Meta-ethnicity?

[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?

[Gnist]

Originally Posted by Marulus

Does something like meta-ethnicity exist at all?

The Germanic meta-ethnicity exists independently of the truth of any theory that might have acted as an agent in the formulation of it, in my opinion. A nation within it has ethnically more important things in common with each of the other nations within it, compared to the nation outside the meta-ethnicity with which it has the most in common. It's rather straightforward and indisputable, isn't it?

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Seekers

The Germanic meta-ethnicity exists independently of the truth of any theory that might have acted as an agent in the formulation of it, in my opinion. A nation within it has ethnically more important things in common with each of the other nations within it, compared to the nation outside the meta-ethnicity with which it has the most in common. It's rather straightforward and indisputable, isn't it?

I disagree.
You dont even specify exactly what you mean with the Germanic meta-ethnicity. What is it? Which countries in specific? Do all the countries identify as "Germanic"? For an example, in Denmark, Germanic is a strictly linguistic term. Probably the same with the rest of Scandinavia. The only ones who self-designate as Germanic up here are mostly white supremacist nutjobs and such types. Meta-ethnicities are abstract classifications of various languages and the associated cultures (which, however, are not always associated - i.e. there are instances of mixed Celtic/Germanic cultures, such as in Denmark), they are not real, they are something non-existant to the individual cultures.

[Carnyx]

Meta-ethnicity is too broad notion.

[Galaico]

It depends on what a meta-ethnicity means to you. If it’s just about languages, we could perfectly take away the word “ethnicity” from meta-ethnicity and leave as meta-linguistic group.

For example, I am a Romance speaker, but that doesn’t necessarily mean I feel any kind of ethnic closeness to any other Romance speaker, let’s say a Romanian. On the other hand, I can perfectly feel an ethnic closeness with a Basque, who’s not a Romance speaker (not even Indo-European speaker), but it is beyond doubt our ethnic kinship.

When I think of meta-ethnicity I think about the European peoples in general, whom all have a clear genetic and historical relation with each other. When I specifically think about my ethnicity, I think about a group of hunters and gatherers who crossed the Pyrenees and settled in Iberia in Upper Paleolithic times, exterminating the last Neanderthals, and painting the caves of Altamira. I can think about a small group of Neolithic farmers teaching their knowledge to those hunters and getting assimilated into the greater Iberian ethnicity. Many more things come to my mind, war against Rome, Latin assimilation, Germanic invasions, Reconquista, etc.

However, a linguistic group isn’t going to determine my ethnic feeling or awareness. That I speak a Romance language is just an “accident” in the ethnic evolution of part of my people.

[Gnist]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

The only ones who self-designate as Germanic up here are mostly white supremacist nutjobs and such types.

I'm sure you're confusing Germanic with German, German with national socialist and national socialist with white supremacist, in making such a gross generalisation.

The significant groups I can think of who identify themselves as Germanic, in my experience, are nationalists and patriots, including intellectuals who love their own culture. Even some people who are not patriotic readily recognize themselves as belonging to the Germanic meta-ethnicity, mind you, but they are rather exceptions to the rule.

[Aptrgangr]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

I disagree.
You dont even specify exactly what you mean with the Germanic meta-ethnicity. What is it? Which countries in specific? Do all the countries identify as "Germanic"? For an example, in Denmark, Germanic is a strictly linguistic term. Probably the same with the rest of Scandinavia. The only ones who self-designate as Germanic up here are mostly white supremacist nutjobs and such types. Meta-ethnicities are abstract classifications of various languages and the associated cultures (which, however, are not always associated - i.e. there are instances of mixed Celtic/Germanic cultures, such as in Denmark), they are not real, they are something non-existant to the individual cultures.

So a Germanic is everyone speaking a Germanic language?


The term "Germanic" is related to German [we ourselves call us Deutsche BTW], and Germans are bad people, so leading scientists are propagating Germanic is just a linguistic term. Have you ever thought about who is speaking Germanic languages, and why?

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Seekers

I'm sure you're confusing Germanic with German, German with national socialist and national socialist with white supremacist, in making such a gross generalisation.

