Talk:Nordic theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 various things 2 Nazi use of Nordic/Aryan 3 last sentence 4 The Balts are not Germanic or Slavic 5 essay 6 Who has the right to erase opinions in the discussion 7 Nordicist addition 8 inaccurate map 9 The article should be divided 10 Historical perspective 11 Franklin's comments 12 Nordic Theory and 21st century science 13 Edits by Skapur 14 NPOV tag

[edit] various things

Hi,

While I can understnd your merging of Nordic race into Nordic theory, I am at a loss to understand your reasons for merging the 'Alpine' and 'Mediterranean' entries too. I was intending to expand botrh entries, particularly the one on the Med 'race'. Yes, of course the throry of Nordicism is more influential and historically important, but the distinctive models that promote other 'racial' categories are also important, if less well-known. I don't think they are just to be understood as minor additions or qualifications of Nordicism. BTW, the following sentence is absurd, and I doubt it's a proper summary of Grant: "all instances of Mediterranean culture were really the result of Nordic genes which had entered into the Mediterranean gene pool after Viking invasions". I think you'll find that Med civilisation long predated the Vikings. In fact Grant argues that the ancient Achaeans were Nordic, but the Myceneans were Mediterranean. I don't recall in detail what he says about the Romans, but has a racialiseds model of Lain/Etruscan differences. Also Grant is just collating the ideas of many other writers. Paul B 10:05, 22 March 2005 (UTC)

The following sentence is also inaccurate and misleading: "'Nordic theory (or Nordicism) was a theory of race prevalent in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century which divided European peoples into three sub-categories of the Caucasian race: the Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean races." The tripartite division is not the same as "Nordic theory" or a necessary consequence of it. Nordicism was one interpretation of the tripartite model. This is another reason why the conflation of the triparite model and the equation of it with the theory of Nordic supremacism is very misleading. I want to raise this for discussion rather than just undo your redirections. Paul B 10:11, 22 March 2005 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the whole concern about the Mediterranean and Alpines comes within Nordic theory as a whole (that is, there isn't a separate Alpine theory), and most of the show is about those people who are concerned with the Nordics anyway. I consolidated them because it didn't seem necessary to duplicate the information in three separate articles. If you want to undo that, you're welcome to, but I just find it unlikely that we need a whole article on the concept of the "Alpine race" since it doesn't come up except in the context of Nordic theory. I've never see the triple division in any context other than Nordicism, but if you feel otherwise, you're welcome to edit it; it is not as if the other articles had a lot of lengthy text that will be difficult to recover.

As for Grant; he certainly didn't come up with Nordic theory on his own, of course not, but he was certainly its most powerful and influential advocate. He's the reason it had any real influence on anything, intellectually or politically, and his variety of it (which is somewhat distinct from that of people like Ripley) is what became prominent. This has been documented in a number of places, including the source I cited. If people are looking up "Nordic theory" or "Nordic race," they are probably looking it up in reference to the version of it he pushed.

Grant attributed all success of other races to influxes of Nordicism. This is made quite clear in Passing in his chapters on the Alpines, Med., and Nordics, and "Expansion of the Nordics" where he describes how everybody successful in Egypt, Italy, etc. was actually Nordic, and describes the Nordic invasions, etc. I don't think I'm oversimplifying too much.

So anyway.. if you want to reinstate, feel free. However I don't think its necessary to have three separate articles. Explaining what the "Alpine race" was out of the context of 20th century interpretation of Nordic theory is quite silly, and if you're going to go through the trouble of explaining it you might as well have it in one article so you aren't duplicating material unnecessarily. But that's just my opinion, you're welcome to do as you please with it, it is not my highest concern, I just thought it was a better arrangement, that's all. --Fastfission 13:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well you've picked on the weakest of the three categories there. Yes, the poor old 'Alpines' have very few advocates, being typed as mitteleuropean peasants on the whole, but the Meds do have important advocates and the concept of the Mediterranean race is influential in a number of significant respects, particularly on African-American writers like DuBois who are looking for a model of race that accepts cross-fertilisation of cultures/peoples across the Med sea, and which allows for the inclusion of African peoples, notably the Egyptians. This is the 'other' side of the debate of the time, one that does not get much publicity these days. Even Grant is forced to admit the superiority of the Meds in creative fields. So it's not just 'Nordic theory'. Having a separate section on the Alpines would just be to ensure that there is a complete account on the models existing at this crucial period when 'race theory' was so influential.

I'm not sure that you are right about Grant's ascription of all things bright and beautiful to the Nordics, but as I say, he's just on one side of the debate. However, I'll check on the relevant chapters. Paul B 18:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nazi use of Nordic/Aryan

The following sentence has been deleted and replaced with more opinions from the ubiquitous Mr Grant:

"The Nazi state used such ideas about the differences between European races as part of their program of Racial Hygiene and various discriminatory and coercive policies which culminated in the Holocaust, however Nordicism was never completely equated with Aryanism in Nazi ideology for nationalistic reasons — most Germans actually fitted the profile of the "Alpine" race."

This replacement seems to repeat your belief that the tripartite model only exists within Nordicist ideology. I don't think there's much evidence for that. The tripartite division was a product of anthroplogical models prevelant from the 1880s through to the 1960s. It was generally accepted as the most useful way of categorising Caucasian populations. The fact that it was used by some writers to valorise Nordics no more discredits it than the existence of the Indo-European language group is discredited because it gave rise to the concept of "Aryans". Of course, unlike "Indo-European" it's now largely obsolete because modern genetics allows for much more complex accounts of population-histories, but the model itself did not automatically imply that one sub-group was better than another.

The point of this particular sentence was to explain why the term "Aryan" was politically more useful to the Nazis than "Nordic". Within a national context "Aryan" meant "non-Jewish German", but "Nordic" included only a minority of Germans - especially after the Anschluss. It was accepted among most anthropologists of the day that the majority of Germans were of "Alpine" stock. But call them "Alpine" or anything else, they didn't fit the Nordic model. By altering the emphasis from the Nazis to Grant you imply that he arbitrarily 'demoted' the Germans from Nordic to Alpine identity as if this model was automatically hierarchical. The origial sentence say that most Germans fitted the profile of the Alpine race. They did fit the profile, which was normative in science at that time. Paul B 01:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here's why I changed the sentence (I didn't delete it):

1. I'm very wary about saying that the German people "fit the profile" of either being Nordic or Alpine. These are nonsensical distinctions, arbitrarily applied and without the slightest basis in reality. Let's not say who fit what -- let's phrase things in the words of our historical actors (i.e. "Goebells thought they were of the Alpine type" or whatever). So what I did was rephrase it in the thought of Grant, as I remember it.

2. I am happy with going into more detail as to why "Aryan" was more politically useful than "Nordic," but I didn't like the way you getting at it (see point #1). However I didn't have anything on hand to put in for that, and saying "The German people were Alpine" doesn't really wash with me (saying Hitler thought the German people were Alpine would be a more methodologically sound approach).

