Is it justifiable the expansion of one group in detriment of another?

[Exeter]

[Edit: split from "Northwest European racial type".

A poll has been added. The poll results are public. It is a multiple choice poll. Please, consider choices #1 & #2 as a different poll from choices #3 & #4. Vote for one of the choices #1 or #2 and for one of the choices #3 or #4]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

I don't assume that they were all Nordid. But that detail was not important for my question, at least on a first stage.

Alright, understood.

Still, Nordid or not, the question remains if their spread was not more in the form of small dominant groups over local populations who also imposed their language in many cases.

It has been common that a group impose their language and assimilate into the mass. There are exceptions though. Just think of England: http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_i...3228321565B216

But the more important question is the relation of this mass and the invaders. I think the difference must have been smaller in the British Ises (particularly England) than Central/Southeast Europe (eg Tirol). Much of Britain may have been Northwest European before the Anglo-Saxon and Viking incomers.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Exeter

It has been common that a group impose their language and assimilate into the mass. There are exceptions though. Just think of England: http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_i...3228321565B216

But the more important question is the relation of this mass and the invaders. I think the difference must have been smaller in the British Ises (particularly England) than Central/Southeast Europe (eg Tirol). Much of Britain may have been Northwest European before the Anglo-Saxon and Viking incomers.

It doesn't make any sense that the English are today one people whereas the Welsh (or the Cornish) are another and yet you presume that that might have been the case long before the A-S invasion.

Where the article reads outbreed you should probably understand genocide. At least male genocide. Apparently the y-chromosome tells one story and the mtDNA tells another. Which again, points to something very obvious.

This part I must admit that it worries me: "[...] left the country culturally and genetically Germanised".

It is not that long since the Germanic invasions occured and their trek down south only slowed down in the late centuries. But they did not stop. In the last decades they have in fact increased and keep increasing each year. The numbers of Germans, Dutch and English moving to countries like Italy, Southern France or Spain is not to be taken lightly. Brittany is also getting its share.

One can argue that there are priorities and that non European immigrants are the priority. But that's only one way to look at priorities. A more realistic way is that the priority is oneself, your own. How does it matter if you begin to be substituted by a non European or by another European?

[Agrippa]

The own has to be protected but it really DOES MATTER whether its about Europeans or non Europeans, since through them the occidental culture and European racial spectrum will survive, with non-Europeans not and thats what matters more than anything else if its about preservation.
So the own group has a priority, but just in case - it definitely matters.

[Menydh]

I have to strongly disagree here.

Within the wider European group, a number of elements foreign to one given nation can be assimilated into the nation without a damage to the nation's identity. And not just, but assuming a certain degree of quality in the assimilated elements they can even be enrichening to the host nation.

However, an expansion of one given European element done in a way detrimental to the host [European] nation is a tragedy. It is both a tragedy for the host nation and for Europe as a whole.

To the former, the nation, it means the destruction of the self being. One individual can be asked to sacrify himself for his group. He can even offer to sacrify himself for a more or less related group. But he cannot be asked to sacrify his own family for another family.

To the latter, Europe, it brings about the destruction of diversity. Diversity is conditio sine qua non for the existance of a European identity.

[Agrippa]

My standard answer would be:
Assimilation of a limited number of foreign (still European) element into a nation is neutral - therefore I didnt voted so far.

It depends on the exact circumstances - which group is expanding, what does that mean for the respective groups, what does it mean for Europeans and mankind? That are the questions which are important. Of course if a group with a high racial, cultural and social standard being downgraded by immigration, be it European or not, its always bad, even though it would still make a difference if they are Europeans.

Furthermore I just said that it is not the same if one European group overtakes another groups area or infiltrates its population or if totally foreign, non-European elements change not just an ethnocultural unity, but destroy the racial and cultural base of Europe which exists since thousands of years and substitutes something of higher value with something of lower one. That can never be compared, even though both should be dismissed both for the own as well as other ethnocultural unities of Europe.

But if speaking about diversity and the true European or occidental character and base its a very long and soon rather philosophical question. On the very long run most things will change - most important is: To the better or to the worse. Even race is a process...

[Menydh]

The impact of the assimilation of a [limited] number of foreign [yet European] elements into a nation cannot be neutral. If something, it could be relative. I.e. relative to the type which is to be assimilated and its distance to the host.

But relativeness here is, again, relative in itself. For example, someone from a Western European country might feel that the impact of an Eastern element is bigger than that of a Western element. And vice versa. And the same North and South. The distance is what makes the impact relative here. But this relative distance is at the same time again relative to the quality of the individual(s). Imagine the following scenario:

On the one hand a group of Americans impregnated with the mentality of their consumist society and with no socio-cultural baggage other than that of the typical Anglo-American White Trash. However, of Germanic ancestry.

On the other hand a group of Russians or Italians, with a socio-cultural baggage of their respective countries. The countries that gave Stravinsky or Verdi, or others like Tolstoy or Dante. However, not of Germanic ancestry but Slavic and Romance respectively.

All groups in assimilable numbers of say, 50,000 each. Would you prefer the Germanics to the others? Wouldn't you find the impact of one group more negative and of the other group more positive? (do not take positive/negative in absolute terms).

[Agrippa]

You are right. Can just agree and thats what I meant too. Its not just about the region, but about the racial and (socio-) cultural quality, ability to integrate, at best on a high level. F.e. some right extremists and aristocrats from Russia coming to Germany after the Bolsheviki took over are not comparable to illegal workers, organised criminals, beggars and prostitutes. Just to give an example - I know its not that extreme, still everyone should get what I meant.