Are Georgians and Armenians Europeans?

[Zrinski]

IMO Armenians are European racially, culturally and historically.

[Dr. Solar Wolff]

The first Armenian person I ever met was a nurse and she called herself "Russian" because she didn't think that I, a teenager, would know where Armenia was. I think self-identification may be important here. Do Armenians think of themselves as Europeans?

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Adolph Kevorkian

Describe their racial features please.

One looked rather like a tall Indid, he had relatively progressive features, but untypical for real European Mediterranids and he was very dark. He was Armenian Catholic.
The other was a Asian Alpinoid-Armenid and without knowing I would have mistaken him for an Anatolian Turk.

Can you please elaborate also what you mwan by "European in the narrower sense".

From an Ethnic linguistic point, European are to me only those groups which are indigenous to the European regions, not at the borders (only). Those Indoeuropean, Finno-Ugric and Basque groups are indigenous or at least long enough present. Armenians have a Middle Eastern History and are on the geographic border, even if you look back at the Roman times, so, though they are IE linguistically, they can't be considered European in the narrower sense like Germanics, Slavs, etc...

Culturally the base is, if you like it or not, mainly Christianity and just secondly older heathen traditions. So if looking at a folk background in history, a Christian tradition is not that unimportant to be considered European in the narrower sense.
There are certain other features, but to speak about it would go too far and might complicate things too much at this point and time.

Racially real Europeans have to be predominantely (at least as population) European which means they have to fit into the 6 race scheme (Nordid, Dalofaelid/Cromagnid, Dinarid, Mediterranid, Alpinoid and Osteuropid).
A group which is not pred. of one of these, or rather a mixture of these types can't be considered being European in the narrower sense.

Mediterranid means European Mediterranids (Atlantomediterranid, Gracilmediterranid, Palaeatlantid, Pontid) and not Levantine, Eastern Mediterranids f.e.

Yet one doesn't become European or considered one by a third party in any sense whatsoever by merely wanting to be one.

Thats true, but no reason for many people not to try it.

[Adolph Kevorkian]

Originally Posted by Dr. Solar Wolff

The first Armenian person I ever met was a nurse and she called herself "Russian" because she didn't think that I, a teenager, would know where Armenia was. I think self-identification may be important here. Do Armenians think of themselves as Europeans?

Did she say where she's from?
Armenians from Armenia and the former USSR do identify themselves as European. Especially ones from and within Armenia. A decade from now the situation will be better, whether more territory is liberated or not.

Diasporan Armenians, that is those who are the descendants of the survivors of the Genocide and not those who were saved by Russians (Armenians from current Armenia) see themselves as simply Armenians or just Whites (USA, Canada, South America, Australia etc.), those of them that reside in Europe do identify as Europeans.

[Adolph Kevorkian]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

One looked rather like a tall Indid, he had relatively progressive features, but untypical for real European Mediterranids and he was very dark. He was Armenian Catholic.
The other was a Asian Alpinoid-Armenid and without knowing I would have mistaken him for an Anatolian Turk.

I'm not sure what an "Asian Alpinoid-Armenid" is, sounds very ambiguous, but I assume it's not something pretty. In any case, if they're not Europoid, they're not Armenian even if they speak the language, go to Church and identify themselves as such.

From an Ethnic linguistic point, European are to me only those groups which are indigenous to the European regions, not at the borders (only). Those Indoeuropean, Finno-Ugric and Basque groups are indigenous or at least long enough present.

Fair enough. I agree to a certain deegree. Does that also make gypsies and jews European also? Well they ahve been there for as long as Magyars for example.

Armenians have a Middle Eastern History and are on the geographic border,

So do Greeks, Romans...the British?
I'm not sure what you meant though.

even if you look back at the Roman times, so, though they are IE linguistically, they can't be considered European in the narrower sense like Germanics, Slavs, etc...

Under what criteria?
In Roman times I think Germanics and Slavs can't be considered European, other than the fact that they were IE.

Culturally the base is, if you like it or not, mainly Christianity and just secondly older heathen traditions. So if looking at a folk background in history, a Christian tradition is not that unimportant to be considered European in the narrower sense.
There are certain other features, but to speak about it would go too far and might complicate things too much at this point and time.

Once again, too ambiguous. I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Racially real Europeans have to be predominantely (at least as population) European which means they have to fit into the 6 race scheme (Nordid, Dalofaelid/Cromagnid, Dinarid, Mediterranid, Alpinoid and Osteuropid).
A group which is not pred. of one of these, or rather a mixture of these types can't be considered being European in the narrower sense.