Hopefully you can understand the methodological distinction I am getting at and why I changed things around a bit. You're of course more than welcome to change things around yourself, though I think the methodological approach I am emphasizing should be done no matter what. Am I making sense? We need to put names and faces with ideas, applications, and practices, because these concepts are not just floating around and applying themselves, making distinctions, etc., without human intervention. They don't "exist in the real world" in any sense (even modern racial categories do not, much less the 19th century ones which look so obviously constructed) and should be treated as exclusively human constructions. That's all I'm pushing for, and is the only reason I've made any real changes to what you've added. --Fastfission 01:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well these explanations merely indicate how you continue to misunderstand what I wrote. As I stressed, the phrase was "fitted the profile". Past tense. Not "fit the profile" as you give it, or "the German people were Alpine", both of which misrepresent what I wrote. What I wrote indicated that if you accept the model - as you have to do if you believe in the existence of a 'Nordic' group - then most citizens of "greater Germany" will not be 'Nordic' but 'Alpine'. Saying "Hitler thought the German people were Alpine" is wide of the mark, and, I think, rather less "methodologically sound" than what I wrote, since it implies that it was a matter of arbitrary individual opinion. It's not what Hitler personally thought, it's what anyone who accepts the model would be constrained to think. It's an inescapable contradiction between Nordicism and pan-Germanism. This is why I strongly disagree with your statement that "we need to put names and faces with ideas, applications, and practices, because these concepts are not just floating around and applying themselves". The danger odf such an approach is that historically significant ideas are just personalised, as though they are quirky individual views. Sure, we can names some of the people who created the tripartite model (Ripley in The Races of Europe, 1900, for example), but in reality it was innumerable anthropologists who produced what became a normative and almost universally accepted model that did not start to break down until the 50s, and which continued to have advocates for many years thereafter. --Paul B 18:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It should not be hard to put an idea with a name, and I think that is important here. Not everyone with these models agreed on the status of any individual population -- the fact that Grant could arbitrarily change his classification of the "German people" from one to another is ample evidence of that, I think (it is not as if he was basing this on hard data). If the anthropologists are innumerable, then it should be easy to attribute the idea to at least one of them and to say that it was "typical". Again, let's not having "theories" floating around without the people who are constructing them, adapting them, and applying them. It's just not how "theory" works (whether in physics or in anthropology, the observer is always present). I am perfectly satisfied with the edits you have currently made though. --Fastfission 20:42, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ok, if there are germans that are nordic or alpine, or whatever... obviously a lot of germans aren't PURE anything, and i'm sure this has been true for a long time- IF it was EVER not true.

what is termed miscegenation has always been common, practically all over the world, whether it was socially accepted or not. Gringo300 05:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, of course. Which is what a lot of population geneticists said in the 1930s to counter Nazi claims of being some sort of superrace. --Fastfission 15:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

from what i've heard, the claim was that the germans were ONCE pure nordic. obviously, at the time of nazi germany (and probably LONG before and definetely ever since as well), many people in germany were (and are) nowhere near pure nordic. of course, there were claims of a conspiracy to encourage nordics in germany (and elsewhere) to interbreed with non-nordics. i'm not going to say that such a conspiracy either was or wasn't real- that's really beside the point anyway. Gringo300 00:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] last sentence

I removed this sentence, since I don't really follow it, "Nordicism would never be embraced by White Supremacists again, as Lothrop Stoddard's bi-racialism, the Nazis' Aryanism, and modern White Unity would dicredit the theory." Nordicism clearly is embraced by some white supremacists [1]. Also how has "White Unity" discredited it? I assume this refers to a White Supremacist group. Do they reject the theory (because they have discredited it somehow) or do they embrace it (discrediting it because they are discreditable themselves)? --Paul B 14:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• obviously, a lot of white people are not nordic. and, obviously, a lot of white supremacists aren't nordic.

a large proportion of non-nordic white people just naturally aren't going to want to see themselves as "inferior" to nordics, even if they do see non-whites as "inferior" to whites. Gringo300 11:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Balts are not Germanic or Slavic

Referring to this sentence: "... had classified a supposedly superior Northern branch of the Aryan race as the original Celtic and Germanic peoples, as well as some Slavic peoples, namely the Balts, Belgians, Dutch, English, French, Germans, Irish, Poles, Scandinavians, Scots, and Welsh."

The Balts belong either to the Baltic (Lithuania and Latvia) or Finno-Ugric (Estonia) language group, not to any of the above mentioned groups or peoples.

--Tomi Ahti 07:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Tom, the article refers to Chamerlain's classification. As long as it's an accurate account of his classification it's irrelevant whether Balts are or are not in reality part of "a superior branch of the Aryan race". However the Balt article does support the claim that they originated as an Indo-European tribe with strongs links to a proto-Slavic population (Balto-Slavic languages), so I'm not sure what the problem is. However the phrasing with the placing of "namely" seems to imply that the whole list is of "Slavic peoples". Paul B 08:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Pauli ;-) I just wanted to point out that, as you yourself wrote: "namely" is wrong. They are not Slavic and they don't want to be called Slavs (for pretty apparent reasons).

"... had classified a supposedly superior Northern branch of the Aryan race as the original Celtic and Germanic peoples, such as Belgians, Dutch, English, French, Germans, Irish, Scandinavians, Scots, and Welsh, as well as some East European peoples like the Poles and Balts."

I hope that will do. It's nonsense, of course, but now the sentance, at least, makes sense ...

[edit] essay

I am an English lecturer at Poznan university and I have just received a student essay based on this article. My basic concern is that this article is completely at variance with encyclopaedia Britanica and every other encyclopaedia I have consulted. First, why no mention of Gabineau in the text, he was the originator of these ideas in every other reference book. Secondly, it seems that the author of this article has based this article on the book Dune by suggesting that Deniker, Chamberlain and Grant believed in Scandinavian supremacy due to the people's superior survival skills. These writers believed they themselves were part of the master race, that is French, German and English peoples in themselves, not something they deriveded from Scandinavian ancestors. As civilization spread from Mesopotamia it moved north, not south, so the origins of the master race existed in Europe before it existed in Scandinavia! In short, this article appears to be a rewriting of history by a Scandinavian propogandist, and totally unworthy of inclusion in what I hope will one day become the world wide web's most prestigious reference work.

The man's name is Gobineau, not Gabineau. There is no single author of this article, though I initiated it and Fastfission gave it its current title. I can't speak for him, but I've never read "Dune". However the claim that Nordic peoples developed their alleged racial traits as a result of Darwinian struggles against a harsh environment is a common one in the early 20th century, embodied, for example, in Baur/Fischer/Lenz's influential text-book on race. Of course Chamberlain and Grant believed they belonged to the master-race, and there were several competing models concerning the origins and migrations of said race, but the Nordic model was dominant by the turn of the 19th/20th century. As for civilization speading from Mesopotamia, that's are completely different issue. Firstly, many of these writers accepted that Nordics did not originate civilization, secondly this article is not about what actually happened, but about what the proponents of a once-influential theory believed had happened. The fact that you speak of "the origins of the master race" as if there actually is such a thing makes me worry for your students. Paul B 12:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a supplement to the above discussion: I've looked over the essay, and, sure, some improvements could be made. For example not all theorists believed that Nordics originated in Scandanavia, though that was the most widespread view by the early 20th century. There was also the "Atlantis" theory - that they originated in a landmass that had once existed but was now submerged. Other writers suggested the Baltic area. As for Gobineau, he doesn't use the term Nordic at all. His preferred term is Aryan, but he certainly believed Germans and Scandanavians to be the highest representative of the Aryans. However, on this matter I'm afraid we are "completely at variance with encyclopaedia Britanica" because, frankly, they are wrong and we are right. The EB article on race contains this gem:

Following Boulainvilliers, Gobineau advanced the notion that France was composed of three separate races—the Nordics, the Alpines, and the Mediterraneans — that corresponded to France's class structure. Each race had distinct mental and physical characteristics; they differed in character and natural abilities, such as leadership, economic resourcefulness, and creativity and inventiveness and in morality and aesthetic sensibilities. The tall, blond Nordics, who were descendants of the ancient Germanic tribes, were the intellectuals and leaders. Alpines, who were brunet and intermediate in size between Nordics and Mediterraneans, were the peasants and workers; they required the leadership of Nordics.

