Talk:Nordic race/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Blue-eyed Romans

user:GaiusCrastinus seems to be keen to "prove" the Nordicist claim that Roman heroes were blue-eyed and/or fair haired. I suggest that it would be better to concentrate on what Nordicists claimed and what their opponents said in response rather than using primary sources too much. Primary sources are not excluded, but we should concentrate on secondaries. It's very difficult after all to know what Roman writers intended by descriptions, and even more problematic to map them onto racial categories. Also adding this material to "Attitudes in Ancient Europe" is misleading. That about ancient attitudes to so-called Nordic characteristics (both attitudes to northern barbarians and to the physical features associated with them). The theory that the early empire-building patricians were of the Nordic race is not something that exists in ancient culture itself (obviously). It's something that later theorists claim on the basis of descriptions. It's a products of the 1900s, not the ancient world. Paul B (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

But something that would be "convenient" to GaiusCrastinus, seemingly a fair Italian with an ideological (the R word fits better here) axe to grind? "I am Central European!!!! S. Europe sux!!!!". It's depressing that the attitudes described in this article still exist (in a fairly small minority, thank God), eh? 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad I haven't been the only one to notice this guy. I checked his contributions extensively, and it seems he's bent on keeping the North-South Italy divide as strong as it ever has been. I found one of his edits rather amusing in its blatant racism; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_supremacy&diff=prev&oldid=194384155 as he replaced the "Italians" entry with "Southern Italians", when the reference provided (a 1904 British Civil Service book) was intended for the original wording. The only useful edits I've seen inevitably pertain to subjects directly related to Nordicism, such as White supremacy, blondism, etc. Very concerning edit habits. Sicilianmandolin (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

For years, it has been popular among Nordic supremacists to try to attach an invisible "Nordic ruling class" to many successful non-Nordic (or even non-European) civilizations throughout history. There is really no good academic argument for these concepts, and not much evidence. Some Nordicists have simply taken this movement a step further and tried to attribute Nordic coloration to entire populations of the ancient world. Either way, supremacist mythology does not belong in a encyclopedia article, and anyone consistantly making such edits to destroy the academic credibility of Wikipedia should be admonished. -Art —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.101.150 (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

A good deal of this stuff should be deleted as per WP:OR. For instance, part of the caption under the image of Augustus reads:

"Suetonius described Augustus's hair as a bit golden (subflavum) and his eyes as clear and bright (oculus habuit claros ac nitidos)"

This is straightforward OR. And bad OR, at that. "Claros ac nitidos" is not caeruleus, the specific word used by Romans to describe blue or green eyes. Sources for this can be found in plenty: Tacitus, Germania 4. 4; Horace, Epodes 16. 7; Juvenal, Satires 13. 164. Suetonius' remark is to be understood as referring to the health and alertness of Augustus' eyes - not their colour. —Aryaman (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't speak Latin. The translation was added by an editor who does. Translation as such is not deemed to be OR as long as the original text is included. In this case the translation does not say "blue", but "clear and bright". That does not alter the fact that Nordicists repeatedly used this and other passages to justify the claim that "an invisible Nordic ruling class", as 71.142.101.150 says above, were present in Rome. The caption does not say "Roman leaders were blue eyed". It says that Nordicists claimed they were, and that certainly isn't OR, because they did claim that! Of course if user:GaiusCrastinus had his way, it would say they were "really" blue eyed, which is why it's been changed to the current form. Paul B (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine, Paul. And where's the citation showing that this passage from Suetonius (or others like it) has been used to push Nordicist Gedankengut? Or that claros ac nitidos has been misinterpreted as caeruleus by Nordicist crackpots? Unless Gaius Crastinus or anyone else can come up with the goods on that, it remains OR. I'm not arguing with the translation: as such, it's fine. I'm asking for some substantiation for the claim "Nordicists repeatedly used this and other passages to justify the claim that "an invisible Nordic ruling class" ... were present in Rome." I'm not saying they don't. But let's see the sources for it. —Aryaman (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's a flavour of this kind of thing from Hans Gunther's book The Racial Elements in European History, Chapter VIII, part 3, The Nordic Race in History and Prehistory:

Under the Empire the height for the army had to be brought down to 1.48 metres. The Roman nobility, however, seems often to have still been recognizable by its fair hair. Anyone belonging to the wealthy and fashionable class who had dark hair liked to hide it: Juvenal (Sat., vi. 120) tells us of Messalina that she hid her black hair under a fair wig. The rich upstarts (homines novi) made their black-haired wives and daughters buy fair hair from Germany. In this way it was hoped to win a 'noble appearance.' Ovid mentions the custom of fair wigs. Juvenal, Martial, Lucan, and Pliny mention methods of dyeing the hair blond. Caracalla, of African-Asiatic blood, often used (according to Herodian) to put on a fair wig and walk about in Germanic garb. Horace's ideal of beauty is Nordic, although he was himself dark, short, and fat. Vergil's ideal of beauty is Nordic. But among the living, too, fair hair is still to be seen: the swarthy Ovid knew two blond Hellene women. His ideal of beauty is founded on the Nordic race: he paints Romulus and Lucretia as fair. The swarthy Tibullus calls Delia blond; Martial speaks of several blond contemporaries; Horace names blond women; and other writers name other blond men and women who have played a part in history. Apuleius, born in an African colony, a member of an old Roman family, and a follower of Platonism, calls himself tall, slender, and blond. Most of the sculptures representing Romans have a Nordic, or predominantly Nordic, expression. The narrow face, the long head, the sharp chin, the 'Roman nose,' taken all together make up heads which do not differ from hard Nordic heads of our time. His was already struck by the fact that Marcus Antonius, Caesar, Galba, Vespasian, and Trajan had a shape of the head which he had called the 'High Mountain form' after his discoveries in his own country, Switzerland, and which now is recognized as the shape of the Nordic head. Augustus himself was (according to Suetonius) very fair, and had light eyes; his mild expression recalls certain calm Nordic men.

