Home ›
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
My mistake, sorry. I make a lot of mistakes, if you hadn't noticed.
Ah, this! I thought of Turkmenistan. Sorry guys. My bad.
@Icalasari
Is the Yellow Man a recurring character in your nightmares, or a one-off thing?
^^^Eh, you weren't actually wrong, it's just that somehow, as soon as a certain ethnicity is Muslim, large parts of the public try to make a religious issue out of it (so it's not just you, either).
Though I guess that's not just the case with Muslims. I mean, the N.Ireland conflict never once was about religion (in fact, the IRA was officially Marxist-secularist), yet everybody spoke of the "Catholics" and the "Protestants".... when in truth "Irish" and "Brits" would have been better labels, maybe.
You are referring to the Official IRA/OIRA, which declared a ceasefire back in 1972. INLA, who split off from them, retained the ideology, but the Provisional IRA split off explicitly due to the OIRA's failure to protect Catholics. Before the split that created OIRA, the anti treatyites predominately just went and followed Fianna Fáil, since it was founded by Éamon de Valera.
I thought the PIRA split off over the question of parliamentary abstentionism/recognizing the Republic of Ireland? In any case, my point is that "Catholics" is a misnomer. The conflict is an ethnic one, not a religious one. What's called "Catholics" are those people who identify as Irish and would like to see N.Ireland reunited with the Republic, so "Irish" would be a much better moniker. Likewise, the "Protestants" are those whose loyalty is to the UK, so a better term would simply be "Brits". It's an ethnic conflict between Irish and Brits and has nothing at all to do with religion (well, not on the Irish side, anyway, Orange "anti-popism" is a thing of course, if a very lunatic thing).
You know, given how "Irish" is an ethnicity, but "British" is more like a national or political term, calling it an ethnic conflict isn't most fortunate either.
Well, "ethnic conflict" is what one calls those things. "National conflict" (as in conflict of nationalities as defined by national identities) would be a better term, anyway. Though I don't know why one couldn't name British as an ethnicity. Since they've all been anglicized anyway, one could even call Irish and British part of the same ethnicity...
Unless one defines "ethnicity" as "genetic heritage", but I always found that kinda silly. As you've said, that would make East Germans ethnic Slavs, and nobody seriously suggests that, after all.
Maybe "Celtic" and "Teutonic" would work better. Or not. Ethnicity kind of confuses me when in a socio-political context.
"Celtic" and "Saxon" would probably work well. Although the term "Anglo-Celtic" would theoretically fit the best. That said, I heard that a genetic study was done in the UK and found that the white population was predominantly Celtic in ethnic origin. Don't quote me on that or anything, but it's kinda interesting.
"Teutonic"? Absolutely not!
And Celtic, well, most Irish aren't actually Celtic anymore (i.e., don't actually speak a Celtic language anymore). They're Germanic now, too, by way of assimilation.
^^ Was mostly thinking from a genetic standpoint, since ethnicity never made sense to me all that much. Like "okay, these people may have the same ancestors as I do, but I don't find them all that relatable".
But I guess "Anglo-Saxon" or whatever would've been more accurate anyway.
^^^ But what does the acronym stand for?
I elaborate on what Octo said, not all Germanics are Teutonic. Most European nations have a series of subethnicities that have boundaries of varying levels of vagueness, although these are meaningless except in very specific circumstances (such as, I don't know, cracking jokes? Discussing history?). If you want to measure this kind of thing by broad ethnicity, then Germans, Swiss, Austrians, Northern Italians, the French, Belgians, the Dutch, the English, Scandinavians and more are predominantly Germanic. The descendants of the Germanic tribes of Classical Antiquity were probably the most successful expansionists in recorded history, meaning that the majority of white people are either mostly or partially Germanic in terms of genetic heritage. Going by historical accounts, a fair few people of colour are probably also partially Germanic -- cases where the emigrating tribes didn't establish dominance ended with them being assimilated into the existing population, so that particular set of ancient genetic data is pretty much making the rounds across much of the world.
As far as I know, even the Russians are Germanic. The way I hear it, the name "Russia" is even derived from the "Rus" tribe of Germanic settlers. I could easily be wrong, though, since my forte in history doesn't go that far back and perhaps I interpreted the information wrong, or misheard. It seems sort of far-fetched to me that a Germanic tribe would end up being China's hat, but I suppose stranger things have happened (like, say, the history of Central Europe).
Yeah but that kinda was my point, too: The genetic standpoint is irrelevant and doesn't matter at all, and the American definitions of "ethnicity" make no sense at all. The Irish these days are Germanic by way of assimilation; what does it matter what their great great great etc. grandparents were like?