This is in fact utter cr*p. Gobineau never uses the concepts of Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean, which also certainly don't derive from Boulainvilliers. They didn't exist as racial categories when he wrote his book. If you don't believe me, read it. On this topic the Britannica is spouting rubbish, and is wholly unreliable. These categories developed in the late nineteenth century and were codified by Ripley.

By the way, it would be helpful if you could explain what book called "Dune" you are referring to. Do you mean the Frank Herbert novel, or some other book? And how is it related to Nordic theory? Paul B 02:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear! Perhaps I should have worded my comments more carefully. I meant no offence, thinking that the article had been edited by a number of people, all at variance with each other, and the resultant article was affected by this multiple authorship. My point was that the essay I received had exaggerated the thesis of the article and wrote that Hitler based his racial ideas on the superiority of the Scandinavian race! This is of course nonsense, but a quite reasonable conclusion from the article as written. However, the tone of the response concerns me. The misspelling of Gobineau was just a typo that I missed, but to be insulted for a typo seems a bit exteme. To be accused of being a racist and worried about my students though is so offensive that I am outraged. The origins of the master race in the opinion of those who expounded the theories is what I meant, and that should have been obvious from the context. I can only conclude that maybe my original comments should have been stronger. Perhaps I should have said that the author is a self opinionated bigot who thinks he is right and everone else in the world is wrong. I am no expert in this field, I am just an English teacher, but I have visited many web pages dedicated to this field of study and to the authors mentioned, I have consulted over twenty encyclopaedias in three languges, and they are all at variance with this article in one way or another. My concern is over academic integrity and truth, nothing else. To conclude, yes I did mean the book by Frank Herbert, where the Fremen were the fiercest warriors in the universe because of the harsh conditions on Dune where they lived. The point was that the ideas of superiority due to climate had little to do with the origins of the racial theories of the Nazis, however prevalent such ideas may have been in the nineteenth century. I hope this clarifies things, but if all I get for trying to be helpful is to be insulted, then I will have to bow out of this discussion and leave it to others more knowledgable.

I'm surprised that you react so strongly, given your own language in your original post ("this article appears to be a rewriting of history by a Scandinavian propogandist, and totally unworthy of inclusion..."). I'm sure you will acknowledge that these are quite offensive comments. You now add that "the author is a self opinionated bigot who thinks he is right and everone else in the world is wrong." I don't think this kind of language is helpful. And in any case, most of the passages I am defending here were not written by me, but by User:Fastfission and other contributors. The only comment I made that might be considered similar in tone was "the fact that you speak of 'the origins of the master race' as if there actually is such a thing makes me worry for your students." It was snappy, but think that's quite understandable giveen your own language and the phrasing of your last sentence. Since it's a clear condemnation of the very concept of a master-race then I think it disproves your last comment. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted what you intended to say. It would be helpful if you said just how - specifically - this article is "at variance" with what is said in these other encyclopedias. Bear in mind that it is not only about Nazi ideology, but is mainly about 19th-20thC anthropology. However, the textbook that I referred to (Baur/Fischer/Lenz) was read by Hitler when he was in prison. It provided the "scientific" justification for his theories. Its authors later became leading figures in the Nazi regime. Alfred Rosenberg, the principal Nazi race theorist, does argue that the Nordic race originated in the North west Atlantic - on a now-submerged landmass that he identifies with Plato's Atlantis - and so it is supposed by him to have come into Germany from the North West.

As I said, I've never read Dune. I've only seen the movie, and that was years ago. But it sounds to me as though Herbert is drawing on a longstanding tradition in "fantasy" literature that dates back to the hey-day of Nordic theory. It's most evident in Howard's Conan books. Howard, as you probably know, was a white supremacist, and his mytho-history draws on the idea that ultra-tough master-races evolve in harsh climates. Conan's race is supposed to have emerged in Arctic-like conditions and to have migrated south. I think there are similar ideas in other fantasy books of the time. Material on these fictional "Nordics" would certainly be useful here, and I'm sure your contributions would be welcome. Paul B 15:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I've also not read Dune and have no idea of any connection between this history and it. In any event, to my knowledge, the basic tripartate model of European races was developed by Ripley as the Teutons, Alpines, and Mediterreaneans. Madison Grant adopted this, changed "Teuton" to Nordic based on a transliteration of Deniker's la race nordique (which had no special position in Deniker's model and not much of one in Ripley's model) because he felt that many Nordics were not Teutonic, and promoted this new Nordic race to the engine of history. It is Grant's Nordic theory which became by far the best known in the United States during this time period and is primarily what most literature means when they refer to Nordic theory in my understanding of it. Not all Nordics were Scandinavian of course; Grant primarily divided them into Scandinavians and Teutons (and the latter into Anglo-Saxons and North Germans). Anyway, the best approach to adding new information or making changes is to cite references. My understanding of Ripley's, Deniker's, and Grant's theories comes from reading their original works, as there is not a lot of secondary literature on this topic. Matthew Press Guterl's book (cited in the article) is one of the few that discusses Nordic theory at any length. --Fastfission 15:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, I think looking over Grant's own maps (now all available at Wikipedia Commons), it is pretty clear that he thought the Nordics came out of Scandinavia primarily (see maps 2 and 3). So I don't think I'm entirely out to lunch on this. But I'm happy to be corrected if I've got something wrong. And for the record, I am not Scandinavian at all, much less a Scandinavian nationalist or anything like that, and certainly think Nordic theory is completely nonsensical. --Fastfission 21:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am glad that the temperature has cooled down a bit and I am only too happy to apologise for any offence caused, real or imaginary, though I am still a little worried that the author thinks it justified to accuse me of racism because I was a bit harsh on sloppy scholarship. My last sentence was intemperant but justified, his comment was rude and offensive, and he needs to acknowledge that. Telling me off for being too critical, yes, that he could have done and I would have accepted it with good grace, as I do here unreservedly. I am sorry to all concerned.

