Meta-ethnicity?

[Menydh]

What do you mean that Jutes were Celtic in origin? You mean like germanicized Celts? That's hard to believe. Who would have germanicized the Jutes in first instance? and when?

[Marulus]

What about meta-ethnic solidarity? If meta-ethnicity is something real, then there should be some extent of solidarity accompanying it.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

What do you mean that Jutes were Celtic in origin? You mean like germanicized Celts? That's hard to believe. Who would have germanicized the Jutes in first instance? and when?

Not really, considering the Germanic nature of the area. I believe we have had this discussion before. Jutes would be Germanic, because they speak a Germanic language, Danish, albeit with accent and because they are "Germanicized". But they only present the unification of the Cimbri and the Ambrones, and a number of other less significant tribes, but also the Teutones.

Note that the usage of Teuton as Germanic/German is a big misconception (Schütte, G., et al, 45), since the Teutones first of all were one of the tribes constituting the Jutes (the Iutum - the Eut-om, or Eutones), and not a whole people, and second of all the Teut- root isnt Germanic in specific, as some think, but in fact just as proto-Celtic and proto-Indo-European. Another usage is the Celtic god of tribes, Tout-atis/Teut-ates, Teut and its corruptions meaning tribe or people. A plausible Germanic origin would be *Þeudanōz, which is also a possibility. The etymological question of the name Teutones is not really significant though, since the linguistic Germanicization of the Celtic tribes that existed in Jutland is indeniable and self-evident, especially at the time the Teutones were noted in the first place. One has to consider other factors, though, which is often the problem with cheap ethnology. Factors such as culture and kinship are the final determinants - and all one can know is that the Teutones in specific were allied with two Celtic tribes that co-existed (and later merged with) and that they were culturally unified.

[Menydh]

There isn't enough evidence to assert that the Teutons were not Germanics. What you say is just one speculative theory, afaik. As for the Cimbri, yes, they were likely Celtic, not Germanic. And yes too, we have already discussed them.

You see? I have no particular interest of my own in saying that the Danes are (or not) Germanics. If they are, fine. If they are not, fine too. So far I haven't had any problems with the few Danes that I've met. You will agree that I am pretty neutral on this issue.

But as an outsider, when I see a Dane I think "Germanic". They don't look anything else to me. I'll agree that Danes are undoubtedly a kind of their own, if you want, among Germanics. Well, they may have well received other influences and, sure, have a Celtic element. Who has not? But they are still Germanic.

Whatever each and every of the ancient tribes that came into the formation of the modern Danish people were, the fact remains that modern Danes are undisputably Germanics.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

There isn't enough evidence to assert that the Teutons were not Germanics. What you say is just one speculative theory, afaik. As for the Cimbri, yes, they were likely Celtic, not Germanic. And yes too, we have already discussed them.

You see? I have no particular interest of my own in saying that the Danes are (or not) Germanics. If they are, fine. If they are not, fine too. So far I haven't had any problems with the few Danes that I've met. You will agree that I am pretty neutral on this issue.

But as an outsider, when I see a Dane I think "Germanic". They don't look anything else to me. I'll agree that Danes are undoubtedly a kind of their own, if you want, among Germanics. Well, they may have well received other influences and, sure, have a Celtic element. Who has not? But they are still Germanic.

Whatever each and every of the ancient tribes that came into the formation of the modern Danish people were, the fact remains that modern Danes are undisputably Germanics.

You cannot establish any facts about the Danes without distinguishing between the Jutes and the Danes. I agree; any assertion of the Germanic or Celtic nature of the Teutones is speculative, yet the closest we come to the truth. The Cimbri and the Ambrones were indisputably Celtic (which is proven from archaeological, linguistic and anecdotal evidence), the Teutones being more of a case of uncertainty, due to their seemingly mixed meta-ethnic nature - I consider them a crucial part in explaining the Germanicization of Jutland, e.g. because they represented partially Germanic linguistic elements before any of the other tribes, and likely their legacy will be the name of the Eutones, which is the root of the word Jute or Jut - which was the final unification of the (primarily) Cimbrian and Ambronic populations, together with the Teutones constituting the Germanic Juttish population. Thus it is justified to call Jutes Germanicized Celts. In the case of Danes, it isnt, because they only have Juttish admixture, more so than vice versa, and they are not involved in the formation of modern Juttish ethnology, more than their minimal genetic contributions. I even have a few genetic studies proving a difference between Jutes and Danes, suggesting this exact differentiated ethnology.