Most nations in Europa do not have majorities of any one single sub-race.
Most are a mixture of all the above, or at least some.

Mediterranid means European Mediterranids (Atlantomediterranid, Gracilmediterranid, Palaeatlantid, Pontid) and not Levantine, Eastern Mediterranids f.e.

That's my definition as well.

Thats true, but no reason for many people not to try it.

I don't think you can try to become something you are not, in the context of being European(race+culture where both are manadatory) that is.

[Rusalka]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

One looked rather like a tall Indid, he had relatively progressive features, but untypical for real European Mediterranids and he was very dark. He was Armenian Catholic.
The other was a Asian Alpinoid-Armenid and without knowing I would have mistaken him for an Anatolian Turk.

There are very dark haired, dark eyed Armenians and there are blonde Armenians, there are also red haired Armenians; in any case (not that you're doing such a comparison) it is naive to think that all Armenians are Armenoids, phenotypically speaking. As for an Armenian being mistaken for a 'Turk' (which I'm using in the wider sense -a Turkish national) and vice versa, is always possible as the population in Eastern Anatolia (the historical Armenian homeland) is quite intertwined. There were Armenians who were gradually assimilated and Islamized over the centuries and then there were those who changed their names and blended in to the Muslim population to survive the genocide; a similar situation to those of Greeks, who more or less dominate the underlying ethnicity of Western Turkey.

[Bulair]

Armenians aren't European, because Armenia isn't in Europe and since there is no common 'european culture' (for example I can't say that Bulgaria is culturally european or that Turkey is culturally middle eastern, every culture is unique) technically they are not Europeans.Anyway is it really so important to be 'european' or something like that?It sure doesn't matter to me, I have enough armenian friends without ever thinking how european or non-european they are.

[Exeter]

There is indeed no one single European culture. There are some regions that share more with each other than others. What does Sicily have in common with Scotland? I can agree with your argument there.

However, I think the question whether they are European or not is a racial, and not a cultural one. Maybe the person who started the thread can make it clear if we should take a racial and/or a cultural stand?

Originally Posted by Bulair

Armenians aren't European, because Armenia isn't in Europe and since there is no common 'european culture'

[Theobald]

Originally Posted by Exeter

What does Sicily have in common with Scotland?

Christianity, an Indo-European language, a common civilization (history, values, ...; as opposed to the Islamic or the Chinese one).

[Agrippa]

I thought I made my points clear, but ok, I will try to further explain what you questioned.

Originally Posted by Adolph Kevorkian

I'm not sure what an "Asian Alpinoid-Armenid" is, sounds very ambiguous, but I assume it's not something pretty. In any case, if they're not Europoid, they're not Armenian even if they speak the language, go to Church and identify themselves as such.

The percentage of people which arent racially European is too high, even if people exist which look quite European though. Its all about the percentage. Certain nations have even Mongolid or Negroid admixture, but the important thing is not that it is present, but to which degree. All other real European nations have less foreign admixture than Armenians, especially visible in the standard phenotype of the population.

They came from Armenia, they were Armenian Christians, you want to exclude them from your nation?

Fair enough. I agree to a certain deegree. Does that also make gypsies and jews European also? Well they ahve been there for as long as Magyars for example.

I spoke about some of the most important criteria, its not about having one (being Christian f.e.) but showing all. Gypsies and Jews are no members of a indigenous IE-FU-Basque group and therefore ethnically not European, Jews and many Gypsies are not Christian and they are racially not predominantely European either, though some Jews more than most Gypsies.
So all points speak against them as indigenous Europeans. If the Magyars would be the steppe raiders of the 9th century, things would be different, but most Hungarians are descendents of Germanics, Slavs and Kelto/Thracoromans and fully European in culture and custom, even more than many other parts of Europe. The real Magyars had higher non-European admixture and foreign culture, but whats left in modern Hungarians? Not too much at all, mainly the language...

So do Greeks, Romans...the British?
I'm not sure what you meant though.

The British mixed with Persians and Turks? Where part of the Persian empire and a Middle Eastern political player with a centre in the Middle East?
I dont think so.

Under what criteria?
In Roman times I think Germanics and Slavs can't be considered European, other than the fact that they were IE.