I regret having to add something but having just reread the comments where the author says he is surprised that I reacted so strongly, let me remind him that I mentioned that I teach at Poznan university in Poland; this fact alone should have led him to ralise how offensive an accusation of Nazism would be. It was an accusation against the university and the reputation of the university is of far greater importance to me than my own. If I had not mentioned the university then I would simply not have replied, and walked away from the discussion. My subsequent response that the author is a self opinionated whatever, was solely in response to his accusation of racism; therefore his use of it as retroactive justification for his racist remark just shows how far he has to go in learning a little wisdom. If he had not accused me of racism then I would not have said what I said, and in fact no such accusation was even remotely in my mind at the time of my original post. All I was worried about was sloppy scholarship by overzealous amateurs. Again, let me repeat, I am sorry for all the fuss, in a short time I may contribute further to this debate to share what I have read in the research I have done, but for now I just want to suggest that those who post on this site avoid racist slurs for fun. Thay are not fun, they are deeply offensive, so offensive in fact that people must not be surprised at even the harshest response.

Your sentence clearly implied that you believed that a real master race existed ("As civilization spread from Mesopotamia it moved north, not south, so the origins of the master race existed in [mainland?] Europe before it existed in Scandinavia!"). I'm not suggesting that you do believe that, just pointing out that's not an unreasonable concusion from what was written. And I don't think Poles are any more automatically excepted from nationalistic tendencies than Scandanavians or any other peoples. Nationalist bigots exist everywhere. I'm afraid you still haven't very clearly indicated what this "sloppy scholarship" is, or what these other encyclopedias say that contradict what is written here. Can you refer to specific points or passages? Again, remember that this is not about what actually happened in ancient history, but about what Nordicists claimed. If you look at the Mediterranean race article you will see there that it discusses what their opponents claimed, and on the talk page you will see me being accused of being an ultra politically-correct leftist. Paul B 13:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

My sentence implied nothing of the sort! The whole thought begins 'These writers believed they themselves were part of the master race...', so it is obvious that any further mention of the master race was a continuation of their thought. That is plain English, and for you to continue to repeat a cruel caricature of what I said shows that there is no point in continuing this discussion with you. Thank you for adding 'mainland' by the way. You then continue to try and justify your jibe by claiming that is was not an unreasonable conclusion, even though it was simply the twisted logic of a sad mind. This is made worse by your further implication that I am a nationalist bigot, completely missing the point of my previous mention of my nationality. My dear Paul, my dear uncomprehending Paul, I mentioned I was a Pole because Poland suffered cruelly under Nazism, millions died or were deported, and you think that any Pole could believe in the master race! Words fail me! Anyway, I have said my piece, except to add that as you have so totally misunderstood my original post then are you sure you have understood the reference books you quote from. To conclude, I would love to continue this discussion but until you apologise then I will take no further part in it; there is no point as to continue I would have to converse further with you, and that is out of the question. I will pray for you though.

[edit] Who has the right to erase opinions in the discussion

A guy here erases the opinion of others. Why does he not respond to them instead of silencing them as if he was a dictator? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.2.0.71 (talk • contribs) .

• I've left multiple messages to your talk page. Wikipedia article discussion pages are not places to post rants. They are places for discussing changes to article content. This is official policy. See Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you have ideas on changing the article, that's great. But posting a long rant about why you don't think Nordic theory is true is inappropriate here and a complete waste of time at that. This is an encyclopedia article about a theory which practically nobody believes in. You might as well post rants on our Flat earth article about how you think the earth is round (or oblate, as it may be). But then again if I gathered correctly your entire argument is simply the same thing but putting the Mediterreans as number one, which I find equally ridiculous, I must admit. --Fastfission 01:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

My friend Fastfission, it seems clear that you have no idea on the basic principles of Rhetorics. You are presenting a theory in an Encyclopedia. Everyone with an average education knows the difference between denotation and connotation. Just the fact that such a theory is portrayed is meaningful. If we add the contributions here in the article and in the talk page like the last addition, that is not erased, by the way, in spite of trying to insist on the pathetic theories that Mediterranean civilizations, like Greece, Rome or Medieval Spain were Nordic, and therefore, of course, by obvious connotation, Imperial Spain, and the fact that you continue erasing my comments against Nordicist theory, shows what you are: A pathetic Nordicist who comes here trying to present himself as a scholar who just explains theories. But of course, they are not true, but of course, you present them, and of course, you delete those that are openly against the theory. My last opinion, IN THE DISCUSSION PAGE, NOT IN THE ARTICLE, was clearly against Nordicist theories, not against the article, and you do not need to be very intelligent to conclude that it may also contain reflections that might influence the content of the article. So, stop trying to impose your criteria like a fascist. I have not deleted a single opinion up to now. Learn to behave yourself. Of course, I will continue posting my opinions, exactly like you do. This is a free place. Not a nest of Nordicists, either directly or indirectly. The very attempt of trying to present a theory that is reponsible for the biggest holocaust recorded in history and for much of the racism in the world today as a scholar's article, without margin for negative opinions on the theory, is descriptive of the people who are behind it. And by the way, I do not present the Mediterranean as the greatest race, I just point out how pathetic Nordicists insist on claiming that a lot of civilizations are Nordic when they are in fact Mediterranean, as a result of having very few arguments when they try to present the Nordic race as superior after more than 5.000 years of civilized human history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.147.26.78 (talk • contribs) .

• "This is a free place." No, it's not. It is a project to build an encyclopedia. The page linked to above is policy. Frankly I think your "negative points" are full of the same sort of flawed reasoning that makes Nordic theory so incorrect. Arguing Nordic theory is wrong because it was really the Mediterreans who were the engine of history is an equally naive view of both "race" and history. --Fastfission 19:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If you really think that the way that you present this information is not tinted with Nordicism, it is because you are certainly sick. On the other hand I am just pointing out, and will continue to point out, how sick Nordicists have made use of Mediterranean civilizations to try to promote their own pathetic theories. Theories that are not, as the article says, of the 19th and 20th century, but very much alive today, especially in internet, where these morons are trying to spread their theories, exactly what you are doing trying to convince me that you want to write an encyclopedia. If it is so, there are certainly other places where you can make your contributions, and I hope they do not have to do with race. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.147.26.78 (talk • contribs) .

• Please see our policy on civility. Continued violation of our policies in regards to soapboxing, civility, and POV will result in your IP address being blocked and your edits being reverted. Your edits to the article space about "Nazi nordicists" are unwarranted and are, in my opinion, a form of vandalism. If you would like to be a productive contributor, you are welcome to stay, but otherwise please take your time and business somewhere else. Thanks. --Fastfission 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Who do you think you are. You are a manipulator. And you and your like will be uncovered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.147.26.78 (talk • contribs) .