Paul B (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. So we can boil down the caption to read:

"The Roman emperor Augustus. H.F.K. Günther (1927) argued that the description of Augustus in Suetonius' Lives of twelve Caesars suggested that he displayed "Nordic qualities" (e.g. that he was "fair", had "light eyes" and a "mild expression")."

The Latin - if to be included at all (as Günther does not take note of it) - should be moved as a footnote into into the ref with a simple translation. —Aryaman (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Paul B (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Also, while checking the Latin, I hit upon subflavum > sufflavum and changed accordingly; further, my dictionary has "light blond" instead of the previous "a bit golden" (?). It's a widely circulated dictionary out of Germany: Germanophobes might contest the translation, and are urged to do so provided they can supply a better one. —Aryaman (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

PS.: I do hope that passages such as the one quoted from Günther above are not the kind of thing being used to substantiate the claim that "Nordicists repeatedly used this and other passages to justify the claim that "an invisible Nordic ruling class" ... were present in Rome." Because that is not what Günther is saying here. He's saying that the Roman 'ideal of beauty' was derived from the characteristics found in a portion of the 'noble' class - something non-controversial in itself. His addition is to align this with what he (and others) termed 'Nordic'. The thrust of the passage is this: the 'Nordic' features found in some of the 'noble' class of Romans had a palpable effect on the Roman 'ideal of beauty' - so much so, that 'non-Nordic' Romans of the upper class felt the need to imitate their 'fairer' associates. Whether or not he is right is beside the question, of course. But linking this passage to a theory regarding an "invisible Nordic ruling class" (an oxymoron, seeing as how this 'Nordic' element was, above all else, an apparent one) would seem unwarranted. (In fact, one could argue that Günther is talking more about the artistic and literary portrayal of Roman nobility by their fellow Romans rather than their actual 'pedigree'.) But, more direct passages can be found from Günther and Co. regarding this 'theory'...right? —Aryaman (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying here. Gunther believes that there is a definable biological entity to be labelled the "Nordic race". He is arguing that the upper classes of ancient Rome belonged to this race and that the more parvenu classes, who were not Nordic, had to mimic it by wearing wigs etc to pastiche belonging to this race. The evidence he presents - which is is very selective and distorted - is designed to support that claim. This is not to say that Augustus and others were not blond. Of course, they may well have been. It may even be true that these traits were more common in Italy back then. Such traits are determined by climate and selection for vitamin D synthesis. It may even have been preferred bvy sexual selection, because of the cultural connotations of the traits (blond = gold etc). Who knows? The point is that Gunther selects and models this evidence in terms of an ideologically laden Nordic/Mediterranean race distinction. Paul B (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read all of Günther's work, so I'm not going to argue with you about what he 'believes'. I'm simply commenting on the passage you quoted. And if what you claim is true (and I have no reason to doubt that it is), then what you posted above appears to be (perhaps part of) the litany of 'proof' Günther delivers to prove his main thesis, according to your assertion: that the nobles in Rome were members of the 'Nordic Race'. But, to repeat myself, surely you can dig up the part where he states this as his thesis and explicitly makes this claim? Because that is the stuff that is really worth citing if you're going to prove that "Nordicists repeatedly ... claim that "an invisible Nordic ruling class" ... was present in Rome": it makes further interpretation superfluous and the unnecessary quibbling appear all the more so. So...? —Aryaman (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The "invisible" phrase was a comment by an anonymous editor on this talk page. It's not in the article. The evidence concerning the claim that Romans were Nordic is already in the article, albeit in footnotes. If you think it could be clearer, by all means edit it. Paul B (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't follow your debate here completely, but I'll change the sentences on the Nordic theory at Race of ancient Egyptians a little, then. Unfortunately I don't think that I'll find the time to expand this article with the material from Lutzhöft, though. After all, that book is a dissertation at a history department, the author spent several years on it and it even won a price. Zara1709 (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• WOW an entire section dedicated to me..well i can tell you that i'm just interested in anthropology , i'm not a nordicist and i'm not a mediterraneanist..i'm neutral..and my principal source is Carleton Coon..i hate Gunther and the other nordicist..

this is what Coon said..

http://carnby.altervista.org/troe/06-04.htm

and btw i don't know what Sicilianmandolin think but there are many difference between a Lombard and a Sicilian..and i've edited the blondism page because that page is based upon a ridiculous map adopted by Peter Frost without any source..none serious study confirm those percentages..for example 20-49% of blondism in Apulia

and obviously there were romans blond , what's the problem ???

look..modern romans blond..

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u113/eliderossi86/DDR/cb6d851d27.jpg Daniele De Rossi

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/1103/totti34tb.jpg Francesco Totti

in modern Latium blond hair range range from 9% to 11% , red hair about 1% i think that in the I century B.C. there was the same percentage

they must be descendants of the barbarians , right ?? what a load of c**** !! oh..i'm italian..a real italian not an italian-american..bye ! --GaiusCrastinus (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• @ 3rdAlcove "I am Central European!!!! S. Europe sux!!!!". It's depressing that the attitudes described in this article still exist"..are you drunk ?? i've never said that ! i've only said that in Northern and Central Italy is prevalent the Alpine race just like in France,Bavaria,part of Austria = Central Europe..probably you don't know that blondism both in eye and hair is not a prerogative of the nordic race ..Czech are almost all alpine but blue eyes are about 62% of the population (according with Coon)..so ?? even Mediterraneans can be depigmentated..open a book !! --GaiusCrastinus (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Gaius,you are adding this stuff to an article sabout the Nordic race and Nordicism, so don't pretend that discussion of those issues is irrelevant or misperception. That's what this article is about. If you were trying to prove that north Italians are 'Alpine', why were you adding it to the artcle on Nordics? That does not make much sense. Carleton Coon is not a reliable source on anthropology any more, only on the scientific models that prevailed in the mid 20th century, when he was working. Paul B (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