The significant groups I can think of who identify themselves as Germanic, in my experience, are nationalists and patriots, including intellectuals who love their own culture. Even some people who are not patriotic readily recognize themselves as belonging to the Germanic meta-ethnicity, mind you, but they are rather exceptions to the rule.

Then you clearly didnt understand my post.
Nationalists and patriots? 95% of both people and nationalists in Denmark dont know the word "Germanic" for anything else than something very distant from everyday life: a classification of languages and old age cultures associated with them.

You are saying it is patriotic to recognize oneself as Germanic? Pff. That is such BS. It has nothing to do with anything of concern. No one use Germanic as an ethnic self-designation in the society of Denmark, and I can only speculate it is the same in Norway and Sweden and certain other "Germanic" countries. Its just not taken seriously in society. Surveys have shown that Danes are among the most pan-European in orientation, so that is the only meta-ethnicity people on a societal basis identify with. That is the only real identity, the only broader ethnicity we honor, except for "Danish".

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

So a Germanic is everyone speaking a Germanic language?


The term "Germanic" is related to German [we ourselves call us Deutsche BTW], and Germans are bad people, so leading scientists are propagating Germanic is just a linguistic term. Have you ever thought about who is speaking Germanic languages, and why?

I have not said that Germanic is everyone speaking a Germanic language. That surely depends on which context you use it in. One thing is certain though: Germanic is hardly a genealogical term. It represents an abstract classification of languages, based on similarities recognized between them, and the associated cultures in old ages. We can speculate the common proto-Indo-European origin of Germanic languages. It is not used by people as an ethnic self-designation. Most people dont know its full meaning, probably; and most people that do, know it as a linguistic term.

I dont have anything against Germany. Germany, in fact, along with other nations, is one of the nations I admire the most of any nation in the world. You talking as if all this stemmed from anti-Germanism implies the assumption that all Germanic-speakers are all genealogically the same, though, and the same as Germans. Which, of course, is entirely false. The genealogy of Europe and Germanic countries is complex, and surely cannot be reduced to a few linguistic sub-groups. Because inside those sub-groups, you will find groups of people that might as well be more related genealogically to someone outside of the specific linguistic group. Any population is diverse, and when groups such as PIEs split up, the diversity will most likely be preserved genealogically, even if one group from one bloodline ends up with a dialect different from most others in the same bloodline.

Your point that speaking a Germanic language is not a racial or ethnic determinant, is one that is impossible to deny, but it also has to be stressed on a larger scale. Many of the current "Germanic" (speaking) countries have componental non-Germanic-specific origins. Not that it matters - because again, Germanic is not a valid way to simplify genealogy in the first place, so the observations indication is a truism we would have to assert without it.

[Gnist]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

You talking as if all this stemmed from anti-Germanism implies the assumption that all Germanic-speakers are all genealogically the same, though, and the same as Germans.

No two individuals - anywhere - who aren't siblings aren't "genealogically the same". You are surely lending your keyboard to more nonsense than anyone else in this thread so far.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Seekers

No two individuals - anywhere - who aren't siblings aren't "genealogically the same". You are surely lending your keyboard to more nonsense than anyone else in this thread so far.

Pointing out an articulatory mistake on my behalf and saying nothing else, on the contrary, is a huge contribution to this thread?
I clearly didnt mean "exactly the same", I meant ancestrally related as in "the whole town was inbred", etc.

[Marulus]

I got the idea to open this thread and to put this question about meta-ethnicity after reading the thread What is Slavic? and especially this post of Ostrogorski in which he insists that Slavs are meta-ethnicity beyond any doubt and not solely due to the linguistic affinity.

I find the very concept of meta-ethnicity as very problematic and I am pretty unsure as to how it is to be defined. That does not mean that I outright deny the existence of the very thing, I am just saying that I have no definite opinion or view of what that is supposed to mean, given the fact that I was able to witness many different - and sometimes conflicting each other - definitions of the term. I allow even the possibility that it is a pure construct.

That is why I would appreciate to hear different opinions about that.