• OK, you're blocked for a day. Feel free to come back after that if you have something to actually contribute. --Fastfission 20:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What am I supposed to contribute if you delete it when it does not fit you? Or maybe still you consider a contribution a link to Madison Grant's "The passing of The Great Race" something worthwhile in an encyclopedia. When I said that Nordicists theory is based on manipulation and lies, you just deleted it. But of course this is not a contribution for you. Or when I also pointed out in the contribution that you deleted the fact that Nodicists and white supremacists have used as an argument for superiority civilizations that had nothing to do with the Nordic race and that in fact all of those civilizations and many more were actually Mediterranean, like the Sumerian, Babylonian, Hittite, Assyrian, Persian, Phoenician, Carthaginian, Iberian, Tartessian, Hebrew, Arab, Egyptian, Etruscan, Greek, Roman, and even Christian and Western civilizations in their foundations. But of course, you do not like these contributions. In fact you prefer the link to the pathetic Madison Grant that claims that most of those civilizations were actually somehow Nordic, therefore ignoring what is actually a conerstone in Nodicist theory to claim the superioriry of the "white-Nordic" race as the producer of most of the world's civilizations. I know that you do not agree with the ridiculous theories of Madison Grant, and that no one in a healthy state of mind can actually claim stupid things like that, but you leave those ideas floating and the links to it and delete those that confront them with a serious knowledge of history. I do not want to contribute to the article myself. English is not my native tongue. But I can contribute here, obviously if it fits you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.3.246.161 (talk • contribs) .

The irony here is that proponents of "Med theory" are hard to find. Sergi is the only example that I know of, and he's pretty measured. For the most part, Southern European writers resist claims about inate racial superiority. There's even an amusing website promoting the "Medish race" that's actually intended as a parody of the barmy Nordicist "March of the Titans" site. See History of the Medish Race. I suspect there are several reasons for this South European rejection of race-theory. It's sad to see it being proclaimed here. But I think you should accept that Nordicism is a proper subject for an article. It's about a theory that has had a huge influence on Nazism and on the immigration policies of the US and Australia. Paul B 00:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems Paul that you do not get the point. I am not claiming any racial superiority for the Mediterraneans. It is true that Mediterraneans have never claimed such a thing, probably with the exception of a few morons. Moronic attitude is to be found among people of all races. The point is that Nordicists, who form the bulk of White Supremacists, use as one of the conerstones of their philosophy the theory that White-Nordic man is responsible for most civilizations, as it is claimed as you point out in the March of the Titans, using as examples civilizations that were not Nordic. This is the most vivid example of how this theory is based on lies and manipulations. And an article that is in an encyclopedia like this should emphasize that clearly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.3.246.161 (talk • contribs) .

• So far you have not contributed encyclopedic content. I do not think you understand our project. Madison Grant was the principle proponent of Nordic theory, of course we discuss him and his book. We also discuss his connection to Nazi ideology, his genocidal leanings, and the fact that no scientist today thinks he was anything but a nut. Details "refutations" of the sort you are providing are your own unsourced and uncited interpretations of things. We have a policy against "original research". If you are so very interested in disproving an obviously bancrupt theory, the way to approach it is to discuss objections other scientists have made to the theory. Perhaps the article could use some more from Franz Boas, Julian Huxley, and Ashley Montagu, who were the chief opponents of Nordic theory and master race ideology at the time. In any event, posting long rants here, explicitly accusing others of collaborating in Nazi propaganda, is really not the way to get anything positive enacted. --Fastfission 01:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This is my last contribution here; I think that my point is clear enough: There is something called perspective. I think the perspective that is being used here to approach races is not right. But that is of course my opinion. Now I am going to say why:

1. If you look in the encyclopedia for races you find The Mediterranean Race, The Alpine Race and The Nordic Race?. No, what you find is an article on Nordicism.

2. The references to the Nordic race and the number of subjective and negative opinions on the Mediterranean race by different authors, instead of an objective presentation of the Meditarranean race, in the Mediterranean Race article.

3. Your comments: "Details of the sort you are providing are your own unsourced and uncited interpretations of things. We have a policy against original research."

a) Do you really doubt that the civilizations that I have mentioned are Mediterranean?

b) Do you really doubt that Nordicists insist on claiming that those civilizations or many of them were actually somehow Nordic?

c) Do you really doubt that those assertions are precisely one cornerstone to claim racial superioriy by Nordicists?

If that is your position you are really suspicious, because no serious member of the scientific community doubts those facts, except of course for Nordicist wannabes.

1. We have more detail than print encyclopedias, so it is subdivided up. Personally I don't see the need for the other articles but there being there is not a result of bias of any sort.

2. I'm not understanding this one. My understanding of your take on this is that you think an "objective" presentation would entitle us to start making rambling rants about how great the Mediterraneans really are, based on nothing but our own anecdotal evidence.

3. a. Yes, I doubt the entire existence of a distinct "Mediterranean" race. b. Of course I don't doubt that, the article says that. c. Well of course they were part of the original claim. In our current article those sorts of assertions are presented as being ludicrious. Our quote clearly points out that this was somewhat ridiculous:

The migration model functioned to address the uncomfortable fact that Mediterranean peoples were responsible for the most important of ancient civilizations. This was a problem for those who promoted the merits of the Nordic race. The anti-Nordicist writer Giuseppè Sergi's influential book The Mediterranean Race (1901) argued that this southern race's mixed character gave it its creative edge. The Nordicists's speculative approach to this problem was to claim that many of the achievements of Mediterranean culture were really the result of Nordic migrants who had formed the upper classes of ancient Mediterranean civilizations, and had eventually mixed with local peoples, giving the natives the brain power to build the Greek, Roman, and Egyptian civilizations.

The issue is alluded to again shortly thereafter:

Grant argued that the Nordic race had been responsible for most of humanity's great achievements, that "admixture" was "race suicide", and that unless various eugenic policies were enacted, the Nordic race would be supplanted by the "inferior" races.

Now the quotation marks should be it pretty clear that this is not taken too seriously by the encyclopedia. The fact that the article then explains how this lost scientific standing and was adopted as part of Nazi ideology would lead any reasonable reader to conclude that this theory was not correct.

You haven't suggested any real changes to the article except the addition of an originally-researched rant about Mediterraneans. Anyway I do hope this is truly your last contribution, it will be nice to be able to put this issue to rest. --Fastfission 02:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nordicist addition

We have just had a pro-Nordicist addition, which I am moving to talk. It contains what are probably some valuable material about the opinions of Stoddard and Pearson, but articulated as part of a polemical essay in favour of the wonderful freedom-loving Nordics who were notable for their anti-fascist qualities, plus a lot of irrelevant stuff about how their low birth rates somehow means that their "right to survive" is being assaulted:

Others would argue that this is a distorted view of "Nordicism." A different view was taken by Dr. Lothrop Stoddard, an American, in such books as "The Rising Tide of Color" and "Racial Realities in Europe." He describes Nordics as being natural libertarians, whose political institutions tended more towards decentralization and human rights than most other peoples. Nordic peoples include Scandinavians, who have a long history of parliamentary Althings, that go back even to prehistoric times. Iceland created in pagan times one of the longest standing republican institutions in history. In "Racial Realities in Europe," Stoddard observed that up until the 16th century, when Germany was majority Nordic, it was highly decentralized. Conversely after the Thirty Years War wiped out over half the population in the early 1600's, the population became majority Alpine, and German social and political institutions became increasingly authoritarian, centralized, and severe. According to Dr. Stoddard, Germany became a majority Alpine country with thin veneer of Nordic culture.