I will also remind you that it is not about just one ancient tribe or two, but all the biggest tribes of Jutland and the whole population that we as modern Jutes descend from, at least in the Western, and Northernmost parts of Jutland (Himmerland and Salling being the core areas - which is exactly where I'm from).

What I find interesting about your remarks is that Danes "look" Germanic. There is not a Germanic look. And if there is, it is certainly vague and undefined, and therefore subjective, and thus it is a delusion. The Germanic meta-ethnicity is cultural and linguistic, not sub-racial.

When it comes to interests, I have only one interest in the ethnology of Denmark. And that is my ancestry, and its nature. The truth, so to speak.

[Whiteruthenian]

Originally Posted by Marulus

What about meta-ethnic solidarity? If meta-ethnicity is something real, then there should be some extent of solidarity accompanying it.

Some extent of solidarity? I’m not sure, but may be the similarity of languages can be a base for such solidarity? Slavs are buddies whose languages are easy to learn for me. And though we all have a lot of non-Slavic blood, it was the blood of Ur-Slavs that made us speak our languages, and we can do nothing about it, whether we like it or not.

I myself have ‘Polesian’ as my meta-ethnicity, because I think that the words ‘Belarusian and Polesian’ describe me as a person better than ‘Belarusian and Slav’.

[Kalevi]

Originally Posted by Marulus

How do you define the notion of meta-ethnicity? Is it something real, or an arbitrary category, which can be artificially formed and fostered under certain ideological-political circumstances and then later redefined, changed or entirely done away with?

Does something like meta-ethnicity exist at all?

While I don't want to completely dismiss the idea of meta-ethnic groups, I think the linguistic groups in popular use are mostly not valid. I view traditional meta-ethnicism (aka. extended language-Nationalism) as a kind of 'ethnic megalomania', and an obsolete legacy of traditional Nationalism.

Of course it is a matter of valuation how big role should a linguistic affinity and different parts of culture play in ethnic relations. But in my opinion when two languages have diverged enough and lost the mutual intelligibility, the only significance the relation has is academical(comparative linguistics) and pedagogical(ease of learning). It may also affect the self-identification of people, but this is often a consequence of that same traditional language-Nationalism.

It should be self-explanatory that language and culture are distinct phenomena. The traditional model is to assume a family-tree of peoples stemming from a proto-people, which is dictated by linguistics. But this is simply an incorrect model of mapping a past ethnogenesis: if we take a group of speakers of language X invading another tribe Y, and the language X becoming dominant, we get an ethnic mixture of X and Y. If the result is later merged with tribe Z, leaving the language X as dominant, we get an ethnogenesis where the speakers of language X are only about one fourth of the folk stock. In reality, it doesn't have to be even that much, but a small group of people can influence the language of larger groups by establishing themselves as the elite. Furthermore, culture - which is one huge concept and thus very hard to compare - is actually rather international phenomenon. Much of it has been invented in large civilizational centers, like ancient Greece or Mesopotamia, and parts of it are even from very old, all-European layers, like from the introduction of agriculture, from Indo-Europeanization, or even from paleo-European layers. It is the local variations - traditions - that make us distinct. So it is not granted that the culture of the proto-language speakers would have been radically distinct from the peoples among to it expanded, especially those in the direct neighbourhood.

I think one characteristical thing of Europe is continuity - that there has not been many large-scale population replacements in the history, at least before the 20th century. Different cultural layers have swept across regions, and dominions have come and gone, each having left their mark in the local populations. From this follows that the ethnic borders in Europe are more often gradual than steep, making the attempt of conclusive ethnic division in Europe futile in many cases. Therefore, the groupings should be either something very specific (like Scandinavian or Insular-Celtic for example), or something of very large scale (like Europe). That would leave large parts of Europe without such distinct groups. But where there isn't these kind of distinct, one-sided relations, they don't need to be invented.

I'll give you a simple example. I don't find the Baltic-Finnic ethno-linguistic group - that today includes just Finns and Estonians, and some scarce remnants of ethnic groups adjacent to the two - to be completely baseless at all (even when there's not that strict ethnical borders between Latvia and Estonia, or Finland and Sweden). But our relation towards Estonians most certainly isn't only a product of the linguistic affinity. The Baltic-Finnic languages are a result of just one cultural layer, though there certainly has been cultural exchange also after (and before) that. If we imagine an alternative history where Estonia would have been conquered by Mongols and remained a Spartan spirited stronghold run by a Mongol upper class until the 16th century, and would later have turned to Islam following a Tatar invasion - but still after all this remaining linguistically Estonian - I doubt a Finn would feel much ethnic kinship to them despite any amount of indoctrination. The main reason why Finns and Estonians can recognize each others as ethnic kin is that 1) we're originally from the same, or at least not too dissimilar ethnic stock(s), and 2) neither of us haven't changed in a too radically different direction. But then again, the same could be said of Estonians and Latvians. And of Latvians and Lithuanians. And of Lithuanians and Poles. And of Poles and...