More to the point, there is no such thing as "Teutonic". The original Teutonic people, a Germanic tribe, were massacred into extinction by the Romans. Since then, the term has been used poetically and vaguely - which is to say, with no meaning at all. If you mean German, say German. In fact, 'Teutonic' was one attempt to translate the term 'German' into medieval Latin; hence the English term "Teutonic Order" is actually a mistranslation - what was and is meant is in fact "German Order".
So, in short, I have a disdain for the word "Teutonic" in general, since it means nothing at all and many people use it as a way to avoid saying "German".
No. The Italians and French are Romance (hell, even genetically your claim doesn't make sense, as the Frankish respectively Ostrogoth and Langobardic 'input' is neglectable - but more to the point genetics don't matter)
No, no, no!
(While the predominant theory for how the first Russian state came into existence is indeed 'Rus' merchants-turned-princes from Sweden, this says nothing about the broader population... and besides, those princes were assimilated in less than a century. They became Slavic. Culture is the only sensible indicator of ethnicity.)
Are you sure the Scots and the Welsh wouldn't take offense? Because I'm pretty sure they are generally pretty strict that they are distinct.
As for the definitions I can call it an ethnic conflict, but ethnicities are a hard case to define. It pretty much boils down to shared history and self-identification, I guess. It's a matter of genetics, language, territory, religion, statehood, social class, and I'm sure I'm omitting at least as many reasons. What's worse, the matter is further clouded by the cultural influence of countries like the USA or Australia on one hand, and fashionable academic ideas like, if I'm not mistaken, social constructionism.
In the case of Ulster (I'm probably making a political declaration by using this name), this is a matter of Ireland versus the United Kingdom, Catholic versus Protestant, Irish versus not-Irish (AFAIR North Ireland was colonized by Protestant Scots) and probably some other qualifiers, melding into one big conundrum. Note that we don't hear much about the issue of "pure" Irish versus the descendants of English settlers and feudal overlords in the Republic.
By the way, can you all say what you understand by the term "ethnicity"? Because I see there are misunderstandings between us.
Hmph, perhaps I'll continue editing and throw in the replies to Octo.
You said it, genetics aren't relevant, or all the Western Europe is the Basques. The culture is an important qualifier, but one should not take this term too lightly. This way we could say we're all Anglo-Saxon. I'm pretty sure most would disagree, in spite of the fact that we all dress in fashions started in either the USA or the UK, listen to their genres of music, watch their films and all the cultural propaganda carried along (so I know who Paul Revere was, but why the Hell should it ever matter to me?!?!?), blah blah blah blah blah.
So, it's a cultural thing, but it's deeper than superficial. If these folks identify with their ancestors, like their parents and grandparents have always been doing, then we see they've retained cultural continuity, even if they mostly speak a different language. Take Jews as an extreme case. What kind of relation do they have to ancient Hebrews? But go ahead, try to tell them they aren't Jews. (I think some tried, were justly dismissed.)
The idea that genetics don't matter is entirely sensible from the perspective of culture and language, but there are also times when it does matter. Sociologically, you're right, but a doctor may feel differently and a geneticist certainly will. In any case, back when France was pretty much Gaul, it was largely inhabited by Celts, conquered by Romans, and then the Normans swept in and took a fair bit of land some centuries later (and had a very long-lasting influence besides). The Normans ended up holding some parts of Italy, too, and what is today Northern Italy was Germanic tribesland before the Romans expanded into it. The Franks themselves are considered a collection of Germanic tribes to boot. So after Rome fell, what is today France was dominated by Germanic tribes, and that dominance was threatened by the Normans. Who were also Germanic.
You could stand to lose the arrogance, especially given that I stated that I was unsure of the information in the first place. I'm also not sure what makes you think you're an authority -- I'm certainly not, but I'm also aware that different historians adhere to different interpretations of existing evidence and different theories of historical study. Unless you're a history graduate, then I think you can afford me (and everyone else) the politeness of presenting your stance in a way that promotes an openness to learning and discussion rather than straight-up being rude. I do my best to do the same and to accept correction where appropriate, but I need convincing because mainstream and accepted historical "fact" is sometimes just a popular hypothesis, or subject to heavy bias.
For instance, take the term "The Middle Ages". It characterises the period from the fall of the Roman Empire to the establishement of the Renaissance by its supposed lack of Greek and Roman influence. Given that both Classical Antiquity and the Renaissance are viewed as times of flourishing progression, "The Middle Ages" implies that the periods described were less progressive, less worthy, less advanced, or whatever words anyone wants to use. "The Dark Ages", as a term, has only recently become less acceptable (or not acceptable at all) in academia, and far too late. For a long time, the love of mainstream historians for the Roman and Greek cultures of Classical Antiquity has been a biasing factor that sold the Middle Ages short by a wide margin. Today we recognise more clearly that the Middle Ages were critical in terms of social, political, and economic changes that allow many modern triumphs to exist -- had Rome not fallen, we might consider it "ideal" that all local nations should be ruled by a single power as part of a single empire, something the Middle Ages rendered an impossibility.