Interestingly, the 1957 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica observes that during the 1930's, the northern European countries were highly resistant to facism, which tended to be more of a southern European phenomenon. In his classic work, The Dispossessed Majority, Wilmot Robertson observes that beginning in the 16th century, the Protestant idea of local church government and individualized interpretation of the Bible caught on virtually everywhere in Europe with a majority Nordic population, whereas most other areas remained Catholic. In fact, when America was founded, its white population was about 77% Nordic/Anglo-Saxon, making early America a de facto Nordic ethnostate. The Puritans who settled New England and set the tone for early America, came from eastern England, an Anglo-Saxon/Nordic stronghold. Therefore, "Nordic" does not imply "Nazi" centrism and authoritarianism.

In his book "Early Civilizations of the Nordic Peoples" the American scholar Roger Pearson describes how the Ionians and Dorians, who created science and the first systematic theory of republicanism and democracy in ancient Greece in the 5th and 6th centuries BC, were a Nordic people. So were the Sabine and Oscian tribes from central Germany that created the Roman Republic. "Nordic" includes the Visigoths, who created the ruling class and democratic Cortes of medieval Spain, and the Franks who once led a decentralized France prior to its consolidation by absolutist monarchs such as Louis XIV. "Nordics" also include the Anglo-Saxon peoples who settled England in the 5th century A.D., as well as the Norwegian and Danish Vikings who created the "Danelaw" area in later centuries. "Nordics" also include the Lombards, who settled in Northern Italy and comprised the ancestors of many leaders of the Italian Rennaissance.

Many people who wish to defend Nordic peoples and their culture claim it is not an issue of "superiority" over other races, but rather the right of Nordic peoples to have the same right to survive as any other people. Today most Nordic peoples have birth rates well below zero population growth levels, and will succeed in ethnic cleansing themselves off the planet if they are not able to assert their most basic group survival rights. Furthermore, many Nordic peoples are so obsessed with defending libertarian values that they allow alien peoples to infiltrate their societies, take control of the strategic bases of their social and political order, and shame them with unnecessary guilt and insults to their self-image. Their current population decline and loss of identity everywhere is hardly the mark of a superior race.

Any thoughts? The last para in particular is just an absurd whinge. Paul B 10:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

My own suggestion is that we should break up the article into sections, and that we should have a section on pre-Ripley thought. It's difficult to know where Gobineau would fit in this, since he is a Pre-Darwinian writer, and assumes that the "white race" would have evolved from the biblical tribe of Japheth. He has a very complicated model of the relationship between various ethnicities and rise and fall of civilisations, which is difficult to map neatly onto Nordicism. But we should have something on the rise of the concept of the "blond race" as some authors call it, which is initially tied to debates about the home of the "primitive Aryans". Thomas Huxley in his essay the Aryan Question [2] argues that Scandanavia was the home of these people, following from Penka and other writers, so there is a tradition of Aryan=Nordic dating back to the 1880s, though the actual term "Nordic" is not widely used. We also need to discuss the "scientific" heyday of Nordicism, and particularly the importance of the Baur/Fischer/Lenz book Human Heredity, which is directly linked to Nazism (and which explictly adopts the "harsh climate produces tough race" argument). Rosenberg's theories should probably get a proper discussion too, and maybe we should have a section on post-war neo-Nazis like Roger Pearson who persist with Nordicism, or proponents of the concept of a Nordish race. [3] These views are still alive, but very fringe. Paul B 12:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• One approach might be to do it in terms of who influenced Grant in particular, and who came after Grant. Grant certainly read Gobineau and was influenced by it. Stoddard is post-Grant and quite different in many ways but is a certainly relevant writer (he was closely connected with Grant). I'm happy to do some of this when I have the time; Spiro's dissertation referenced in this article is good. I have a scanned version of the relevant sections on Grant's life and influences; if you are interested I could send it to you as a PDF over e-mail. Let me know. --Fastfission 19:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] inaccurate map

Woo that quite inaccurate isin't finnland supose to be the most nordic country

This comment is an example that most people who read the article, or at least many people, think that this is really an objective article of the Nordic race. I have pointed it out, but some people do not want to see it.

And who are you? And what improvements do you propose? Paul B 17:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have already pointed out that relating articles like this with articles on other races is confusing to a lot of people, especilly if we take into account the amount of effort that Nordicists put to spread their theories in internet. I have already pointed out that at least the naming of the articles and their correlations should be changed. Another option would be to introduce the articles with clear explanations of their nature, that they do not try to depict any races, but the view of races by a racist theory. For some people this may be clear, but out there there are a lot of confused folks and this is an issue of special relevance and should be treated with a lot of caution.

The map is presented as a historical document representative of the theory. Nobody is claiming it is accurate in the slightest, whatever "accuracy" would mean in this case. --Fastfission 19:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The article should be divided

I added McDougall's quote about the Nordic race and somebody introduced it with the words "the concept of a superior Nordic race was well established". I read almost the whole book and McDougall DOES say that the Nordic race is superior to the Alpine and Mediterranean races in SOME respects but INFERIOR in others - he simply says, that they have different qualities. So the introduction is misleading. And I think this is a problem with all of the article - which should be divided or at least have another title, because: The tripartite model was accepted among ethnographers - but you seem to prefer to mention those who thought the Nordic race was superior in general - like Chamberlain for instance. So in this article this fraction has a dominace which it does not deserve and which distorts the situation of those years. There are seperate articles about the Alpine and about the Mediterranean race which are properly categorized as historical race definitions - there should be an article titled "Nordic race" - and it should contain information about the fact, that a number of ethnographers had there own theory of superiority - which is described in this article. And by the way - Hitler read McDougall's book before he was imprisoned and at the latest got his ideas there. Furthermore Gordon Williamson wrote in his book "The SS: Hitler's Instrument of Terror" that Hitler didn't take Himmler's concept of creating an order of Nordic heroes seriously but let him have his way as long as the SS was completely loyal. Regards, the Hobbit

PS To provide some further information about the Nazi Aryan-theory here's a definition contained in an encyclopedia produced in the Third Reich – the “Volks-Brockhaus” from 1935: it says Aryans: … members of those races that have lived in Europe for a long time (nordisch, fälisch, dinarisch, westisch, ostisch, ostbaltisch) especially in contrast to the vorderasiatische and orientalische races. Only Aryans can hold public office and serve in the military and Arbeitsdienst. I think the race names could be translated with - Nordic, Falish, Dinaric, Mediterranean, Alpine, East Baltic – and – Semitic. --80.131.255.235 16:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical perspective

