Danish politician stakes claim to Swedish territory

[Sifjar]

Mynydd;148363

Wow, your answer is not revelant to the concept '' Belonging'' which you defines yourself so here is the reminder.

Wipuri : What do you mean by a feeling of mutual belonging

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Clearly a common roots and culture of the countries generally known as Scandinavian countries (Norway, Sweden and Denmark) as well as the related island countries or autonomous regions (Iceland, Åland and Faroe Islands

So just stick with the concept '' belonging'' according to your statement, because this is where you mix up with idenitties, disapora, territorials. My arugments just based on the concept of belonging nothing else, cos I know what I'm speaking. The concept you used is wrong, although it make sense because in social sceince everything is just a matter of twisting and turning nothing is real. That is why academical theoretical framework is important cos its not someone bla bla. without correct defination..

And this is wrong, Belonging is where, when a Swedish, Norwegians, or Danish lives in another country outside of the country of their orgin its called '' Diaspora identities '' Swedish lives in Minnesota has belonging and its a Swedish Diaspora. You just used the concept in a wrong way. Belongings means returning to your home of orgin, You longs to return to your roots. And here is a citation from the predominant post-colonial theoretician this is Avtar Brah her citation you could easily find in googles your favorite search engine.

The Jewish experience continued to influence Safran’s view of the vital importance of homeland in defining one of the essential characteristics of diaspora

They, or their ancestors, have been dispersed from an original ‘centre’ to two or

more foreign regions;

· they retain a collective memory, vision or myth about their original homeland

including its location, history and achievements;

· they believe they are not – and perhaps can never be – fully accepted in their host
societies and so remain partly separate;
· their ancestral home is idealized and it is thought that, when conditions are
favourable, either they, or their descendants should return;
· they believe all members of the diaspora should be committed to the maintenance
or restoration of the original homeland and to its safety and prosperity; and
· they continue in various ways to relate to that homeland and their ethnocommunal
consciousness and solidarity are in an important way defined by the existence of
such a relationship

And you might want to see how the concept '' Belonging'' in this question

''

The country of origin is commonly referred to as ‘home’ or ‘homeland’, and it has long been considered the ultimate wish of all

displaced people to return to where they came from and forever belong.''

The author used the concept in another way

What are the notions of Afghans in Germany regarding home and belonging, and how do these relate to their attitudes towards returning to Afghanistan

My only argument is you used the concept ''Belonging '' not in a accurate sense as it says academic research. And the concept '' Belonging'' only applies when the person is no longer living on his/her home orgins their identities seen as diaspora.

Well you might not, however I'm not going to convince you with another reply because what I told you is proven theories. Sometimes its hard to takes comments on a girl which is understated then its wrong to underestimate someone knowledge just because I'm a girl.

Well search under her name you might find it wikipedia but as you know most academic literatures is not published free, I've to log at my electronic lib to access imformation regarding this topic.

Even your answer rather strange Do you have mutual belonging to Spanish in Argentina or even Chile thus you speaking Spanish? You're using the concept in the wrong way that is my arguments, of cos in day to day coversation you can say mutual belongings but its wrong to apply it when all the Scandinavian are from different territorial SPEAKING different languages, if you go the north of Sweden none understand the Southern acent, there is no mutual defination . You using you're concept without any concert definitions. But if you still think you're right, then what I can say, it's just a matter of understanding.

[NatVox]

Originally Posted by Sifjar

My only argument is you used the concept ''Belonging '' not in a accurate sense as it says academic research. And the concept '' Belonging'' only applies when the person is no longer living on his/her home orgins their identities seen as diaspora.

At this point all I can do for you is to suggest you to take it up with the authors of the dictionary. Go and tell them how clever you believe that you are, how wrong they are and how you would kindly correct that dictionary entry for them, or the entire dictionary if you are in the mood for it.

Well you might not, however I'm not going to convince you with another reply because what I told you is proven theories.

You might not like to know that a "theory" is defined as an "unproved assumption". So that you understand what this means (success is not guaranteed), I'll put it simpler: if they are proven, then they are not theories anymore.

That's how inconsistent you are, that you fall in such silly contradictory statements.

Sometimes its hard to takes comments on a girl which is understated then its wrong to underestimate someone knowledge just because I'm a girl.

What you are doing here is to use your status as a woman to beg for the audience's sympathy and some affirmative action. You have used your gender as a disability.

That's very undignifying for women and you should be ashamed for it.

Well search under her name you might find it wikipedia but as you know most academic literatures is not published free, I've to log at my electronic lib to access imformation regarding this topic.

Have you ever heared the saying, put up or shut up?

I've seen you claiming about this and bragging about this other. But I still haven't seen you providing one single piece of evidence or reasoned argument for what you say...which is nonetheless barely understandable about 95% of the time, probably due to the fact that you've paid times more its value for your English tuition (I wouldn't want to think that it was because of you).

So let's see if those unfree "academic" services serve you for something, and you are able to produce something with them. I have no doubt that there will be much of value there. But I have serious doubts that you will be able to make any sense with it.

Not because you are a woman, but because you are yourself.