actually there aren't modern anthropological studies about european races...Coon is the most reliable source that we have..it's funny that you quote Coon only when he says that the Nordic race in Greek is rare since the time of Homer but you don't quote Coon when he says that the Romans were the descendants of the Villanovians (who came from Central Europe) anyway A BUST OF AUGUSTUS FROM SUDAN [1]. i see gray-blue eyes as Suetonius and Plutarch confirm..this is my last comment here..i swear that i will not edit this article anymore. -GaiusCrastinus (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There aren't modern studies similar to Coon because the categories he deploys are not longer considered useful. Hence the fact that he is no longer reliable. There are numerous modern genetic studies tracing lineages, eg, Stephen Oppenheimer, Antonio Arnaiz-Villena etc. Coon is not quoted in this article for evidence of facts about racial difference, but of attitudes among theorists at the time he wrote. If you could contextualise the sources you use there would be no problem about including his views on Roman origins, while remembering not to stray from what this article is suppossed to be about. Paul B (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

the problem is that you people think that blondness is sign of nordic ancestry while taken by itself, it is nothing of the kind...just to clarify Carleton Coon was not a nordicist , he was proud of his Cornish-mediterranean ancestry, he dislike even the "yellow hair" --GaiusCrastinus (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sowhy have you been adding the info to an article on the Nordic race? Paul B (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

which info ? i just added three biography of three romans just to show that not all the romans were dark-haired and dark eyed , NOT to show that the romans were a sort of swedish of the ancient times !! you have totally misunderstood my intentions ! --GaiusCrastinus (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

In Souternh Italy are all black...but Souternh Italy was conquered by Vikings (descendants)...but ...wait...what i see??!!1 also England was conquered Vikings (descendants)....but then we could say.......please stop with these bullshits!!!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pasq789 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Being conquered by Vikings does not make you a 'descendent' of Vikings. Italy and England were "conquered" by many ancient peoples. The genetic influence of the conquerers on the modern population may be significant or utterly negligable. This is all irrelevant. Paul B (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Although not connected with the main theme I just wanted underline it. We are talking about 400 years (approximately 1000-1400 Normans conquest-Germans(Hohenstaufen)conquest-French conquest) it is relevant ....Anyway who know why people always forget it....Sorry--Pasq789 (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

brown eyes

could someone of the "nordic race" also have brown eyes? for example someone, who has blonde hair an brown eyes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.154.18 (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, specific hair and eye colour were not deemed to be a requirement, just indicators. Paul B (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

so this cliche about the nordic type who has "blonde hair and blue eyes" is not correct at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.154.81 (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's an indicator, according to the prevailing models at the time that this theory was influential. It's also a fact that northern Europeans are more likely to be blonde than are other people, but that does not help us to decide whether codification of Europeans into distinct races is of any value. Paul B (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If we want to be technical, according to some of the old racial typologies, people who were metrically Nordid, but had dark hair, would be "Atlantids" or "Atlanto-Mediterraneans". As far as I remember, it applies to such people with dark eyes too. So a "Nordic/Nordid" person would have blue eyes and blonde hair per definition. FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It depends which theorist you are reading. There was no absolute consensus about the best means to determine race, and of course many such determinations were made using the skulls of ancient persons whose eyes and hair were long gone. Paul B (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it depends just as much, if not more, on when the literature you read is from, the different classifications got more and more complicated as the science progressed, with dozens of subdivisions added along the way, with some degree of consensus between writers, so a text from 1900 would be less refined than a book from 1930, of course. Early literature would be more inclined to have a simple three race system for Europe, where later literature would have these three divided into even more types. FunkMonk (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe Madison Grant was one who indicated that hair and eye color, while important, was not the "final test" of Nordic race.

"The range of blond hair color in pure Nordic peoples runs from flaxen and red to shades of chestnut and brown. The darker shades may indicate crossing in some cases, but absolutely black hair certainly does mean an ancestral cross with a dark race-in England with the Mediterranean race.

It must be clearly understood that blondness of hair and of eye is not a final test of Nordic race. The Nordics include all the blonds, and also those of darker hair or eye when possessed of a preponderance of other Nordic characters. In this sense the word “blond” means those lighter shades of hair or eye color in contrast to the very dark or black shades which are termed brunet. The meaning of “blond” as now used is therefore not limited to the lighter or flaxen shades as in colloquial speech.

In England among Nordic populations there are large numbers of individuals with hazel brown eyes joined with the light brown or chestnut hair which is the typical hair shade of the English and Americans. This combination is also common in Holland and Westphalia and is frequently associated with a very fair skin. These men are all of “blond” aspect and constitution and consequently are to be classed as members of the Nordic race." - Passing of the Great Race, p. 26

166.205.7.54 (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Not just Grant - many other Nordicist authors made basically the same point. Paul B (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct. I was simply pointing out that, as you said, that specific hair and eye color were not requirements. It is interesting to me how strongly the emphasis is put on hair/eye color when it was certainly not the most important factor in determining race. In fact, the emphasis put on it is so strong that it would seem like "blond hair and blue eyes" are the only requirement for the Nordic race, which of course is ridiculious. Specifically in the case of Nazi Nordicism, I've often been lectured by "history professors" that "Aryan" and "blond blue-eyed" are synonymous, and Hitler subsequently gassed anyone without blond hair and blue eyes. I don't think I've ever seen such a misunderstanding of an ideology, especially by "professional" acedemics. Ha! 166.205.7.54 (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