Hi, I apologize if this comment does not go here. I'm just a reader of the wikipedia wishing to contribute. My comment is that the article lacks of historical placement. The presented facts would be easier to grasp if the previous and following theories on the subject are mentioned (not widely explained, but at least mentioned). It would also help to describe the particular conditions that motivated the "popularity" of the Nordic theory during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Yes, this is the right place to comment. Could you explain what previous and following theories you are referring to? Do you mean theories concerning racial categories? Paul B 22:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Paul, sorry for my delayed response. Let me start by saying that I am not an expert on the subject, I’m just a curious reader. What I feel is missing in the article is the explanation of the causes for the predominance of the Nordic theory in the 19-20th centuries, and therefore the reasons of its decline. I rely on the expertise, of you the creators and editors of the article for the proper explanation. I would not limit the question to racial categories, but to theories that try to explain the different levels of "development" among peoples/countries. I'm not able to point out what the preceding theories were, I can only say it seems the debate in these days is centered not any more in "race" but in "culture", the western countries' culture being seen as the superior one. Thanks for considering my suggestion. Iyax 12:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Now it's my time to apologise for my delayed response. I think the problem is that WP:OR policy makes it difficult to comment on the causes for the rise of Nordic theory unless we have citations. Oddly enough, there's really very little written about it. Most of this article is based on primary sources. It's relatively easy to describe the rise of the theory, but much more difficult to say why it seemed so compelling at the time. Obviously it follows the general pattern of the rise and decline of race theory, which is important from around 1850-1950. It's very difficult to separate the scientic and socio-political reasons for both the rise and the decline. It's hard to believe that its sheer coincidence that the main proponent of the theory that Mediterraneans were the "top race" was an Italian and that most of the proponents of Nordic theory were German and English. But of course they all claimed that their arguments were purely scientific. Political events (the rise of empires), science (darwinian theory), philology (IE theory) combined to support the rise of a theory that was flattering to Northern europeans. If you look at what Benjamin Franklin has to say in his essay on human populations he obviously wants to say that Anglo-Saxons are a superior race, but he also has "enlightenment" values about rationality working to counter ethnic prejudice, so he half contradicts himself. I guess the developments of the mid-nineteenth century allowed "superior race" argument to seem coherent and well-supported, while it also drew on deep-seated prejudices about national character in England and Germany. The decline of the theory was obviously precipitated by its association with Nazism, but it was already in decline in Britain and the US. Again it's difficult to separate the science from the politics. It would be good to find a way to discuss this without violating WP:OR. Paul B 15:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Franklin's comments

Interesting comment that B. Franklin made about swarthy Swedes. AFAIK, Sweden is firmly part of Scandinavia, and home to people that the racialists would classify as "Nordic." Would a comment or clarification about how Franklin's classification of the Swedes as "swarthy" is unusual, especially in light of most Nordicist classifications, be out of line?

Yes, it's odd, isn't it? I guess he hadn't met many Swedes. The person who first added this passage sneakily left out the reference to Swedes, presumably in order to make BF seem more like a mainstream Nordicist. Paul B 15:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nordic Theory and 21st century science

I think it would be very important to create a section with some information about what modern science has to say in relation to Nordic Theory, especially taking into account that it is still an influencial theory. Here you have some links of interest:

http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

http://www.dnaheritage.com/masterclass2.asp

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361/T03

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=406108&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article1621766.ece

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1393742006

http://medish.shorturl.com/

In the meantime I will just add the external links.

Veritas et Severitas 00:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

These are mostly about the recent map of Haplogroups in the UK population, plus some general statistical information. I can't see how this supports "Nordic theory". Just scattering web-adresses onto a page is not very helpful. At most we need one link to this evidence, though its connection to Nordicism seems tenuous to me. Paul B 08:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously this does not support Nordic Theory. That is the point. It is reasonable that in the presentation of a theory that has had such a great impact in European history 21st century scientific information is provided to shed light on the flaws of the theory, not just opinions of why the theory is flawed. I think a section discussing that would me more than desirable. Veritas et Severitas 17:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've no objection tio its being added. Paul B 17:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If fact it could be a new section or just an extension of the section called "Decline of Nordicism".

It could read something like:

"A further contribution to the ever-increasing decline of Nordic Theory derives from late 20th century and early 21st century population genetics, which is in contradiction with both, the origins of many peoples that were supposed to belong to this race and the very existence of such a race in itself" and then add the links.

Since English is not my native tongue is may require some style correction. Veritas et Severitas 17:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually to anyone that knows how to read flowcharts and has a basic understanding of human heredity, the above links coincide relatively well with the concept of Nordicism and Nordic migration. Remember those examples dont reflect the amount of mixture of haplogroups in each individual, but rather the statistical average. There has never been anything completely close to a "pure race" in human history, if you use the term pure in its most literal sense. There are however distinct groups sharing hereditary similarities outwardly menifested by physical appearance and expressed through cultural and linguistic developments of those groups. There has always been cross polination and 'invasions' of different outside groups, Britain being the perfect example of a mixture of Celtic and Germanic peoples following waves of migration and 'invasion' by several German tribes and later the Normans and Vikings. The concept of Nordicism pre-dates genetic research so it developed anumber of conclusions based on the available evidence at the time. The concept that there is indeed unique characteristics and qualities among many Northern European peoples on a biological level as well as every other people on Earth is confirmed by modern science. --Nazrac 22:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how "modern science" confirms that there are some "unique characteristics and qualities among many Northern European peoples" except in the almost truist sense that here are some distinctive physical features and some commonality of ancestry. No-one has ever denied that. The question is whether the the typology (Nordic/Alpine etc) is useful and whether the claimed mental qualities of "Nordics" exist. I don't see the data supporting either of these claims. Paul B 23:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that those links prove is that the existence of such a race or of other European races is in total contradiction with genetic research, which is the only scientific methodology to trace back ancestry and lineage. 70.156.157.45 01:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

http://medish.shorturl.com/

[edit] Edits by Skapur

I have copied this debate from user:Skapur's Talk page:

Scapur, please stop editing articles on subject you evidently know nothing about, adding citation requests onto the end of citations(!) then adding wholly unreferenced and thoroughly POV assertions. It is sheer absurdity to complain about lack of citation of things that are thoroughly cited while adding wild claims about how the origin of "Aryans" has been "proved" - which it has not. Paul B 12:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Your statement above is very interesting. You are the one making wild claims and doing Original Research with your extreme pro-white and racist propoganda pieces! Please stop reverting my changes. Your claim of wide acceptance of this theory in the early 20th century cites only Northern European people. Where are cites of Southern European, Asian or African people that support this theory? As for my proof, do a simple Google search on "Origin of aryans". It is your theory that has been discredited.--- Skapur 15:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You really are very ignorant aren't you? Perhaps you didn't notice that the last person who commented on my talk page accused me of being "hating White People"! As for doing "a simple google search" on the origin of Aryans, perhaps you should do some serious research. Read Bryant's The Quest for the Origins of Vedic culture, or contribute to the debate on Out of India theory for example. The Kurgan hypothesis which is already referred to in the article is the most widely accepted model of PIE origins. There are also the Anatolian hypothesis of Renfrew and Paleolithic Continuity Theory to name two others that are covered here. That's not to mention other nationalist versions of PIE origins, such as the Greek origin theory etc etc. Paul B 16:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

So any one who disagrees with you is ignorant. Interesting bias. You have stated your opinion as the only true fact rather than discussing all the alternate theories in the article! You have presented only one version as true and not given equal time to each of the other theories and have reverted my attempts to balance that article. --- Skapur 17:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Someone who knows nothing about the subject in question is ignorant. It's very obvious that you know very little about this. You add factually inaccurate statements without references while demanding references for undisputed facts. Don't you think that's rather...hypocritical?