Even your answer rather strange Do you have mutual belonging to Spanish in Argentina or even Chile thus you speaking Spanish?

For your information, those who you are thinking of are not Spanish for their most part. So, the answer is clearly no.

You using you're concept without any concert definitions. But if you still think you're right, then what I can say, it's just a matter of understanding.

Stop making a fool of yourself. I did not make any statement. Let me recap, just for your eyes...

Originally Posted by Mynydd

I would have thought that there was a feeling of mutual belonging among all Scandinavian nations [...]

Do you see any statement here? Becasue, if you do, you actually have a very big problem if you are unable to understand things as simple as that.

[Lutiferre]

You are free to talk, but I think you're digging a bit too deep into this now rather complex discussion of (what) subject?..

Anyway

Originally Posted by lunulae

exactly my point. scania has been a part of denmark since the constitution of denmark as a nation state (scania; 800-1658). so historically and ethically speaking, scania is a part of denmark. i'm thus not saying that the region should be handed over to the danes, too many conflicts and cultural problems would arise from such an act. it would be absurd and anachronistic.

You have your facts straight, but I have to disagree with that. I dont think a lot of conflicts would arise from it. A lot of Swedes in the Southern Sweden area do consider themselves Danish to some extent. I know this because I have a friend who has family in Malmö, which is an originally Danish city as far as I remember. They in many ways feel as Danish as Swedish, theres less than an hour to Copenhagen and they go there a lot to visit their Danish family.

But it is my opinion that all that is more or less irrelevant. While I dont on a fundamental basis think nationality is of any significance, I think its an entirely different story in society. And therefore Denmark deserves it territories back, it is its right. Sweden has no right to occupy this Danish land. Same goes for Southern Jutland, which is currently occupied by the German. Jutland for the Jutes.

And considering how little land Denmark has, this is of the essence. Sweden has much more land and doesnt need to occupy a big part of Denmark. We will feel the consequences of overpopulation within a half century, so of course we have the right to as much Danish land as is.

[Carnyx]

In 50 years, I fear that overpopulation is not a problem for your kin in Danemark.

[NatVox]

I'm puzzled. I would have never imagined that Danes had a claim over Swedish territory. What do you consider Norway? Also Danish?

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

I'm puzzled. I would have never imagined that Danes had a claim over Swedish territory. What do you consider Norway? Also Danish?

Due to its, now, rather long history as a independent nation, no. But I'd say Norway has been extremely influenced by Denmark, and in periods of time it has been a part of Denmark.

But you cannot argue against Southern Sweden and Jutland being originally Danish. You can argue that they arent now, for sure, but thats the problem - thats wrong, they should be.

[NatVox]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

Due to its, now, rather long history as a independent nation, no. But I'd say Norway has been extremely influenced by Denmark, and in periods of time it has been a part of Denmark.

That was my understanding.

But you cannot argue against Southern Sweden and Jutland being originally Danish. You can argue that they arent now, for sure, but thats the problem - thats wrong, they should be.

I don't argue for nor against. It is called Irredentism and I am much of an Irredentist myself. However it sounds a bit odd for me.

I was aware about Jutland and the problem with Germany. But I was completely ignorant of any territorial issues between Sweden and Denmark. And I had always thought that there was a strong sense of belonging among the Scandinavian peoples. Which is what I was trying to find when someone decided to link it all the way to Kamchatka.

[Lutiferre]

Just for the record, here is the original map of Denmark.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Still beating at it? In this thread I was not suggesting any such thing. I was pointing to a particular reality that is called Scandinavia, which it has a particular [meta-ethnic] identity of its own.

But well, since yo insist there appears to be some ethnic connection between Finland and the Scandinavian countries, which is the so-called Finland Swedes. Unless that these Finland Swedes are just Finns who happen to speak the Swedish language. As one would logically derive from your arguments elsewhere, and as if this was the result of some accident. But others argue something different.

At the end of the day, who the North Germanic Scandinavians are related to and how, it does not affect me at all. But it is for the sake of accuracy and correctness (properness, if you prefer) that it would be ilogical to pretend that they are related to Fenno-Ugrians who --this should go without saying-- do not comprise the total of the Finnish population but only a part of it.

And, since the Northern Eurasian haplogroup subclade N3 comprises well over half of the male lineages of Finland, if there has been any meta-ethnic genesis between Uralic Fenno-Ugrians and North Germanic Scandinavians that I have missed, then I would humbly request you that you let me know about it, in as much detail as possible.

As for the rest, ditto.

I think you should be careful with using the term "North Germanic". Sure, officially in most encyclopedias, that is what Scandinavian countries are called. But in reality, Denmark might as well be of Celtic extraction, with minor West Slavic influence from South Jutland. While I'm pretty certain the rest of Scandinavia is North Germanic [except for Finland of course], Denmark is an exception to the rule, and much censured uncertainty is associated with it.

[NatVox]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

I think you should be careful with using the term "North Germanic". Sure, officially in most encyclopedias, that is what Scandinavian countries are called. But in reality, Denmark might as well be of Celtic extraction, with minor West Slavic influence from South Jutland. While I'm pretty certain the rest of Scandinavia is North Germanic [except for Finland of course], Denmark is an exception to the rule, and much censured uncertainty is associated with it.