In colloquial English the word "Aryan" is now used as a synonym for "Nordic", that's true. I've seen TV documentaries in which you can hear footage of a Nazi official saying the word "Nordische", while the English translation voice-over says "Aryan". We try to avoid that confusion as much as possible while explaining the link between the two concepts. However, blond hair and blue eyes were repeatedly identified as typifying characteristics of the Nordic race. Lapouge even called it "the blond race" and it appears repeatedly in sources [2]. It's important to note that fact, and to avoid endless pointless fiddling with the definition. We can add that authors accepted that there was no one defining feature, but rather an interrelation between physical signs. Paul B (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Right. I understand that fair features are typifying characteristics of Nordics, I was simply arguing that Nordics were, as according to many Nordicists, not limited to such features. As I understand it in Nazi Germany, Nordicism was not only a racial category, but some type of spiritual ideal. The idea being that Nordic blood was a unifying characteristic of the German people, regardless of the physical appearance of the individual. I remember reading a pamphlet from Germany in the late 30s which declared every German had Nordic blood and that the Nordic spirit should dominate the heart of every German. Usually when I think of "Aryan" in relation to Nazism, I think of Germanic people in general. The pamplet is here [3], and it is under the section about "Race". 166.205.7.54 (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Dinarics

An editor has added a passage about a supposed Nordic/Dinaric linkage supported by a page from the book Blood and Homeland, accessed through Google Books:

"According genetic examinations the closest relatives to the Nordic race is Dinaric Race [4]"

The passage is a summary of the trheories of a Yugolslav nationalist scientist called Branimir Males, who argued that the Dinarics are a distinct race "related neither to the Alpine nor to the Nordic types". (p. 96). It does not refer to 'genetic examinations' (this theory is from the 1930s), and is really about claiming a racial unity and distinctiveness for the Yugoslav people. This, properly contextualised, could be usefully added to the Dinaric race article. Paul B (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Dinaric type is very close to the Keltic Nord.--71.135.49.20 (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Morphologically, not necessary genetically. FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Nsdap1932.jpg

The image Image:Nsdap1932.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Nordish race

Which is the most appropriate article to move [5] this to? Ottre 18:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It had its own article, which is now a redirect. Consensus was that it was not sufficiently notable to have its own article. It was simply cut and pasted to here. I edited it down because the cut and paste simply made the whole section terribly repetitive. The shorter version contains all the relevant information. However it's arguable whether a fringe writer like McCulloch is important enough to discuss in any detail here. He has his own article, which is linked already. There's no problem expanding on his theories to one's heart's content there. Paul B (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well I can appreciate your attempt to tighten the prose but for this article, which has been reviewed extensively, it seems a bit much. Are you absolutely sure it's not worth mentioning he includes Brünn, unmodified, because does it not fly in the face of just about every neo-Coonist theory in existence? Ottre 18:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've no idea what you mean. The current tightened version lists Brunn. Whether or not this flies in the face of every neo-Coonist theory (or blokes on Stormfront?) I've no idea. I was just cutting redundancies from the text that was already there. Paul B (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

True they are only found on the Internet (although you shouldn't entirely discount skadi.net), but the point is his theory is that all Brünn types are Nordic progressive. This is controversial, to say the least, yet you want to shorten the entry?! Ottre 19:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not the article on the ins and outs of his theories. They can be covered in glorious detail in his article. Paul B (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't be condescending. As it stands, the summary does not lend undue weight to his theory, as it remains controversial, and should be included under an article on Nordicism. I might suggest creating another section, Nordic Race#Contemporary Nordicisms. Ottre 19:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

And expanding the McCulloch article, obviously. Ottre 19:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

on "Revolutionary conservatism". Wikipedia does not even have an article on this concept, which is pretty much a neologism. We use standard names, and Nazi is the standard term for ... Nazis. Even the most scholarly of publications use "Nazi" and all our articles do. See WP:NAME. Paul B (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

But you do realise the poverty of discussion on folk Anti-Semitism? If you insist upon putting Nazi, you should have it in quotes per WP policy. We both know how that would look. Ottre 18:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what "folk anti-Semitism" has to do with the issue. You were renaming in contravention of policy - and there is no policy that says that proper nouns should be put in quotes. Paul B (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nor do I, to tell you the truth. The official terminology is always changing. I do know "Revolutionary Conservatism" is the label used by the European New Right philosophers, so it has historical bearing. Ottre 19:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

See below. I'm saying Anti-Semitism is an evolving field of study, and "Nazi" is not a standard. Ottre 19:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the article twice already so, Zara1709, would you please elaborate on your support? How is consensus unnecessary, when you are attempting to insert the word Nazi? Ottre 19:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: restored comments. Ottre 19:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, konservative Revolution is a term used in German by some historians (or at least it had been). But its scope is wider and less specific than Nazism, and it wouldn't fit for that section. If you disagree, Ottre, give me a source. Zara1709 (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Revolutionary conservative can mean all sorts of wildly different things. Obama has been called it. It's surely pretty much a useless term in English. Paul B (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Then it doesn't sound ridiculous, just confusing. Do you agree to revert until somebody has found a source on the above? Ottre 19:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Revert to what? BTW, please sign by using the tildes. Paul B (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I misread you, sorry. And I am signing properly; I don't abide by the policy on linking signatures.

Tomislav Sunić has recently used the term (RC), and his work represents approximately two decades of study of anti-liberalism (Nazism, RC, etc) in Germany. As an Anglican who follows the Calvinist tradition—the root, he claims, of American exceptionalism—I know he is an unreliable historian on many developments in the United States, but he should have the more essential labels right.