The Hallstatt culture f.e. was fully European no matter what. The culture can change, but the Indoeuropean base and the racial mixture not. If, this European group cease to exist and will be considered non-European or something new-European without a real European base.

A Heathen Europe would is thinkable and was a reality in the past, a Muslim can never be since this culture is totally foreign to Europe. Even Christianity was at the beginning, but was then adapted to the European customs to some degree. What we see in the last 50 years is the deconstruction if the useful Christian rules we had in Europe and such kind of Neo-Christian belief which is not only useless but counterproductive.

Once again, too ambiguous. I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

I simply wanted to say that a Christian background is necessary to be identified as European in the narrower sense, though you must not be a believer now. Its about the cultural past at least.

Most nations in Europa do not have majorities of any one single sub-race.
Most are a mixture of all the above, or at least some.

Thats what I wanted to say. The point is how big the foreign admixture is. From a certain degree on such a nation can't be considered European since only these types and associated subtypes are indigenous to Europe and present in the Indoeuropean European populations. This mixture is the biological Europe.

[Exeter]

Christianity may have become European, but a lot of is actually quite alien when practised in its true and not reformed form. It's more Near Eastern.

I disagree with values and also history. Scottish history was formed by quite different folks than the Sicilian. You don't need to go that far north as Scotland. Just ask a Lombard.

Europe is a complicated place.

Originally Posted by Der Elsasser

Christianity, an Indo-European language, a common civilization (history, values, ...; as opposed to the Islamic or the Chinese one).

[ddt]

If Armenians aren't Europeans,so Finno-Uggric peoples and the East-Baltic subrace aren't too.

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by ddt

If Armenians aren't Europeans,so Finno-Uggric peoples and the East-Baltic subrace aren't too.

Fully typical Lappids are no Europeans in the narrower sense but Baltids are Europeans since its an indigenous type of Eastern Europe and present in the Eastern European populations for a very long time and of course its an Europid type.

[Rusalka]

Originally Posted by Exeter

Most Georgians that I've seen are fairer and look more as if they come from e.g. Hungary, than do Armenians.

Georgians are a unique group, in fact there is no one Georgian ethnicity, but a Georgian nation. Georgia is made up of ethnicities such as Svans, Mingrels, Kartvels, Imeretians, etc. and even though these are more or less related to each other (obviously), there are visible regional differences too. A Georgian from the highlands of Svaneti or Abkhazeti looks much more fairer in pigmentation and usually has a Pontid or similar phenotype whereas the Georgians from Kakheti region for example are more commonly the Asiatic variant of Alpines. Georgians by the Armenian border look more like Armenians, Georgians to the northwest look more like Circassians.

Most that I have seen have pale skin, large noses and brachycephalic heads.

I wouldn't generalize too much but I think the opaque pale skin and prominent noses are usually common, yes. A close Armenian friend of mine (one whom I've known since childhood) would always joke about how an Armenian is not a genuine Armenian if he (or even she!) is not hairy. That's stereotyping obviously, but hairiness is common in that region.

I think that Robert Kocharyan's appearance is more or less common among Armenians.

I agree, it is indeed a very common type. Not the only common type, but one of the most common ones.

Cher (born Cherilyn Sarkisian) is the daughter of a French-Cherokee mother and Armenian father. Maybe she is predominantly of the Pontid type (cheekbones are too prominent, from her mother?). Would anyone in USA think of her anything but White/Caucasian?

We-ell, Cher holds the world record in plastic surgery. I'm not sure if we could classify her, really. She does have an Armenian/Pontid type now, but for one thing we know, she's had a major nose job and cheek implants or some sort of operation on the cheekbones.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

The Hallstatt culture f.e. was fully European no matter what. The culture can change, but the Indoeuropean base and the racial mixture not. If, this European group cease to exist and will be considered non-European or something new-European without a real European base.

A Heathen Europe would is thinkable and was a reality in the past, a Muslim can never be since this culture is totally foreign to Europe. Even Christianity was at the beginning, but was then adapted to the European customs to some degree. What we see in the last 50 years is the deconstruction if the useful Christian rules we had in Europe and such kind of Neo-Christian belief which is not only useless but counterproductive.

I think that you have gone way beyond any required explaning to a comment such as:

"In Roman times I think Germanics and Slavs can't be considered European"

Simply, in Roman times people were considered Romans (as in Roman citizens or subjects to Rome, and even regardless of being or not Europids), and no other geo-political concept was taken into consideration.

It doesn't matter what was considered what in Roman times.