharply defined on the map.
Of course, German hegemony sees it otherwise, which is
why they used such contrivances to instigate wars.
The classic example being the Sudetenland is 'German' thus they can invade it. Ditto Austria, and anyone else that gets in the way of this cultural blitzkrieg.
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,673
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Oct 19, 2020 10:50:37 GMT
Yes, and the word "Celt" is a Greek construct. It doesn't mean Celts didn't exist as a broad ethnic group with similar languages, religion, culture etc. The way in which we categorize these groups is fairly arbitrary. The distinction between language groups like "French" and "German" arrives as a consequence of both literacy and Monarchy.
In pre-Christian times, the lines between these groups was so
much more blurred than today. The borders were totally permeable, and the dialect from one village to the next was often difficult to distinguish.
I take particular exception to the nonsense that Scandinavia
was somehow 'Germanic', when in those times the concept of German did not exist within those cultures, only in the brief period of the Roman Empire.
As it is, even in 1860's Germany did not exist. It was Prussia (mostly). So its clear that Hitler and his forbears used the word 'German' as a term of convenience purely for the sake of empire building.
The conflict between Denmark and Germany is so ancient that their border earns the distinction as being one of the most sharply defined on the map.
Of course, German hegemony sees it otherwise, which is
why they used such contrivances to instigate wars.
The classic example being the Sudetenland is 'German' thus they can invade it. Ditto Austria, and anyone else that gets in the way of this cultural blitzkrieg.
Germanic does not mean German. German is the English term for the people who inhabit the modern country of Germany (the Germans call themselves the Deutsch). Germanic refers to tribes and peoples who shared similar culture, religion, languages, architecture, laws etc. in ancient times and their modern cultural, linguistic, and (less important as modern Germanics are mixed between many peoples and the concept of a Germanic race is a basically a lie) lineal descendants. It is a word akin to "Semitic" which groups together Canaanites, Arabs, Jews, and other peoples with similar languages and cultures in the Middle East. It is true that these lines were fuzzy in ancient times as Germanic tribes living really close to Celtic tribes would have more in common in many ways with their Celtic neighbors than a German living near Slavs who would have Slavic influences. However the fact that these classifications are fuzzy does not mean that they do not exist. Classifications of colors blend into each other, red and pink blend into each other but this does not mean that red and pink do not exist as colors. I think your taking exception to Scandinavians being called Germanic comes from the fact that you are of Scandinavian descent (I am too) and you don't want to be associated with the Germans who committed the holocaust and started World War 2. I understand this but I think that judging the Germans based on one horrible part of their history is unfair as they had a very proud history before the rise of Hitler and produced many great musicians, philosophers, theologians, scientists, and they were the ones who built the nations of modern Europe. I am of Alemannic South German descent myself and that as well as being an American Southerner makes me really dislike it when the entirety of a people are judged by the worst part of their history. Now as for Germany being a modern invention that should have never existed, in that respect I agree with you. I think that Germany should have never been unified under the Prussians and Bismark. Most of the horrible parts of German history come after German unification by Prussia. They were better off when they were Pomeranians, Bavarians, Prussians, Saxons, and the like. Germany is a modern invention as a lot of the dialects that the people of these states spoke were not mutually intelligible until recently and Germans were not really one people but many. I also am generally in favor of a world of small states and despise centralism and types of nationalism which swallow smaller polities and unite them under large empires. If you look at World War 2 the two European fascist states of Italy and Germany were countries that were unified from many smaller countries that were culturally distinct and had their own identities. The centralization of these peoples led to nothing but disaster. The same thing happened in the United States. The states used to have their own identity and were considered sovereign entities until Hamiltonian Nationalism rose to supremacy after the Civil War. I still identify with my state first over the United States as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Oct 19, 2020 12:43:14 GMT
The way in which we categorize these groups is fairly arbitrary. The distinction between language groups like "French" and "German" arrives as a consequence of both literacy and Monarchy.