Unless you have a quote to suggest otherwise, Nazi is not a standard term of reference and has to be put in quotes. Rather than suggest that Nazi policy was at some point not in accordance with Nordicism, do you agree to revert to Revolutionary Conservatism? Ottre 19:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nazi most certainly is a standard term of reference, adduced in innumerable books and academic articles. Check Google scholar. Paul B (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You have a name. Great. Now you only need to give us a title, a page number, and a quote where it is said that the authors discussed in that section DO NOT represent Nazism, BUT ONLY the conservative revolutionary movement. Zara1709 (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Check back here tomorrow. Ottre 20:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If you actually find a quote, then I will apologize for my sarcasm. The coverage of the relation Nordicism/Nazism could be impoved in this article, and I am not going to refuse an academic source simply because it uses the terminology of "Konservative Revolution." Be sure, though, to provide a long quote that correctly presents the author's statement. Zara1709 (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but his is ridiculous. The fact that one person uses the phrase "revolutionary conservatism" somewhere does not invalidate the use of the word Nazi which is used in literally thousands of reliable sources. A far more commonly used broader term would be "fascist", which is vastly more established than "revolutionary conservative", but of course most fascists, including Mussolini himself couldn't care tuppence about Nordicism. This section is about Nazis and Nazis alone. The Nazis are referred to as Nazis and no-one uses inverted commas around the term. Paul B (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This article continues to be used by a few propagandist morons.

Look at this part at the end of the article, implying that there is certainly such a race:

Even though there are different subraces with varying phenotypes, idealized traits of the race are .......... wide shoulders, long head and tall stature with big bones and heavy musculature.

Anyone who saw that out of context would instantly think of the Black Afroamericans who excel in boxing, basketball, football and a long etc, not of fat, flabby Northern Europeans. Come on, has anyone seen a beach full of these guys. If I was from those places I would get incredibly red in the face reading this article. Jove the God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.55.202.254 (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you babbling about? There are a fair number of obese Black Afroamericans. Anyone can be fit, and anyone can be fat and flabby. Flabbiness is not determined by race. However, this is a summary of McCulloch's views. It is clearly his fantasy that's being described. He is of course a fringe writer and the section is clearly labelled as "White supremacist views". If you want to improve it, go ahead, but consesus was to keep it, and since there is a redirection from Nordish race, there has to be at least some discussion of it. Paul B (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do not agree. The people from the North of Europe have a natural tendency to be fat and flabby. Just go to the European beaches in summer and that is the raw reality. There is nothing wrong with that, it is just the way they tend to be, exceptions excluded. That is why these assertions are most funny. But I am sure that these types of propaganda are just the result of that. A group of people who historically have been quite mediocre and on top of that are fat and flabby, go to all lengths to try to convince themselves and others of the opposite. That is a HUGE inferiority complex. More of the article should be devoted to that complex, which is really what lies behind all this gibberish. Jove the God.

Franklin

The sentence about Franklin preferring "white" Saxons and Englishmen rather than the "swarthy" Germans (except for the German Saxons), Italians, French, Russians, Spaniards and Swedes.[15] is funny. Was he an idiot ? Swedes and Russians are some of the fairest people on Earth, probably more so than English, who are predminantly brown haired Hxseek (talk)

He probably only knew Scandanavians from swarthy weathered sailors, and is unlikely to have met many Russians. However, that's what he says. Paul B (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the basis is that Swedes can tan, while say Irish are more likely to just burn. Franklin's discussion was likely tongue in cheek, though, which is not reflected in the article. --JWB (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not reflected in the article because it doesn't sound very tongue in cheek [6]. No source has suggested that it is. Paul B (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Not all Russians are blonde, there are a lot of brunettes in Russia as well, more than in Sweden. And the British are pale and don’t tan well like Swedes and Russians. The British are paler even if they are not predominantly blonde. Anyway, slavs were not considered in the “nordic” category which would automatically exclude Russia, not saying it’s right or wrong though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.61.168 (talk) 08:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Do 'swarthy' Germans actually exist? Or are they mostly fair? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.148.80 (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Another example of the use of this article by propagandist morons

See the use of this in the article:

The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer attributed civilizational primacy to the "white races" who gained their sensitivity and intelligence by refinement in the rigorous North:

///////// The highest civilization and culture, apart from the ancient Hindus and Egyptians, are found exclusively among the white races; and even with many dark peoples, the ruling caste or race is fairer in colour than the rest and has, therefore, evidently immigrated, for example, the Brahmans, the Incas, and the rulers of the South Sea Islands. All this is due to the fact that necessity is the mother of invention because those tribes that emigrated early to the north, and there gradually became white, had to develop all their intellectual powers and invent and perfect all the arts in their struggle with need, want and misery, which in their many forms were brought about by the climate. This they had to do in order to make up for the parsimony of nature and out of it all came their high civilization. ////////

Even in the sad-inferiority-complexed German tradition, When he referred to this he meant the Races of Europe and particularly the Greek and Roman Empires, or other achievements like the Italian Renaissance or the Age of Exploration and expansion of Europeans,(pioneered by Southern Europeans who discovered and explored the world for Europe: Portuguese, Spanish)The French revolution, etc.

These propagandists take people for idiots. I agree they must have a huge inferiority complex toward other Europeans. I mean, if it wasn't for the British (whose Nordic affiliation is highly questionable in terms of "race"), what would be their role in history, the Vikings? or World War II? The master race beaten by the inferior Slavs from Russia?. If the Russians had had the same ideology they would have actually annihilated or enslaved all the Germans. Someone might actually think about a bunch of losers indeed with a very small sense of embarrassment, as it is usual among Barbarians. Kun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.41.123 (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Original research

Editors keep changing the description - so far as I can see, it is unsourced and probably OR. Needs to be sourced and written according to the source, anyone have one? Dougweller (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors incessantly change the description to include or exclude various hair and eye colours etc. It's so utterly tedious I've given up bothering with it. Essentially there is no single all-inclusive description. All the writers who debated this agreed that there was variation in external signs rather than a precise list of features, and of course models evolved over time. A tendency to Fair hair, light eyes and dolichocephalic skulls is about all that's common. It would be impossible to provide a single source for typical features that could claim to be authoritative. Paul B (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please explain whether the description in the lede is your only concern. Paul B (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If I get a chance to look at it more Monday or Tuesday, I will. That's where I started. Dougweller (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Another example of Nordicist propaganda and wishful thinking.