To the eyes of an outsider, Denmark is unmistakably North Germanic or Scandinavian (obviously not understood in a geographical context).

If I dig up more into it (always as seen by an outsider), it seems logical to me that there should be a difference between "Peninsular Scandinavians" and "Continental Scandinavians". After all, being peninsular is a condition not all that different from being insular when there is a consistent geological barrier (so no, Jutland does not count as peninsular under this scheme). I can relate to that myself.

But anyway, even if there is a genetically stronger (pretty strong as it appears) western element in the Danes, they are still a North Germanic and Scandinavian ethnicity. If the Danes are not, then what are the Norwegians and, subsequently, the Icelanders? Would then the Swedes be the only North Germanics?

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

To the eyes of an outsider, Denmark is unmistakably North Germanic or Scandinavian (obviously not understood in a geographical context).

If I dig up more into it (always as seen by an outsider), it seems logical to me that there should be a difference between "Peninsular Scandinavians" and "Continental Scandinavians". After all, being peninsular is a condition not all that different from being insular when there is a consistent geological barrier (so no, Jutland does not count as peninsular under this scheme). I can relate to that myself.

But anyway, even if there is a genetically stronger (pretty strong as it appears) western element in the Danes, they are still a North Germanic and Scandinavian ethnicity. If the Danes are not, then what are the Norwegians and, subsequently, the Icelanders? Would then the Swedes be the only North Germanics?

The Icelanders would be a mixture of several components. I am not sure of their exact genetic make-up, but my guess would be a mix of Norse and Danish vikings, and (perhaps) other components.

Norwegians I am pretty sure are distinct from the Danish - I remember reading some Danish study about the genetic difference and distance between Danes and Norwegians and Swedes. I think Norway is closer to Sweden than to Denmark. They can be considered a North Germanic people by any standard, I see no reason to dispute that title for Norwegians (all though they have been influenced by Danish culture).

With the Danish, however, its different. The Cimbri simply mess that up for me. While they in large numbers emigrated to Southern Europe, their genetic imprint remains, and their legacy is documented by the significant quantity of Celtic art found in Denmark, specifically Jutland and Funen, and even mixtures of Norse and Celtic art. Jutland was referred to, before the introduction of Iut, as Cimbria, or the Cimbrian peninsula.

These significant finds of Celtic art are most often ignored in the context of Celtic Jutlandish tribes; and merely attributed to being stolen and transported from other parts of Europe. I think that is very wrong to do, without a whole lot of evidence.

It seems the Germanophiles of the scientific world have simply censured anyone to suggest that Jutland, or Cimbria, which is considered the very coreland of Germanic peoples, might be originally Celtic or have a strong Celtic component. That very fact might be a potential linkage between Germanic and Celtic populations.

[NatVox]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

The Icelanders would be a mixture of several components. I am not sure of their exact genetic make-up, but my guess would be a mix of Norse and Danish vikings, and (perhaps) other components.

There is a strong Western genetic element (R1b) there, that we could speculate that it reached Iceland from Ireland before the arrival of Scandinavians.

Norwegians I am pretty sure are distinct from the Danish - I remember reading some Danish study about the genetic difference and distance between Danes and Norwegians and Swedes. I think Norway is closer to Sweden than to Denmark. They can be considered a North Germanic people by any standard, I see no reason to dispute that title for Norwegians (all though they have been influenced by Danish culture).

I didn't know about that study. I've been taking for granted the telling of a Dane, who used to define Norwegians as layback Danes.

With the Danish, however, its different. The Cimbri simply mess that up for me. While they in large numbers emigrated to Southern Europe, their genetic imprint remains, and their legacy is documented by the significant quantity of Celtic art found in Denmark, specifically Jutland and Funen, and even mixtures of Norse and Celtic art. Jutland was referred to, before the introduction of Iut, as Cimbria, or the Cimbrian peninsula.

The Cimbrians left in Jutland were said to be small in numbers (but great in fame), by Tacitus.

However, the Western genetic element in Denmark is unusually large for a Germanic people, let alone a North Germanic one.

These significant finds of Celtic art are most often ignored in the context of Celtic Jutlandish tribes; and merely attributed to being stolen and transported from other parts of Europe. I think that is very wrong to do, without a whole lot of evidence.

It seems the Germanophiles of the scientific world have simply censured anyone to suggest that Jutland, or Cimbria, which is considered the very coreland of Germanic peoples, might be originally Celtic or have a strong Celtic component. That very fact might be a potential linkage between Germanic and Celtic populations.

My suspicion is that Proto-Germanic or early Germanic peoples pushed towards the West in ancient times, where the Cimbrians would be a remnant of the native peoples prior to the arrival of Germanics from the East.

In any case, whether the genetic heritage of modern Danes is more pre-Germanic or Germanic, and if Danes are north-germanicized Celts, it does not rest importance to the fact that they are a North Germanic people and that the region is central to the urheimat of the Germanics.