In pre-Christian times, the lines between these groups was so
much more blurred than today. The borders were totally permeable, and the dialect from one village to the next was often difficult to distinguish.
I take particular exception to the nonsense that Scandinavia
was somehow 'Germanic', when in those times the concept of German did not exist within those cultures, only in the brief period of the Roman Empire.
As it is, even in 1860's Germany did not exist. It was Prussia (mostly). So its clear that Hitler and his forbears used the word 'German' as a term of convenience purely for the sake of empire building.
The conflict between Denmark and Germany is so ancient that their border earns the distinction as being one of the most sharply defined on the map.
Of course, German hegemony sees it otherwise, which is
why they used such contrivances to instigate wars.
The classic example being the Sudetenland is 'German' thus they can invade it. Ditto Austria, and anyone else that gets in the way of this cultural blitzkrieg.
Germanic does not mean German. German is the English term for the people who inhabit the modern country of Germany (the Germans call themselves the Deutsch). Germanic refers to tribes and peoples who shared similar culture, religion, languages, architecture, laws etc. in ancient times and their modern cultural, linguistic, and (less important as modern Germanics are mixed between many peoples and the concept of a Germanic race is a basically a lie) lineal descendants. It is a word akin to "Semitic" which groups together Canaanites, Arabs, Jews, and other peoples with similar languages and cultures in the Middle East. It is true that these lines were fuzzy in ancient times as Germanic tribes living really close to Celtic tribes would have more in common in many ways with their Celtic neighbors than a German living near Slavs who would have Slavic influences. However the fact that these classifications are fuzzy does not mean that they do not exist. Classifications of colors blend into each other, red and pink blend into each other but this does not mean that red and pink do not exist as colors. I think your taking exception to Scandinavians being called Germanic comes from the fact that you are of Scandinavian descent (I am too) and you don't want to be associated with the Germans who committed the holocaust and started World War 2. I understand this but I think that judging the Germans based on one horrible part of their history is unfair as they had a very proud history before the rise of Hitler and produced many great musicians, philosophers, theologians, scientists, and they were the ones who built the nations of modern Europe. I am of Alemannic South German descent myself and that as well as being an American Southerner makes me really dislike it when the entirety of a people are judged by the worst part of their history. Now as for Germany being a modern invention that should have never existed, in that respect I agree with you. I think that Germany should have never been unified under the Prussians and Bismark. Most of the horrible parts of German history come after German unification by Prussia. They were better off when they were Pomeranians, Bavarians, Prussians, Saxons, and the like. Germany is a modern invention as a lot of the dialects that the people of these states spoke were not mutually intelligible until recently and Germans were not really one people but many. I also am generally in favor of a world of small states and despise centralism and types of nationalism which swallow smaller polities and unite them under large empires. If you look at World War 2 the two European fascist states of Italy and Germany were countries that were unified from many smaller countries that were culturally distinct and had their own identities. The centralization of these peoples led to nothing but disaster. The same thing happened in the United States. The states used to have their own identity and were considered sovereign entities until Hamiltonian Nationalism rose to supremacy after the Civil War. I still identify with my state first over the United States as a whole. Yes, I agree with much of what you say, except my psychological motive.
My ancestry is very mixed, Scandinavian only by virtue of being Scots / English / Irish, but its also German, though I prefer the term Teutonic. So its not a bias.
Of course I do not want to be associated with the atrocity of ww2. And Germany itself should have been entirely dismantled as a language. Their subconscious desire to conquer will not be dissipated until then, because attitudes are so deeply embedded in our language.
But my personal abhorrence of Germanic culture has far more to do with apartheid south africa than ww2. The afrikaners epitomized every instance of Nazism they could manage to. I grew up in this '4th Reich'. And even though their origin is French and
Dutch as well, their Nationalist police-state mob-mentality
was always driven by those with German surnames. The Germans were always the most violent towards peaceful people.
And yes, there will always be a few exceptions.
|
|