In the article we can read:

The Mediterranean race was thought to be prevalent in southern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa as well as in Wales, and was said to be characterised by dark hair, dark eyes, swarthy complexion, moderate-to-short stature, and moderate of skull.[5][6]

Nordicism started with the Reformation and Martin Luther in Germany. From there it developed into a more structured ideology in later centuries. One of its aims was for inferiority complexed Germans and Northern Europeans to try and appropriate themselves of European civilization that was almost exclusively a product of the South of Europe at the time. In this line of thinking they ended up lumping together envied Southern Europeans with other non Europeans from the Mediterranean. They were a different race. The thinking was not candid. Non European meaning less in their minds, of course. So, for them they were all short, swarthy, etc. belonging all to the same race while Nordics were tall, fair, etc.

Well, of course the Englishman was a Nordic and the Spaniard a Mediterranean, to use a good example, therefore the Englishman was tall and fair/skinned and the Spaniard short and swarthy.

In fact, often the stereotype about the Spanish, reinforced by Nordicist influenced US Hollywood, is about a short and swarthy person (often confusing the term and mixing the term with people of Mexican, Caribbean, etc descend), stereotypes that have often been elevated to the categories of racial features, mainly by Nordicist 18th and 19th and early 20 century authors or by authors coming from the North of Europe and the US. Like the field of genetics is presenting important surprises,

See: http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

other studies are doing the same in relation to body height and skin pigmentation.

About body height, recent studies show that the average young Spaniard is even taller than the average Briton, and young Spaniards are still growing.

See: http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12501087

From there I cut and pasted this:

"The improvement in Spaniards’ lives is instantly visible. Many elderly people are short, stunted by the hunger they suffered as children in the hard years of fascist autarky after Franco won the civil war of 1936-39. Young Spaniards are strikingly taller than their grandparents, exemplified by Pau Gasol, who measures seven feet (2.13 metres) and was voted the most valuable player when Spain won the latest world basketball championship."

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height

About skin pigmentation, in a 21st century study that disregards the effects of tanning, Spaniards have some of the lighest skins in the world.

See page 18.

http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/chem/faculty/leontis/chem447/PDF_files/Jablonski_skin_color_2000.pdf

If are too lazy to read it here is a summary. The link is to a page that is controversial but the summary is good. In fact you can check it in the original paper if you are diligent. I include it here for those too lazy. You can also see some shocked reactions that reflect the preconceived vision of reality and its reactions before facts.

http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2006/01/skin-reflectance-of-selected-world.html

In short, it seems that some features that were related to race have more to do with the environment and living conditions than with anything else, to the point that the "Mediterranean" Spaniard, can actually be taller and even naturally lighter skinned (without the effects of tanning) than the "Nordic" Briton.

In my opinion more information like this should be introduced in the article, to highlight the amount of infantile propaganda inherent to Nordicism and its contradictions with modern 21st century science. It would be interesting to do the same in relation to 18/19 early 20 century science and modern 21st science, to analyze how anthropological science was itself a product of the influence of this ideology. Kun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.30.190.254 (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I am all for critizizing racist ideologies, but a statement like "Nordicism started with the Reformation and Martin Luther in Germany" really needs to be attributed to a reliable source, because, afawk, a movement with described itself as 'Nordic' only emerged in the late 19th century, the earliest. You don't need to bother with linking websites, just tell me which history textbook, or if necessary, which biology/anthropolgy textbook I need to read. On the other hand, though, an article from Journal of Human Evolution you have linked is quite useful, let's see what we can make of that. Zara1709 (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You can start with "Tree of Hate" by Philip Wayne Powell, pages 47/56, you have it all there. Martin Luther strong hatred of Jews, Spaniards and Italians (catholics), etc. You have it all there. It deals with the ramifications of Nordicism in relations of the US and the Hispanic world, but also with the beginnings of Nordicism in Germany, for example, for which Martin Luther was highly responsible. Nordicism and Protestatism were born together. You can also check the Black Legend, where you can also find something. Kun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.30.190.254 (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be describing German nationalism. Nordicism is a specifically racial theory. Also, I don't know of any evidence that Luther hated the Spanish and Italians as people, he hated the power of the papacy. However, perhaps you can summarise or quote what Powell says con pages 47-56. Paul B (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I've had a look at Tree of Hate. It says nothing whatever about Luther having a view about the Spanish or Italians as people. It says he was concerned that the Spanish state wished to "impose their universal rule on Germany as part of a supposed advance to world domination". In other words this has nothing to do with race whatever. As for the pdf from Journal of Human Evolution, I've no idea what you mean by "look at page 18", since there is no page 18. The article starts on page 57 of the journal. It mentions "Spanish basques" once in the text and there is a tabulation of populations in relation to various statistics, in which various Spanish groups feature. I don't profess to be able follow what all these statistics are identifying. The predicted shading tabulation on p.76 clearly places Spanish where one would expect them to be - slightly darker than Northern Europeans. As far as I can interpret the data, that seems to be consistent with the statistics. I don't know why this is an issue. You seem to be preoccupied with proving the "whiteness" of Spaniards, but this is just natural human variation determined by UV levels. Paul B (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No. I can see you are one of those that deny what is written in black and white, exactly like Nordicists. Nothing to do with them. I am not wasting my time. There are the data: sad one has to explain the obvious when confronted with these nordicists: It is in page 74 in the article, 18 in the program that opens the article, at least in mine. Page 76 shows the predicted skin pigmentation according to latitude, not the real one. In spite of that, Spaniards (Samples from two regions) are lighter skinned than people from London, from Belgium or from Ireland (in fact it is really almost the same) Goodbye and have a good time in your own world, and hope that you are more intelligent in real life, otherwise life must be very tough for you. And guess what? after your interpretations of the information given, I am not wasting my time trying to explain it to you. Mission impossible. I hope that at least people can begin to see who people like you, the masters of this article, really are. . Kun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.30.190.254 (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. Paul B (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You are not making any sense at all. "About the book, no it seems that you do not have it." What book? Do you mean Tree of Hate? It can be accessed on Google Books. Are you denying that it says what I stated? As for the reflectance tabulation on p74 of the article, it clearly places Spniards as slightly darker than British and other North European populations. London is an exception, but obviously it has a large multi-racial population. Did you think of that? So Spaniards on average are slightly darker than North Europeans. Big deal. Who cares?