(And, no, I didn't open a poll, 'cause I hate polls, unlike some other members of Stirpes)

[Gnist]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

For an example, in Denmark, Germanic is a strictly linguistic term.

I don't believe you, but it doesn't matter if it is that way anywhere "in Denmark". Terms like Romance, Keltic and Germanic have been in use for a long time, and they are used to describe, broadly, ancestry as well as culture - to put it simply, what we also call heritage. I know this because I have seen this very use of those terms in sources that pre-date the culture-relativistic paradigm, for example in Nordisk Familjebok (literally "Nordic Family Book", a classic Swedish encyclopedia).

Meta-ethnicity is one of the levels on which ethnic concerns make sense, and if we discard it, we lose some of our political strength. We would be in danger of falling short of arguments when our political enemies accuse the concept of nation of being a late construction of arbitrary imagery, and a mere myth about community.

However, I deliberately approached this topic by referring to the Germanic meta-ethnicity specifically, since I know it better than other meta-ethnicities. They may well vary as to the degree of their importance, for all I know.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

Meta-ethnicities are abstract classifications of various languages and the associated cultures (which, however, are not always associated - i.e. there are instances of mixed Celtic/Germanic cultures, such as in Denmark), they are not real, they are something non-existant to the individual cultures.

Meta-ethnicity is not meant to denote a homogenous entity without differences altogether. I thought that was pretty obvious. The prefix "meta" implies something other than that.

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Galaico

It depends on what a meta-ethnicity means to you.

So far nothing. I have no feeling of meta-ethnicity, so I am enquiring about other people's opinions, as to how they define or feel their meta-ethnic belonging.

Originally Posted by Galaico

If it’s just about languages, we could perfectly take away the word “ethnicity” from meta-ethnicity and leave as meta-linguistic group.

That's entirely correct.

Originally Posted by Galaico

For example, I am a Romance speaker, but that doesn’t necessarily mean I feel any kind of ethnic closeness to any other Romance speaker, let’s say a Romanian. On the other hand, I can perfectly feel an ethnic closeness with a Basque, who’s not a Romance speaker (not even Indo-European speaker), but it is beyond doubt our ethnic kinship.

When I think of meta-ethnicity I think about the European peoples in general, whom all have a clear genetic and historical relation with each other. When I specifically think about my ethnicity, I think about a group of hunters and gatherers who crossed the Pyrenees and settled in Iberia in Upper Paleolithic times, exterminating the last Neanderthals, and painting the caves of Altamira. I can think about a small group of Neolithic farmers teaching their knowledge to those hunters and getting assimilated into the greater Iberian ethnicity. Many more things come to my mind, war against Rome, Latin assimilation, Germanic invasions, Reconquista, etc.

Does this mean that your meta-ethnicity is simply European? Or Iberian/Hispanic? In the former case you would feel a meta-ethnic kinship with a Romanian, not because he is a Romance-speaker like you, but because he is of European extraction as well.

Originally Posted by Galaico

However, a linguistic group isn’t going to determine my ethnic feeling or awareness. That I speak a Romance language is just an “accident” in the ethnic evolution of part of my people.

However, there must have been a pretty large group of colons from Italy, thanks to whom the whole Iberia (with the exception of the Vascongadas and one part of Navarre) today speaks Romance idioms. They must have contributed to the Iberian ethnogenesis.

Or, maybe, the Latin language prevailed in the end, not because of the large number of Italic colons, but simply because it was a lingua franca, in which most of the local ethnicities could communicate with each other, on condition that the pre-Roman Iberia was very linguistically diversified, with many mutually incomprehensible idioms (but we cannot be sure about that because little is known about those languages).

I am speaking here not only about Hispania, but about the possible patterns of the spread of the Latin language everywhere, where it took firm roots.

[Carnyx]

However, there must have been a pretty large group of colons from Italy, thanks to whom the whole Iberia (with the exception of the Vascongadas and one part of Navarre) today speaks Romance idioms. They must have contributed to the Iberian ethnogenesis.

No, I don't think so. Roman conquests were military and not colonization ones. No "large" group of colons ever established in the colonies, at best some traders and a mere roman nomenclatura, anything but "large".