Politically speaking, I don't have use of any inter-ethnic constructs, and I even find them potentially harmful. It is about time for people to start identifying more as parts of their locality, in order to oppose the ongoing polarization that is making us parts of a huge, apathetic herd controlled by the mass media and mass movements. The urbanization associated with industrialization has made local identities much less meaningful and relevant, which I find rather sad. In the past there were Tavastians, Karelians, Bothnians, etc., who identified with each other enough to make the establishment of a Finnish nation-state possible. In the future, there will be just Finns, Slovenians, Germans, Italians etc., who are part of Europe but have no smaller units to identify with. Are we then going straight to some pan-European melting pot or what?

Feeling of kinship between nations is not a negative thing as it appears, but it doesn't need any isms - it just is there (to the extent it is), or then it isn't. We certainly don't need it in order to form real-political alliances - for that we only need some common, basic values and common interests.

[Menydh]

Maybe we should speak (and think) in terms of meta-identity instead of meta-ethnicity?

A concept such as that of meta-identity I believe that it is more realistic as it is not forced by the limits of meta-ethnicity.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Maybe we should speak (and think) in terms of meta-identity instead of meta-ethnicity?

A concept such as that of meta-identity I believe that it is more realistic as it is not forced by the limits of meta-ethnicity.

Perhaps yes, but identity, albeit the only necessary factor for ethnogenesis, could never replace the description of ethnicities. Identity is as important though, but its hard to measure it, especially since identity is very fluid, whereas ethnicities often persist.

Nevertheless, instead of talking of Germanic or other linguistic meta-ethnic designations, in Scandinavia, which would normally be "Germanic", it would be much more accurate to talk of a Nordic meta-ethnicity or meta-identity, involving both the Finns, who are not Germanic, and every other nation and area, no matter other factors. This Nordic identity would be separated from the rest of Europe, including all Germanic countries.

Whats more, there is increasingly a European identity, but the survey I have this from described mainly Denmark [of Scandinavian countries] as having it.

For other areas, I am sure there are such meta-ethnicities/meta-identities, not based on linguistics, but on other factors, mainly being identity and geographical neighborliness.

[M.R.]

I didn't have time yet to read the whole 3 pages of the thread, so I'll adress the original question only and maybe later I'll respond to some other points.

To me "meta-ethnicities" have no meaning, especialy this Romance, Germanic, Slavic etc BS which is based on linguistics only. It has nothing to do with ethnic identity only with language.

What I would consider as my meta-ethnicity is being Catholic European, because I have some cultural and historical bond with other Catholic European nations in some broad definition (much more than let's say with Russians or Ukranians even though we're 'officialy' in same 'meta-ethnicity'). But of course as I said before I don't give much importance to meta-ethnicity.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Panonski

To me "meta-ethnicities" have no meaning, especialy this Romance, Germanic, Slavic etc BS which is based on linguistics only. It has nothing to do with ethnic identity only with language.

What I would consider as my meta-ethnicity is being Catholic European, because I have some cultural and historical bond with other Catholic European nations in some broad definition

This is a reason why I propose an idea of meta-identity vs one of meta-ethinicity.

Ethnicity defines an identity. E.g. Irish or Hungarian. Thus meta-ethnicity should define an identity about the [ethnic] identity. E.g., Baltic, Slavic, Germanic, Romance, Hellenic, etc. But the reality is that despite the strictly defined terms of meta-ethnicity it often fails to define such an "supra-ethnic" identity and, where it does define one, it should be carefully examined whether the elements leading to such a supra-ethnic identity arise from the idea of meta-ethnicity.

For example, how do Austrians feel identified with Icelanders? or, how do Russians feel identified with Croatians? Aren't the former both Germanic and the latter both Slavic?

In a sense, the idea of a meta-ethnicity if taken beyond the definition of a meta-linguistic groups and little more, could be argued that it forces the self-identification of peoples denying their individual evolutionary history as nations.

On the other hand, the proposal of a meta-identity does take into account the concept of a supra-ethnicity as a substratum of the identity, as well as the evolution of the core identity, as an adstratum to the identity itself. Unlike meta-ethnicity, the meta-identity respects the freedom of nations to the forged part of their identies.