Essentially, you don't seem to understand what this article is about. It describes the theory known as "Nordicism", listing the views of its adherents and critics at the time that it was influential. It's not about how white the Spanish are. Perhaps you are more intelligent in real life, but your contributions here show absolutely no insight into the purpose of the article or the proper use of sources. Paul B (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

For God' s sake, of course, who cares? You seem to. In the tabulation they are lighter, on average, than Belgians, Irish, Welsh, English people from London. But who cares? Still you will keep saying the opposite. Again, either hard of understanding or I do not know what to make of it. Kun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.30.190.254 (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you do. You aren't interested in the topic of the article, only in how white Spaniards are. That makes you the one obssessed by degrees of whiteness, not me. The chart you draw attention to has the Northern British, Germans and Dutch in the lightest category. For some reason there is no data from Scandinavia. But this is pretty much consistent with what one would expect. The relevance, however, to this article is utterly marginal. The Spanish are mentioned twice in passing in the article. Once in Benjamin Franklin's list of 'swarthy' peoples - in which he also includes Germans and Swedes, so it's hardly "Nordicist" in the usual sense. The other is a footnote quoting the Nordicist Hans Gunther who refers to the "Nordic Celts" occupying Spain, so in Gunther's view the Spanish are in part "Nordic". It just shows that these ideas were full of unpredictable complexities, that's why we have to explain what people actually said in the context of the time. Paul B (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Values from the article. Of course, the higher the value, the lighter the skin. No more comments.

Netherlands 67•37

Germany (Mainz) 66•90

United Kingdom (Northern) 66•10

Spain (Basques) 65•70

United Kingdom (Wales) 65•00

Ireland (Rossmore) 64•75

Spain (Leon) 64•66

Belgium 63•14

United Kingdom (London) 62•30

About the rest, I have made clear my arguments above. Nordicism should be seen also in its contradictions with modern science. Its ridiculous propaganda is obvious, but on top of that it is based on false and bad science. In my opinion those contradictions should be in the article. That is all. Bye. Kun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.30.190.254 (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You just repeat yourself, and deliberately exclude the data from the Northern Britain, Netherlands and Germany. Also, you show no interest at all in what the Nordicists and their opponents actually said do you? Paul B (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, sorry if you are not a Nordicist, but then you must really have big problems dealing with information that goes beyond solving one plus one problems. So, in either case abstain from responding. Anyway, I am mot monopolizing this discussion page. This is just, I think, an interesting observation. Maybe other people want to elaborate on that. I have contributed my two cents. Bye. Kun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.30.190.254 (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I could look up Ripley's definition

So, I've had it with the hair and eye colour and whatever else people have been changing here constantly. It should be possible for me to get access to Ripley's 1899 book (in English) and I can simply look up how he defined "Nordic". I would have to wait till Monday, though, but in preparation created a separate section for Ripley's concept of a Nordic race. Zara1709 (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Nordicism and Afrocentrism

It is interesting how both theories derive from an inferiority complex, Nordicism, from the inferiority complex and jealousy toward Southern European civilization and achievements in ancient and early modern times and Afrocentrism from the same feelings toward Europeans or people of European ancestry. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrocentrism

I think that both doctrines follow the same roots and rationale. Maybe these similarities should be introduced in the article. Of special interest is the obsession that can be found in both doctrines with the achievement of Southern European civilization, they both seemed obsessed with placing themselves in Greece or Rome. It is highly interesting how the mind of defferent peoples can function similarly under similar circumstances. It may also be interesting to assess the collective insecurity of some peoples regarding themselves, history and their identity in a desperate effort to steal the identity of others.

One example you have here in the infamous page stormfront:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=331091

In the last comment, the user accuses another user of Afrocentrism and asks the rhetorical question: why. if the African played such a major role in Mediterranean civilization, were they in their homes just mud?. It is so interesting, incredibly amazing, that she forgets to use the same question regarding Nordics.

You can find lots of information regarding this Nordic=Afrocentric obsession with being part of Mediterranean civilization. The fact is that they were both not only mediocre, but almost insignificant in relation to Mediterranean achievement, and since they based their doctrines of racial superiority on civilization and people' s achievement, this issue disturbs their dreams strongly.

Actually she finishes off saying: Quit trying to claim other cultures as your own. You sound pathetic.

Does not Nordicism sound equally pathetic?

More comments on the same issue:

http://dienekes.50webs.com/blog/archives/000184.html

http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009/08/07/who-were-the-ancient-romans/

Well, this would be too long, just google Nordicism and Afrocentrism and there you have it: same fantasies, same complexes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.12.155.194 (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

As said, this Nordicist/Afrocentrist issue is well known and should even contain a section in the article. I will wait for comments before I edit anything though. Bembo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.34.123.121 (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"Nordische Rasse" (German Encyclopaedia from 1943)

"Nordische Rasse, hochgewachsene, blonde blauäugige Rasse mit schmalen, langen Kopf und schmalen hohen Gesicht; geistige-seelische Kennzeichen: Willenskraft, Wahrhaftigkeit, Zurückhaltungen, kulturschöpferische Begabgung. Sie ist die ein Hauptbestandteil der Bevölkerung Skandinaviens und z. T. Norddeutschlands, als deutlicher Rasseneinschlag ist sie im ganzen übrigen nördl. und mittl. Europa zu finden. Ihr Anteil am deutschen Volkskörper beträgt über 50%. Sie ist Trägerin der indogerman. und german. Kultur und hat damit auch der heutigen das Gepräge gegeben." (Der Volks-Brockhaus (1943), p.489)