I'm not trying to discount anything you say, if I might come back to the point, but there are multiple perspectives out there and I require verification, not just someone's word. If someone is teaching me something new, then I'll take it for granted until it's contradicted (as it usually the case with, well, anything), but if you're challenging ideas that are established in my mind, I'll need more than what you've provided. And it's totally fine that you're challenging what I take to be true, but you shouldn't take it for granted that I'll accept what you'll say, or that your means of teaching is appropriate.
But we don't speak of genetics. We speak of ethnic identities, and it is hilariously wrong (courtesy to whoever posted this phrase back in VG thread) to say the French are a Germanic people simply because France started out as the realm of Franks.
So by your logic France should be considered a Celtic country. By the way, French high culture formed of the mix of the Frankish customs, and those of Gallo-Roman nobility, and that was only in the north. Until the Late Middle Ages you could make a believable point that France is made of the French in the north and the Aquitanians (do I spell it right?) in the south. Later French identity turned to that Gallic element as much as it did to the Franks.
I was under an impression it was Celtic tribesland. The Romans called it Gallia Cisalpina, if I remember right.
Yes, and they've made an impact on the development of the French identity, along with the Romanised Gauls. The Franks got pretty Romanised themselves. Charlemagne made attempts to preserve old Frankish culture, so if it needed preservation in his time, I'd say it's pretty given they got mixed heavily with the locals. And that's not even mentioning Aquitaine.
I'm pretty sure he wasn't being arrogant. You made a very far-fetched claim based on a strongly twisted logic. He could've laughed at you. He didn't. He just said it's wrong.
I'd wager a guess that a German could have learned a bit, osmotically if not in any other way, about the history of Germans and Germanic peoples. But I guess it's a tricky matter.
I didn't find him rude. (Here was a rant, which I decided to snip.)
Dude. Stop and read what you've said. This is exactly the kind of shit creationists say. "It's just a theory."
What do you want? He provided you with the accepted (well, mostly; there is the "Normanist" argument that the Rurikids were the descendants of Swedish-ified Finn and his company, who took over Novgorod and Kiev, and the "Nativist" argument claiming that they were a Slavic dynasty) argument about the origins of Russia. While I'm saying that, "Russia" and "Russian people" are a slightly different animal. Russians are Slavic, even if their country was set up by a Norman dynasty that assimilated completely in the Tenth Century. They speak a Slavic language and retain a Slavic culture, although they have assimilated a large number of Finno-Ugrics and had a possibly-Normanic ruling dynasty, and a number of their cultural peculiarites have been theorised to come from the constant threat of steppe nomads (Mongols having the worst impact).
But I digress.
So, what are we going to say here? It's a discussion on the 'Net, we can try to provide the links or stuff. I'd have to refer to the Wiki; what I know comes not from the original arguers, who were Russian I think (IIRC a certain Toporov is a prominent of the Nativist side). But, you've said you can just as well dismiss it as exactly that sort of established, but wrong hypothesis.
History is pretty different from science though...Tangentially related:
Due to laypeople's abuse of the word "theory" to mean "someone's guess, however educated it may be", I've started to use the term "supposition" (or more informally, "supposing" or "supposin'") instead. Can't quite use "hypothesis" because that implies it's testable by (and set up for testing in) an experiment.
But even in history, there are better and worse approaches. For example, you can say Atlantis existed as an island settlement destroyed in some cataclysm (which is debatable but nothing out there), and you can say it involved aliens and magic crystals (which you can't deny, but in the same way you can't deny creationist mental gymnastics about God creating the world six thousand years ago and making it look as if it was five billion years old). One can discuss who Rurik was ethnically, because you can't always trust the legends and the chronicles (I stick to the Normanist side if you are curious). But if you want to claim Russians are a Germanic people, that would need you to do some ugly things with your logic.
---EDIT---
Okay, I put an edit here because I don't want to write another post and I think I have to correct what I said above. I'm not sure what exactly is the divide between Normanists and Nativists. I've said Nativists claim the Rurikids were a native dynasty. I have to add that, speaking from memory, I'm not sure of that. It may be just that they believe the Rurikids took over a pretty established state, as opposed to establishing it themselves. In case of further doubts I'd have to go to the Wiki.
Juan: Actually I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't remember that.
Link?
So a friend wants to do a Ghostbuster's TTRPG. It would be chat style, not PbP. Anybody interested?
since Saigyouji and I have the same character in our avatar, do we have to fight to the death?
yes
winner gets avatar rights and the still beating heart of their opponent
Just checking to see if the editing of comments isn't fucked up for me.