You ask for "cites of Southern European, Asian or African people that support this theory". It depends what aspect of the "theory" you are referring to. Renaissance idealisation of blondness as an aesthetic ideal actually begins with the Italian poet Petrarch. This has nothing to due with racism, it's purely aesthetic. When Nordic racial theory develops, it adapts these traditions, along with more long-standing ideasabout class. After all, the idea originates with the French writer Gobineau and fits with right-wing aristocratic traditions about superior ""breeding" - ideas that have cross-European appeal to aristocrats when articulated in this class-based way. In other parts of southern Europe it has a wider ethnic appeal, for example in Lombardy where it maps onto north Italian contempt for the "backward" south of the country. In Mussolini's Italy attitudes were complex. The most recent and detailed examination of this issue is Racial Theories in Fascist Italy (2002) by Aaron Gilette. As for your comments about African and Asian views, that's a rather bizarre request since Asians and Africans at this time were not usually engaged in debates with western science. There are some exceptions, for example Indian responses to Aryanism. Bal Gangadhar Tilak is one, but they often don't directly engage with the racial aspects of the theory. Japanese scholars exchange ideas on racial theory with Nazis in WW2. There are a few African-American responses, which typically draw on Sergi's theories about the Mediterranean race, but they are not very influential at the time (see for example The African Origin of the Grecian Civilisation, Journal of Negro History, 1917, pp.334-344.). Paul B 21:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Knowledge about a particular subject is not a requirement for editiing wikipedia pages. I know racicsm when I see it and that page is a very racist page. Still the only people you cite who were writing about the Nordic Theory were northern europeans and that was my edit. I do not understand your objection to my edit at all--- Skapur 17:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If you don't know anything about the subject but nevertheless see fit to add inaccurate material you must expect it to be removed. You seem to be confusing the article with opinions it records. The article does not endorse the theory, it describes its history. Obviously it was most popular in northern Europe, but we can't say that that was exclusively the case for reasons I've given. If you have references to specific critiques of the theory at the time of its prominence then they can be added. Toynbee, I seem to remember, is quite dismissive. Paul B 01:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Paul, On such a controversial subject, there is little difference between the article and the opinion it records. Without going out of the way to clearly define the scope, they become one and the same. On Wikipedia, your standing as a self proclaimed expert does not give you any special privileges. I believe my information is correct just like you believe your information is correct. The current tone of the article is that it was a universally accepted theory in the early 20th century which you can not cite definitive references too, just vague references..--- Skapur 03:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely a difference. The article is not supposed to tell people what they should think, or to diagonse the rather dubious condition of "superiority complex" or to misuse wiki-tags to demand citations for things that are cited and label a quotation from Schopenhauer as requiring a rewrite because it fails "to meet Wikipedia's quality standards and conform with our NPOV policy"! Any information about critics of the theory at the time is welcome, but not chaotic addition of whatever comes into one's head. Paul B 13:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Barlow, I agree with you. But try to refrain from remarks such as "You really are very ignorant aren't you?"...Lukas19 13:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I should have done, but when have just been accused of being a racist it is difficult not to lose one's temper. Paul B 13:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Paul, I am starting a new paragraph as the above paragraph is getting too indented. Racist is someone who believes in the theory of race, i.e. Race determines what a person is. On controversial topics, the more citations the better. You still have not come up with any citations of any non-Northern European in the early 20th century. You also claim that "many" ancient Romans held some beliefs. It may be that some Romans did, but to claim that many did is sa big stretch. You also have mis-cited Tacticus. I read the citations and the first thing I see is noble savages and not honorable warriors. I also see the reasons why the Germanic tribes were so "pure". they had no choice but to be pure and you if you read the whole text of Tacticus you will see that. Yet you reverted my changes that confirmed with the citations you gave! --- Skapur 15:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually a racialist is someone who believes that there are important and codifiable distinctions between races - usually so that one can model a hierarchy - but even then the term is questionable. It all depends on how you define race. Mere belief in the existence of "races" can't justify the use of a label like "racist". I don't have any strong opinion on the matter. I think the term is meaningful when used some ways, but misleading when used in other ways. See the Race article for a detailed discussion of whether we can usefully speak of races existing or not. I don't need to come up with citations of non-Northern Europeans, since the article makes no claims about how widely accepted these theories were amongst anthropologists in the south of Europe. However, more material on that subject would be desirable. There is nothing misleading about the phrase "honourable warriors". It's far better than "noble savage", which is a term invented by Rousseau long after Tacitus. As for having "no choice" what does that have to do with anything? The point is that he says they were unmixed, and that's a claim that is later taken up by Nordicists. I notice you don't ask for a citation for the Aristotle passage. Paul B 15:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The IP 24.186.205.63 seems to be making same reversions as Skapur. Maybe you should ask for a checkuser, Burlow...21:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)(this unsigned comment was added by Lukas19).

Lukas19, Please understand that statements like the above are signs of WP:OWN, especially the last two bullets under WP:OWN#Events:

• Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor for an extended period of time to protect a certain version, stable or not. This does not include vandalism.
• An editor appears on other editors' talk pages for the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms: it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the revert altogether. At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting but that they lack the deep understanding of the article necessary to edit it.

Both you and Paul B. have resisted any attempts by me to boldly edit this article. More seriously, both you and Paul B. also appeared on my talk page for the purpose of discouraging me from making additional contributions which I believe are seriously needed. The above checkuser request is a threat. Paul B. has patronized me by calling me ignorant on my talk page. I do not know what else to say at this point except that I am deeply disheartened by the personal attacks you two have launched against me. --- Skapur 05:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. The personal abuse was initiated by your comments about racism and propaganda. I am certainly not convinced that the anonymous editor is anyone other than you. If you wish other editors to comment you may do so through the usual channels. See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Paul B 12:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

But you started it by going to my talk page to try to dissuade me from editing in violation of WP:OWN. Are you and Lukas19 the same person? --- Skapur 02:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with ownership. Your edits were in clear violation of policy. You know perfectly well that Lucas18 is not the same person as me, as the pattern of his and my edits makes clear (along with the fact that Lucas criticised me). An anonymous editor who makes identical edits to your own is rather a different matter.[4][5] What's the chance of two separate people interested in Nordicism and in the organisation of US coast guards! Paul B 16:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your attitude about ownership as per the items I quoted. Please re-read. There is no rule that says that I can not edit anonymously. You violated the ownership policy by writing on my talk page trying to dissuade me from editing. You do not want any change that does not agree with your opinion. You must be a historian. --- Skapur 00:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been repeatedly explained to you why your edits were reverted. You made totally unsourced assertions, ones which were based on ignorance of the topic. The main problem is that you know nothing about this but persist in acting as though you do. Everyone's happy to have edits from people with useful information, but your approach is almost wholly destructive rather than constructive. Your "additions" are just creating work for me. I know perfectly well what Pitman says about the popularity of blonde Roman wigs, but since I don't have the book with me I had to rely on finding an online review. You have created a sentence that is now grammatically and semantically nonsensical ("Many Romans agreed with Tacitus' belief that fair features were beautiful and Aphrodite was depicted with blonde hair as were the hair of German slaves captured by Roman armies"). This just turns coherence into mush. Paul B 18:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

The length of the above discussion should be proof enough that a NPOV tag is desperately needed --- Skapur 02:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the tag as I think a cooling off period would help. --- Skapur 02:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)