- So, there you have it: The Nordic Race is blonde and blue-eyed (and also responsible for Nazism, it has "der heutigen [Kultur] das Gepräge gegeben", that is the culture of 1943.). I'll look up Ripley's definition anyway. Zara1709 (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Are there some misplaced full-stops in the last sentences of your quotation? As for Ripley, I don't recall that The Races of Europe contains a single section that clearly lays out the typical characteristics of what he calls the "Teutonic race". There are various passages which include the usual features. He speaks of its "predominent dolichocephaly" (p.117) and blondness. On p.172 there is a diagram in which he lays out the principal characteristics. "Teutonic: head - long; face - long; hair - very light; eyes - blue; stature - tall; nose - aquiline; synonyms - Dolicholepto, Reihen-Graber, Germanic, Kymric, Nordic, Homo Europaeus." Paul B (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I copied the quote verbatim and the "fullstops" indicate abbreviations. And I've already taken a look at "The Races of Europe", and found the same diagram on p. 172. I've got a copy of it here; I'll probably add add it to the article tomorrow. Zara1709 (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. Essentially the problem is typically in the top section in which the three "main" racial categories are summarised. I originally included this at the lede so that the reader would have from the first a sense of the typology within the which the concept 'Nordic' came to be meaningful (per WP:LEDE). It is, of course, out of chronology and keeps being moved out of the lede to a separate section which undermines its point which is to 'orient' the reader in relation to the later convolutions of arguments, counter-arguments and conflicting theories. It could be reduced to a much shorter form in the lede, one which will discourage the endless drive-by edits which continually add or delete variations to eye colour, nose shape etc. Paul B (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Has Günther's list of characteristics been excluded intentionally? I'm not trying to make a point, I'm just curious. Thanks, —Aryaman (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It hasn't been excluded at all. It's extensively quoted in the article. Ripley is prominent because he provided the initial model for the dominant typology. Gunther essentially varies it and adds ideological content. Paul B (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see that Günther is referred to several times, but his characterization of the Nordic race is nowhere as far as I can see. Like I said, I'm not trying to make a point about the article. I'm just curious as to whether including it next to Ripley's could help stem off some of the back-and-forth regarding the characterization itself. Thanks, —Aryaman (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well really the lede should summarise the article as a whole, so there is no reason why Gunther should not be mentioned there as a development which merges the typology with the earlier "blonde race = Aryan race" idea found in Lapouge and others. Ripley is quite keen to use his typology to disprove the concept that there is any "Aryan" race, which is a point he makes repeatedly. Paul B (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ripley's diagram (p121)

Yesterday I went to our University's historic research library and took a look at Ripley's 1899 work. I wasn't allowed to copy it (it's from before 1900..), but I was able to make a scan of the table concerning the Tautonic, Alpine and Mediterranean race on page 121 (!). I would upload it, but Ripley is only dead 68 years and so that would be a copyvio. So I'm copying it by hand.

	Head	Face	Hair	Eyes	Stature	Nose	Synonyms
Teutonic	Long	Long	Very light	Blue	Tall	Narrow; aquiline	Nordic (Deniker), Homo Europaeus (Lapouge)
Alpine (Celtic)	Round	Broad	Light chestnut	Hazelgray	Medium, stocky	Variable; rather broad; heavy	Occidental (Deniker), Homo Alpinus (Lapouge)
Mediteranean	Long	Long	Dark brown or black	Dark	Medium, slender	Rather broad

I've left out most of the synonyms, which I think are irrelevant for us. We can add this table to the article and fix the section on Ripley, and then we can discuss the structure of the article. Zara1709 (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Why does "Germanicism" redirect here?

Can't the cultural and historical interest in Germanic/Teutonic type people; completely separate from the race; and if human taxonomy comes into play could not yet even this specific classification of "Nordic" meaning Germanic be too close for "Germanicism" to mean, historically, what would redirect here? One can simply do a google search to discover that 'Germanicism' is too broad a term to mean simply the individual and specific definition of a race type, even though the term would be said not to be just a race term if even the least among all the things it is construed to mean. Please someone find a better redirect for "Germanicism" than here. There for certain are several articles which would fit more logically the redirect of that term. regards. 4.242.174.238 (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that regular editors here even knew that this redirect exists. It was created by User:Tyciol, who seems to create a lot of redirects. I redirected it to Pan-Germanism. Paul B (talk) 09:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

WTF? This is a direct insult against Scandinavia and the nordic countries to compare us to nazists or pan-germanist. Both Denmark and Norway was attacked and occupied by Hitlers army. Many went to KZ camps.

To be Nordic is to be Scandinavian, get it? This is called the Nordic model with a large welfare system and low crime. How typical wikipedia elitism has taken over to control it. I'm changing IP so flame away. My ISP don't care anyway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.59.124.141 (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you have some idea what you are talking about, but I doubt anyone else does. Nordic can mean Scandanavian, yes, but in this case it doesn't, get it? Whatever Wikipedia may be, it certainly is not elitist. Paul B (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know

That was a stupid dumb-blonde joke. However, the theory promotes blondes, by and large, so of course it was inviting a dumb-blonde joke... I wonder if people got concentration-camp time for making such jokes in Nazi Germany? 204.52.215.13 (talk) 05:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Obvious jealousy.

Why were these people behind this theory so jealous of Southern Europeans, as can be easily inferred from their reasoning?. Otto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.185.148 (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If you hate us so much, why do you flock to our countries and apply for welfare? Stop that racist crap, if we've had been blacks this page would have been total havoc for racism. But it's appparently OK to be racist against nordic people. just because of the writings of some incompetent nazi corporal. Or is this some kind of black power forum?

This is digusting what wikipedia has changed into. A fascist information department ruled by a mob elite of administrators that ban anyone except those who agree with agenda. I don't care anyway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.161.105.95 (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have specific objections to the article? If so, explain what they are. Paul B (talk) 11:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)